\u201cThat\u2019s less risk for the city but more risk for the residents that live in these districts where we will encourage sex offenders to move,\u201d said council member Deborah Peoples, whose eastside district would be about 11% open for sex offenders \u2014 the fourth most open \u2014 to live in if a 1,000-foot restriction is approved.<\/p>\n
Of the 3,201 registered sex offenders who live in Fort Worth, 2,454 had victims under 17 years old. Of those, 1,577 have no residency restrictions.\u00a0<\/p>\n
When registered sex offenders are on parole or supervised release, Texas law mandates where they can live on a case-by-case basis. Once they\u2019ve cleared those temporary restrictions, no statewide law mandates where they live.<\/p>\n
Such a city ordinance could not be applied retroactively, meaning sex offenders already living close to a child safety zone could not be forced to move.<\/p>\n
How much of Fort Worth could be restricted?<\/p>\n
These maps, broken down by council district, show how much of Fort Worth\u2019s residential-zoned land would be off limits to registered sex offenders if City Council approved an ordinance.\u00a0<\/p>\n
Percentages reflect the entire district, not just residentially zoned areas. Areas highlighted would be off limits.<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Screenshot-2025-12-08-at-5.27.45-PM-1024x517.png\")
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Screenshot-2025-12-08-at-5.28.12-PM-1024x516.png\")
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/Screenshot-2025-12-08-at-5.28.51-PM-1024x528.png\")
(Courtesy renderings | City of Fort Worth)<\/p>\n
The discussion to roll out a policy comes three years after Keller created its 2,000-foot restriction. Both Fort Worth staff and council members said they wanted to prioritize a similar rule for Fort Worth to avoid attracting sex offenders to the city.<\/p>\n
Council members said they can work to restrict more areas of Fort Worth after an initial ordinance is passed.\u00a0<\/p>\n
For example, Chris Nettles, who represents a swath of southeast Fort Worth, suggested the council \u201cget creative with zoning\u201d to make more land off limits. Charles Lauersdorf, who represents a northern portion of the city, said Fort Worth could create more parks.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf there are parks or other areas where our children can safely come together and play, and that just so happens to put a restriction on somebody, they made that bed, and they can sleep in it,\u201d Lauersdorf said.<\/p>\n
The effectiveness of such restrictions is debatable, said Jerry Puckett, who with his wife founded and operates Under The SON Outreach<\/a>, a Christian nonprofit providing transitional living and rehabilitation services to men who are registered sex offenders.<\/p>\n Puckett, a registered sex offender for an <\/strong>offense committed in 1992, went through years of healing and rehab, he said. He said he\u2019s since been open about his experiences and tries to help other men on the road to recovery.<\/p>\n While Puckett would not be directly affected by the restrictions, he said such restrictions do more harm than good. Recently released registered sex offenders already have limitations on where they can live, and those whose state restrictions have expired rarely recommit offenses, he said.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen someone lives in structured housing, they have curfews, we\u2019ve got drug testing, treatment, employment, daily oversight,\u201d Puckett said. \u201cBut when you ban that housing, they don\u2019t disappear. They become homeless. Homelessness is the worst possible condition for public safety.\u201d<\/p>\n Puckett knows his opposition to the restrictions isn\u2019t popular, as it makes him appear to be soft on crime and protecting people who have caused harm in the past. He maintained that rehab programs like his have strict rules.<\/p>\n He cited data suggesting that registered sex offenders\u2019 proximity to schools isn\u2019t correlated to increased risk for children attending them. He noted an estimated 93% of juvenile victims were abused by someone they knew, not a stranger, according to a 2000 study by the U.S. Department of Justice<\/a>.<\/p>\n At a previous meeting on Oct. 14<\/a>, council members were hesitant to roll out a one-size-fits-all ordinance.\u00a0<\/p>\n Carlos Flores said in October that as a parent he wants the maximum distance possible. However, he was concerned about how such an ordinance could affect offenders\u2019 access to jobs and stretch law enforcement resources.<\/p>\n At the same meeting, city staff said any cities have exceptions to their ordinances, including for those who committed crimes as a minor and have since become good members of society.<\/p>\n At the Dec. 2 meeting, Mapes told council members that they can decide how the ordinance is written \u2014 including its exceptions and definitions.\u00a0<\/p>\n Council member Mia Hall, who was also wary of a one-size-fits-all approach, said that she was hesitant to implement an ordinance that could make her district more open to registered sex offenders. Hall\u2019s District 6 would be 10.7% open to sex offenders under the 1,000-foot restriction.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cI don\u2019t want to be punitive to any group of people, and I do believe in rehabilitation and all types of things, but I feel like this does marginalize some of our communities, or impacts them, much more inequitably than it does others,\u201d Hall said.\u00a0<\/p>\n Council members requested that city staff research the legality of a 1,500- or 2,000-foot restriction \u2014 and how they\u2019ve fared in court in other Texas cities \u2014 before bringing it to a vote.<\/p>\n What ordinances do other cities enforce?<\/p>\n Dallas:<\/strong> Does not allow offenders whose victims were under 17 to \u201cremain at or near\u201d child safety zones.<\/p>\n San Antonio:<\/strong> Does not allow any offender to live within 1,000 feet of a park, or loiter within 300 feet of a park.<\/p>\n Arlington:<\/strong> Does not allow \u201chabitual offenders\u201d to live within 1,000 feet of specified zones.<\/p>\n Everman:<\/strong> Does not allow offenders whose victims were under 17 to live or rent within 1,000 feet of specified zones.<\/p>\n Keller:<\/strong> Does not allow offenders whose victim was under 17 to live or rent within 2,000 feet of specified zones.<\/p>\n Mansfield:<\/strong> Does not allow any offender to live or rent within 1,000 feet of specified zones, and this year added restrictions to multiple offenders living at the same dwelling.\u00a0<\/p>\n Drew Shaw is a government accountability reporter for the Fort Worth Report. Contact him at drew.shaw@fortworthreport.org<\/a> or @shawlings601<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n