The problem with the recent board action welcoming parolees into Clayton is not that they took action because they felt they must. No, the problem is that the action taken by the board was not responsive to the interests of the residents of Clayton and did not go far enough. There were other options presented, and probably still even more options not presented. The problem is that the council was unwilling to stand up for the residents of our city.
We should at a minimum be no more permissive than any other city in the state. We should seek to restrict parolees in our city to the greatest extent possible. We should have crafted policy that would serve as a stronger deterrent to housing parolees in our city, rather than providing instructions on how to come into our city.
Fear of litigation should not compel us to harm our city now to avoid a low potential risk in the future. If there is a future legal threat, the council could at that time assess the risk/reward of adopting a new ordinance, and therefore moot potential litigation.