The UW Police Department has a map of the U-District with multi-color pins pushed into places of recent crimes. On the map's north border, a cluster of pins also marks the residences of sex offenders.

With the UWPD acting as campus security, seeing this map made me wonder why only now UW officials "realized" the concentration of offenders north of Northeast 45th Street.

Perhaps their presence isn't as big of a deal as officials are making it to be.

Upon request of UW President Mark Emmert, this week the Washington State's Department of Corrections is forcing 13 level 2 and 3 sex offenders to move out of the area.

About 25 offenders live in five houses owned by Carol Clarke, who has an excellent reputation for helping these felons re-enter society and keep clean. The offenders haven't caused any problems.

According to The Seattle Times, she lays down the rules thick: No drugs, drunkenness or loud parties, and the tenants have to have a job.

"The work the Clarkes are doing is to be commended," said Norm Arkans, UW executive director of media relations and communications. "We just don't believe that that particular neighborhood is the place to have this concentration of registered sex offenders."

So Emmert asked Governor Christine Gregoire to move them all, and she hopped on board. She's not just having 13 relocated, but she's pushing the DOC to eventually move all 25.

Commenting on the topic, public information officer Ray Wittmier said, "There are no guarantees."

That's the underlining problem with the whole situation. No one knows if it will actually do anything.

Sex offenders are still able to commute anywhere in the city and re-offend. What's to stop those in Capitol Hill to drive to Greek Row? Restricting where people live doesn't restrict where they offend.

If anything, removing the offenders creates a false sense of security.

The concentration of sex offenders first came to the attention of the community, when two years ago, the North of 45th Street Committee started examining ways to improve the quality of life of residents in the area.

Through the committee, people began to realize how many registered offenders there were in the area. Although the offenders hadn't caused any problems, people began complaining.

"We don't want to wait around for the first incident to happen," Arkans said.

Although it's a valid concern, turning the lives of 25 people, who have served their time and are in a difficult transition period, seems far from fair.

It's one thing to tell the DOC to stop sending them to the area, or even to request a few to voluntarily move. However, it's entirely different to evict them from their residence, because some angry parents found out (for some, seven years after the fact) that the offenders are living in the area.

If the goal of probation is to help the offenders re-enter society and avoid re-offense, breaking the stability they had in such a good environment seems counter-productive for society.

A huge part of living on your own for the first time is encountering this idea that leaving home creates both freedom in and vulnerability to the world.

Community living is good for this, because older students in the community can teach the younger ones how to avoid problems (and maybe a bit about good sound freedom).

Clarke told the Times that her tenants are the ones being constantly bothered by students. She said they've called police to break up loud parties and even reported youths standing outside naked.

According to The Times, most of the offenders are pedophiles. So it's likely they're not even interested in the students living in the area.

Although no one thinks concentrating sex offenders in one area is a good idea, forcing them out of their residents is both ridiculous and cruel.

Let the remaining sex offenders stay, and if it's a serious concern, keep more from moving into the area. They've been here for several years and haven't caused any problems; why not let them phase out at their own pace?

[Reach columnist Celeste Flint at opinion@thedaily.washington.edu.]