Apparently, the California Sex Offenders Management Board has seriously critiqued the existing restrictions, pointing out several flaws in them, the most obvious one being the fact that San Francisco's abundance of state and parks excludes sex offenders, basically, from the entire city save for Lake Merced and Hunters Point. As a result, many sex offenders live in the street, a situation that, according to Jill Levenson, leads to instability and thus might actually increase recidivism.
The article also mentions the fact that the residency requirements are not retroactively enforceable, and therefore do not apply to people placed on parole or probation before the law took effect in 2007. It does, however, apply to people imprisoned before its enactment, per the recent CA Supreme Court decision on the matter.
The challenge? Changing policies to make them more effective might be perceived as being soft on sex offenders, a position politicians can hardly afford to take regardless of their party affiliation (and therefore propose laws such as this one or this one.)
Oh, and as a special bonus: We have not discussed the San Francisco Crime Lab scandal, which does not have a direct relationship to our coverage. But as it turns out, beyond lax supervision and cocaine theft from the drug lab, evidence is also in danger from an army of feral cats. I know this is a serious matter, which raises heavy concerns about due process and about the prosecutorial enterprise in general, but I could not resist: The picture below from the Sunday Chronicle is begging for a caption.