I find it difficult to believe, but several people have commented on local media that the state is paying a realtor $7500.00/month for a 3 bedroom home to house this guy. Zillow estimates monthly rent at the address - 853 Hillcrest Dr, Redwood City CA - at $4200.00 per month. I haven't been able to verify the $7500.00/month claim but since it makes absolutely no sense and this is California, it might be true...
Convicted sex offender to be released into quiet Redwood City neighborhood
REDWOOD CITY, Calif. - A Redwood City community is mobilizing against the arrival of a new neighbor, a convicted sex predator.
And they have the local sheriff and police chief on their side.
"I have daughters, I have granddaughters, and this is not right," said Stephanie Slade, who lives on Crestview Drive, in the unincorporated Emerald Hills area.
"A sex offender, especially a violent sex offender, doesn't belong in this quiet neighborhood."
The offender is identified as ., a twice convicted rapist.
Cheek has been locked up for 40 years, almost half of it in a state hospital, classified a "sexually violent predator".
But he was recently deemed a candidate for supervised release.
A judge has tentatively approved Cheek's placement in Redwood City.
"The house that they're proposing is sandwiched between neighbors who both have young girls, so that's probably the worst situation to be in," said neighbor Dung Thai.
"There must be a safer way of re-introducing him that's not in the middle of a neighborhood full of children."
On Thursday, law enforcement fanned out, alerting the neighborhood and encouraging residents to make their views known to the court.
Deputies and police officers knocked on doors and distributed flyers to about 500 homes within a 2,000 foot radius of the proposed rental home.
"His crimes are heinous, absolutely heinous, why would someone like that get to leave prison," posed neighbor Kate Comfort.
Cheek was convicted in 1980 for the kidnapping and rape of a 21-year-old woman in Santa Cruz County.
In 1981, he was convicted of the rape of a 15 year girl at gunpoint in Lake County.
"It's terrifying, I'm a single woman, with a 24 year old daughter, and now we're concerned about even walking in the neighborhood," said Comfort.
Sexually Violent Predators are a specific category of sex offender, held beyond their prison terms until they are found to be rehabilitated and no longer a threat.
California currently has about 15 SVP's on conditional release.
The state pays for monitoring- often involving visits, ankle bracelets, drug tests, polygraphs, and restricted freedom.
"It does make me very nervous and scared," said a young woman named Jessica, too uneasy to give her last name.
"And people won't spend as much time outside, they will just be very cautious."
Residents are encouraged to submit comments prior to a March 1 court hearing on Cheek's fate.
"Why take a chance and put us at risk and create all this nervousness?" said Frank Fraone, who has two adult daughters who visit often.
Fraone made copies of the law enforcement leaflet to hand out himself.
He is concerned that people who walk through the woodsy neighborhood will not be informed.
And Fraone worries that Cheek might become a target.
"If someone sees this person come on their property or approach their daughters, glaring or staring at them, they may take matters into their own hands and he is going to be at risk as well."
Residents of Emerald Hills say their community is becoming even more close-knit over their shared opposition.
With families, schools, and parks nearby, they will try to persuade the court that Michael Cheek threatens their safety and peace of mind.
"Why can't he live in a desert, why can't he live where there's very few people around?" shrugged Slade.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
I find the $7500 a month paid by the state to be difficult to believe. So far as I know, the state has no obligation to pay for the housing of anyone in an expensive neighborhood, including sex offenders, and I would like to see more on this. But a lot of what I see here is NIMBY; sure, no one wants a se offender in the neighborhood (I know I don't, but I have 3 within a few blocks if the notification (which is not very detailed except for stating the level) I have gotten is true), but what do we do? Keep them incarcerated? Create sex offender concentration camps after they are released from prison? Pu the ones who target juveniles in senior communities? There's no good answer, so people just say make him someone else's problem. Not much of an answer.
Two different issues here. He committed those crimes when he was late 20s and he is now 69; so it's possible that the judgment - that he is no longer a danger to others - is reasonable. I never raped anyone but I'd hate to be judged by the standards of how I behaved 40 years ago. It's even possible (and note the word possible) that he is safer than some random guy off the street who moves in next door. I happen to have known, 15 or 20 years ago now, a well liked Catholic priest who could not be trusted around teenage girls when he'd had a bevvy or two. I don't have to live next door to the guy and maybe I'd feel different if I were in RWC with a daughter; but at some point you have to hope that the 'he's done his time' stuff works.
Why - or if - CA is paying $7500/month to house him is beyond me. That's $90,000 a year in rent which I assume would be beyond anyone not on $400 grand or so.
Re the first point, from what I have read about sex offenders, particularly violent ones, I'm very skeptical as to whether he would not continue to pose a threat is uncertain at best; most authorities believe that sort of behavior cannot be charged (or is changed very rarely). Having two young girls I was not very comfortable with the three offenders in my neighborhood, but I did not know much about what they have done (that is not reported and not a lot is available online), and I did rationalize "better the devil you know..." as I am sure there are at least several more I don't know about. But the real problem is, if that is true, what should; we do with those who served their time and are released(FWIW, I have not heard of any incidents with any of the offenders in mu neighborhood, but then sex offenses are often hushed up.
Indeed, before the registry and reporting requirements, when I was a kid there was a 30+ year old guy in our neighborhood who we (at least the kids) knew was "strange", we called him Chester the Molester (his name wasn't Chester) and just kept clear of him--the family eventually moved (sadly to friendlier hunting grounds I'd bet). These people are always among us.
As for the $7500 a month, I would like to know who is paying that (and if it is the state, why?). It makes little sense.
As for the $7500 a month, I would like to know who is paying that (and if it is the state, why?). It makes little sense.
As Joe noted, this was some comment on the news station site. I looked at a half dozen new stories and there was no mention of this in actual reporting. Being a click worthy statistic, if true, leads to the most likely conclusion that it is made up. Likely, $7,500 per month is the average cost of the state housing such prisoners.
Part of the outrage here is that a judge in Santa Cruz County placed the guy here in San Mateo County. The $7500.00/month may or may not be true but even if it isn't, why is he placed in an area where the rent is so high? Where's the money coming from?
I'm sure I'll be hearing a lot more about this in the days to come.
Of course everyone is armed and right now they're fighting over who gets to shoot him. But by the time they set up committees and meeting dates to determine who gets to do it, the guy might rape somebody.
That seems pretty high as well; he could likely get social security, maybe SSI, but I doubt they would pay that much to house any released prisoner (indeed, as I understand it, his parole is contingent on his being able to support himself). More likely it is an estimate of the cost to monitor him and assure his listing on the registry
I find it difficult to believe, but several people have commented on local media that the state is paying a realtor $7500.00/month for a 3 bedroom home to house this guy. Zillow estimates monthly rent at the address - 853 Hillcrest Dr, Redwood City CA - at $4200.00 per month. I haven't been able to verify the $7500.00/month claim but since it makes absolutely no sense and this is California, it might be true...
Are you talking about posted comments on local media coverage online? Like social media?
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
.... More likely it is an estimate of the cost to monitor him and assure his listing on the registry
I suspect that you're correct. I think it's one of those things that someone made up (or misinterpreted) and others are repeating without questioning it. The placement address is real though and it's not in a neighborhood where many single people could afford to rent a 3 bedroom house.
Perhaps he has some resources on his own like a benefactor or inherited money? If the state were paying the full bill my guess is that they woudl put him in a so-called welfare motel or maybe even in a nursing home or a low rent assisted living residence for seniors--most states have a number of them.
Are you talking about posted comments on local media coverage online? Like social media?
It was mentioned a few times by members of a Redwood City Facebook group. I'm not a member. When I read the news, I looked on Facebook for a reaction from the community.
And just now, when I went to find a link to the Facebook group to post a link here, I found another Redwood City Facebook group where someone posted that now he's not going to be placed here in RWC. You can read it here. It's a post from "Diane Heditsian".
That link might not take you directly to the post I referenced, so here is the text of it....
GREAT NEWS! I just spoke with the DA in Santa Cruz County who is in charge of this case. He said that the woman who rented the Emerald Hills house to Liberty has rescinded her offer and therefore there will be NO HEARING on March 1 because there is no place for him to live.
Additional info: He, the DA, was totally against putting the perp in this location. The perp was released a year and a half ago and there was one previous location where he was going to be placed but that one didn't work out either. Santa Clara County, San Mateo County and 3 other counties, (he couldn't remember them at the moment) were among the counties considered after no suitable place had been found in Santa Cruz County in the first year and a half after his release hearing.
He told me that it takes a lot to get release for these types of perps and that it was a good number of medical experts in this field who made the determination after the perp went through all his medical treatments and rehabilitation programs.
DA said that he did not believe that there was going to be 24/7 eyes on him (as I had read in a posting here this morning), rather it was GPS, unannounced check-ins, etc.
The March 1 hearing has not yet been actually vacated from the court calendar because he said that this is all happening in real time. Unfortunately for these types of cases the court calendar is not visible to us in the public. I am going to call the administrator who answered my phone call and transferred me to the DA, next week to make sure that has been vacated by then.
When I asked DA whether there was any guarantee that he would not end up back in San Mateo County, he said that Liberty will now start from scratch looking for a place for the perp, whether here or in one of the other 4 counties. He did not know how those 5 counties were chosen.
He did not know about the level of uproar about this in Emerald Hills nor about the TV News Coverage. I told him that I would send him links to what was being said on this Facebook Group and on Next Door so as someone very involved in the process he had the full story.
I don't know all the counties, but I think Alpine is pretty close to the Tahoe ski areas where one may come into contact with a lot of minors. I was thinking around Eureka, which is pretty sparsely populated (at least it was years ago when I drove through it). Perhaps in the central valley, around Visalia, as well.
I don't know all the counties, but I think Alpine is pretty close to the Tahoe ski areas where one may come into contact with a lot of minors. I was thinking around Eureka, which is pretty sparsely populated (at least it was years ago when I drove through it). Perhaps in the central valley, around Visalia, as well.
Alpine County is the least populated county in the state. Every place is going to have its problems, but Eureka/Arcata is home to two colleges. Now, if you put him just south of there along the "Lost Coast", there might not be any opposition.
Well LR, I stand corrected then; I only knew the name of that county from my trips to Tahoe to ski, so I thought it was pretty local to the areas, but it looks a lot bigger than that.
As for Eureka--I don't know the colleges, but I was probably thinking about the "Lost Coast" you refer to. I recall a coworker had a small vacation home in that area, and he told me that one day he was forced to stay inside for a few hours to avoid snakes (rattlesnakes as I return). That's kind of what I recall that area being, a fairly desolate, sparsely populated area; but it was close enough to the city (Eureka) to provide parole monitoring services.
