City Councilman Shawn Harrison and County Commissioner Ken Hagan are championing ordinances more restrictive than state law, which prevents sex offenders from living within 1,000 feet of schools, day-care centers and parks. Harrison has promoted a 2,500-foot buffer zone adopted by cities such as Gainesville, but neither he nor Hagan is wedded to a specific number.

At first blush the idea seems perfectly reasonable. Nobody wants a sex offender or sexual predator living in the neighborhood or going anywhere near children. Plus it's politically popular, which explains why communities across the nation are passing more restrictive laws. Just last month Californians passed a referendum preventing sexual offenders from living within 2,000 feet of places where children congregate.

But the issue is more complicated than simply protecting children, so the council and commission should carefully consider whether a more restrictive rule is necessary here.

Even sexual offenders need a place to live after they've served their time, and tighter restrictions that push them into new neighborhoods or rural areas could make it more difficult for police to keep track of them. If public safety is paramount, our elected officials shouldn't approve anything that would make law enforcement's job more difficult.

They should also remember that sex offenders don't stay home. They're mobile. They drive cars and ride bikes. They walk. Any restriction on where they can live is no guarantee that they won't come into contact with kids. Also worth remembering is the fact that most sex offenders prey on the children of family members or friends.

Before acting, elected leaders should study what happened in Iowa, where prosecuting attorneys lobbied - and failed - to eliminate the 2,000-foot residency restriction. The Iowa prosecutors believe the restriction has caused offenders to become homeless or change addresses without notifying authorities.

There's a danger that could happen here too. The Tribune analyzed the 2,500-foot rule's potential impact in Tampa and discovered that registered sex offenders would be banished to the most affluent neighborhoods - areas where they would not be welcome and few could afford to live. Similarly, sex offenders in the county would be forced to the south and east into what's left of Hillsborough's rural communities.

For these and other reasons, Zephyrhills spiked the idea of a more restrictive ordinance earlier this year.

City council will examine the first draft of a city ordinance Thursday, and the county plans to consider its version next month. Protecting children is a laudable goal, but council and commission members must consider whether a more restrictive residency law will truly keep offenders from preying on children or whether it would make it more difficult for police to do their jobs.