Residents urge McKinney to extend sex-offender residency rules to private HOAs

Several residents told the McKinney City Council on Aug. 19 they want the city to expand a residency restriction ordinance for registered sex offenders so it covers privately run homeowners associations.

At a public-comment period before the council’s regular agenda, Haley Wilcox, who lives at 1304 Timberline, said a convicted child pornography offender recently moved into her neighborhood even though it contains a playground and pool. Wilcox said she learned from McKinney police detectives that the city’s current ordinance does not apply to private HOAs. “A vile man who has perpetuated the [sexual] abuse of children now lives 11 doors down from where my daughters lay their heads at night,” Wilcox said.

Paul Ballesteros, founder of local nonprofit Emmanuel Labor, spoke separately about homelessness and outreach but urged the council to proceed carefully when authorizing enforcement actions that affect vulnerable people. Michael Half, a public commentator who cited academic studies on offender recidivism, urged restrictions on where convicted offenders can live near children and asked the council to consider private HOA amenities “out of bounds.”

Why this matters: Wilcox and other speakers said the existing rule gives residents a false sense of security when a neighborhood’s recreational amenities are privately maintained. They urged the council to change the ordinance so private amenity areas are treated the same as public parks and pools for residency limits.

What speakers said and asked: Wilcox said she has two daughters, ages 8 and 10, and described discussing the offender’s background with them “to the extent that’s appropriate.” She asked council members to “vote to amend this ordinance to make more safe places for our children and to allow neighborhoods like mine with private HOAs to live without the possibility of any other disgusting offenders moving in next door.”

Council response and next steps: No council vote or staff report on a specific ordinance was recorded during the meeting. A council member did not offer a motion related to this issue during the Aug. 19 session; the remarks were recorded during the public-comment portion of the agenda. The transcript identifies the relevant agenda number mentioned by Wilcox as “item 25-3062.” The council did not take formal action on that item at the Aug. 19 meeting.

Context and limits: Commenters cited law enforcement conversations and academic studies; the council did not propose specific language during the meeting, and no staff ordinance or statutory citation was presented. The council did not state whether a formal ordinance amendment, staff report, or public hearing on this topic is scheduled.