Cincinnati has now joined the growing list of cities that limit where convicted sex offenders should be able to live.
A proposed law is being considered that would ban offenders from living within one-thousand feet of additional locations like a public pool and community recreation centers.
The proposed law would leave offenders very few places that offenders could live in the city of Cincinnati.
Now the city is joining in another debate, how will the law actually protect children?
Cincinnati city councilman Chris Monzel is in favor of the new restrictions and many believe it is hard to argue with his wish.
"(The proposal) would be a great Christmas present to the children of our city," said Monzel on Tuesday night. "To say to them, that we want to protect you no matter what, and we will go to that length to make sure that we fight for the survival of our future citizens."
Monzel's proposal would continue to keep sex offenders from living within one-thousand feet of schools. But it would also add public pools, public recreational centers, public parks, daycare facilities, boys and girls clubs and all YMCA's.
The law, like the one that Monzel is proposing, is based on the theory that a convicted offender will re-offend.
However, opponents of the new stricter proposal calls that a myth.
In a study conducted by the Department of Justice, only five percent of offenders are arrested again for a sex crime.
Supports of the ban take that relatively low number and say that a sex offender is four times more likely than anyone else to be arrested for a sex crime.
Formerly convicted of a sex crime, Derek Logue says that he's turned his life around.
He went to city council on Tuesday night to put a face on those numbers.
"You won't let me sleep within a thousand feet of a school," said Logue during the city council meeting. "But if I wanted to, which I don't, but if I wanted to, I could stand across the street from it all day long."
Logue's point is being made in both Colorado and Minnesota state studies that said the addresses of offenders made no difference in relation to recidivism.
But supporters say that if there's even a small chance that it might do some good, we should take it.
Most of the people who spoke at the council meeting agree with that notion. Insiders say that the proposal, which will be voted on by the law and safety committee, is expected to pass.
Report: Chris Shaw