Fresno Council votes to study sex offender housing rules — despite warning of lawsuits
Fresno City Council voted 6-0 Thursday to study a new licensing program for landlords who run group homes housing sex offenders. Councilman Tyler Maxwell was absent.
The vote didn’t approve the policy itself — it directed the City Attorney’s Office to study the proposed Sex Offender Housing Inspection, Enforcement, Licensing and Disclosure (SHIELD) Act and return with findings within 60 days.
Councilman Mike Karbassi proposed the SHIELD Act after the attempted release of convicted child kidnapper and serial molester David Allen Funston. Karbassi said companies are buying homes in Fresno and turning them into transitional housing for paroled sex offenders — what he called a “cottage industry.”
But the proposal faces immediate legal skepticism from within the council itself. A councilmember warned the ordinance likely won’t survive legal scrutiny and predicted the city will end up in closed-session settlement talks “using taxpayer money.”
Karbassi shot back that the risk is worth it. “I think getting sued when it comes to a violent sexual predator is worth the risk,” he said. “A grandma not so much. So it is not quite apples to apples.”
The Breakdown
- The SHIELD Act would create a licensing program for landlords operating transitional homes that house sex offenders.
- The City Attorney’s Office will study the proposal and report back to the council within 60 days.
- The vote was 6-0, with Councilman Tyler Maxwell absent.
- Karbassi proposed the measure after the attempted release of David Allen Funston, a convicted child kidnapper and serial molester.
What This Means for You
This vote determines whether Fresno will attempt to regulate where and how paroled sex offenders live in the city. If the City Attorney returns with a workable ordinance and the council passes it, landlords running these transitional homes would need city licenses and inspections. If legal challenges arise and the city faces a lawsuit, taxpayers could pay for a settlement or judgment — a cost Karbassi argues is worth the risk for this issue. Either way, the council you elect decides both the policy and whether to take on that legal exposure.
What to Watch
Who profits from the “cottage industry” Karbassi described — the companies buying homes and converting them to transitional housing? The material doesn’t name them, doesn’t state how many homes they operate, and doesn’t say what they charge or how they’re paid. Contract records, business licenses, or parole-agency placements would show who’s running these facilities and what public money, if any, funds them.
If the City Attorney returns in 60 days saying the ordinance can’t survive a lawsuit, does the council pass it anyway, and if so, what does that cost?
Karbassi said regulating housing for “violent sexual predators” is worth the lawsuit risk, unlike regulating senior housing. Is that legal distinction real, or rhetoric? Fair Housing Act precedent and case law on residency restrictions for parolees would answer it — the City Attorney’s study should show whether the distinction Karbassi named actually exists in the law, or whether the council is voting to spend taxpayer money defending a policy it already knows won’t hold.
