I have no idea what the intended goals of residency restrictions are. If they are the same as the stated goals, which is to protect the children, then the intended goals are failing abysmally. New offenses against children are not being prevented by residency restrictions. In fact, the problem may be getting worse. When you make commission of a crime more attractive than not committing it, you are making a bad mistake. What is the result of residency restrictions? Registrants can't stay in the same place long, because the landlord gets complaints and kicks them out, not because they've done anything but because the others in the area are incensed that a person that may have had a Romeo/Juliet relationship years ago lives close to their child. So they move a lot. And they may become homeless and without a homeless shelter that will accept them. This makes return to prison more attractive. At least there is a roof over their heads and food to eat. Without a job (because who wants their business listed on the sex offender registry) they may not even be able to afford either. Would you avoid a criminal act if it was the only way you could see to keep warm and fed?