EDITORIAL: The latest round in Suffolk's homeless sex offender saga

The next round in a tragicomic shadowboxing match, the Suffolk County Legislature v. homeless sex offenders, will be County Executive Steve Levy's veto. Legislators should take the veto for what it is, a reasoned rejection of a bad bill, and replace that idea with a less dangerous one.

Even the U.S. Supreme Court has grappled with this almost impossible issue. It ruled last week that Congress can authorize civil confinement of sex offenders after they've served their criminal terms. That is, at best, a worrisome remedy.

Here, the problem is that the county is required by law to house the homeless, even sex offenders, but no solution seems acceptable to the legislators. They loathe the trailers in Riverhead and Westhampton, and they despise the vouchers that help offenders choose their own housing.

The soon-to-be-vetoed bill, sponsored by Presiding Officer William Lindsay (D-Holbrook), directs the Department of Social Services to end the vouchers and come up with a new plan: no more than one shelter in any one town or - here's the key - legislative district, and no more than six offenders in any shelter. Even if they override the coming veto, finding sites could take months, and legislators could balk then, too.

The bill wouldn't close the trailers, but lawsuits and other issues soon could. So, if legislators override Levy and end vouchers too, these offenders would be on the streets, 24/7, unsupervised, during the site search. How does that make anyone safer?

Why not give the department a year to site shelters, then terminate vouchers only after legislative acceptance of the sites? That's a way for lawmakers to stop throwing phantom punches and address this intractable problem rationally. hN