A U.S. District Court judge has ruled in favor of the City of Burien, dismissing all claims in a lawsuit that challenged the city’s temporary use permit requirement on religious grounds, the city announced this week.
That lawsuit was filed on Aug. 20, 2024, in connection with the Sunnydale Village encampment run by a non-profit group led by Burien City Councilmember Cydney Moore and ousted Planning Commission Chair Charles Schaefer at Oasis Home Church from November, 2023 to February, 2024.
The case, Pastor Mark Miller et al. v. City of Burien et al., argued that the city’s permit requirement violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and the First Amendment’s Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses.
In its ruling, the court found that the regulation was a neutral, generally applicable land-use policy designed to protect public health and safety, rather than an unconstitutional restriction on religious expression.
“The Court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the regulation constituted a prior restraint on speech, emphasizing that the law applied equally to all landowners and was not targeted at religious institutions or expressive conduct,” the city’s legal team said.
The ruling also rejected claims that the permit requirement constituted a prior restraint on speech, affirming that it was a fair and consistent land-use regulation rather than an infringement on constitutional rights.
City officials noted that further legal proceedings, including a possible appeal by the plaintiffs, could still occur. However, they emphasized that the ruling reinforces Burien’s commitment to equitable land-use policies while upholding constitutional protections.
Another win for common sense and the community of Burien as these activists try to justify misguided and fraudulent ideals on the premise of compassion. Enabling serves no one and the Homeless Industrial Complex is rightfully being called out for it’s attempts at skirting rules as if they don’t apply to them.
If the ruling is correct and there is no difference between this “religious clause” and everyone else, then why create the “religious clause” anyway? The city could just have referred to the BMC 19.75.
Again money being spent on these useless lawsuits from these disgruntled ousted city employees/activists and it’s exactly what they want, the City and taxpayers to spend money, money that could had been spent so much better.
…”generally applicable land-use policy designed to protect public health and safety…”
Although I don’t see a strong issue for religious expression for this either, neither do I see this was an actual public safety or health issue in that instance. They had a very closely supervised enclave there, and I made several visits at different times of the day/night immediately outside that area or in close proximity to the neighboorhood to observe and validate what some were complaining about. I saw no one milling around outside of it, and no one even driving up to it that were not dropping off supplies there. The fears were baseless in my view. Lots of people claiming discarded needles and condoms, but little to no actual valid evidence was presented, just assertions.
The direct result of their temporary permit not being renewed was a visible and undeniable increase in the number of homeless downtown. This then worsened and continued until recently too. Now, the city claims they are willing to support chruch ground encampments? Believe it when I see it.
You obviously didn’t talk to the local neighbors or listen to testimony at Council meetings about the camp residents prowling nearby property, nor did you ever see the photographs circulated online of open drug use in the area. I suppose you could also reach out to those neighbors who helped clean up afterwards of all the needles strewn about church property and other interesting finds. That camp was a documented hot mess but it often takes not just open eyes to see the bigger picture you missed.