Story by Jack Mayne Photos by Scott Schaefer After four hours of haggling over the wording, the Burien City Council on Monday night (Jan. 5) approved updating a city ordinance that permits police to ban persons for short periods from a city facility for behavior that interferes with others using the public space. The law â€“ first called Ordinance 606 â€“ has been under fire since its August passage, even drawing multiple objections from the state American Civil Liberties Union and charges that it was aimed at homeless people and those in poverty. So far the Burien Police have issued trespasses to 19 people, but these are not charges of a crime, merely that they cannot use that public space for a period of several days. If the person returns before expiration of the â€œtrespassâ€ they can be charged with a violation of city ordinance and taken to city court. Why the ordinance? Interim City Attorney Chris Bacha said Ordinance 606, the so-called â€œtrespass ordinance,â€ was approved last Aug. 18 because some people were engaging in â€œbehavior that interfered with the use of public property by other persons. In many instances, these individuals were repeatedly returning to the same location and engaging in the same or similar behavior.â€ Bacha said police â€œlacked authority to order these individuals to leave the property and not return, even if an arrest was madeâ€ so they wanted a way besides arresting them to â€œremove persons engaged in disruptive behavior.â€ In a Power Point presentation, Bacha said â€œthe (already passed 606) ordinance defines the behavior that may lead to issuance of a trespass warning,â€ and â€œempowers law enforcement officers to issue a trespass warning when there is probable cause to believe such behavior has occurred â€¦ Due process protections are included such as the trespass warning notice itself and provisions for an administrative appeal to a hearing examiner.â€ There is no criminal case at this point and would not be unless a charge was made that alleged the person violated municipal ordinances or state laws. But some changes to the ordinance were made in a proposed additional ordinance, Ordinance 621, Bacha said. â€œConcerns have been raisedâ€ that the term â€œunreasonably disruptiveâ€ will not understand what behavior could subject them to being banned and â€œvague and over broadâ€ because it could be â€œapplied in a way that infringes on expressive activity.â€ Some things, such as smelling bad or having unapproved food items, were eliminated. No unlimited discretion Bacha said police would not have â€œunlimited discretion to issue a trespass notice just because they donâ€™t like what a person is doing or because they are homeless or because they are sleeping in a doorway.â€ There must be a statute or ordinance in place that restricts the behavior, he said. A change in the original ordinance was proposed so that unreasonable activity must be put into context, he said. For example, playing loud music in a public park is â€œvery differentâ€ from playing loud music in a library. â€˜Massive liabilityâ€™ Councilmember Lauren Berkowitz reminded the Council and city staff that the city had received three letters of criticism of the ordinance from the Washington chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. â€œWe donâ€™t really want to be opening the city to massive liability issues,â€ she said. The proposed changes to the ordinance â€œmake it look a little better â€¦ but it does not actually change the content of the ordinance,â€ Berkowitz said, nothing that some of the problems are still contained in the King County Library system rules. The Library and the city jointly operate portions of the City Hall building and it enforces its own rules in its spaces and the city has its rules for its spaces, in and outside the City Hall. Berkowitz defended her earlier comments that the law criminalized homelessness, noting several people said that was never the intent of the ordinance. â€œIntentions are not whatâ€™s relevant here,â€ she said. â€œWe have evidence from the city manager as to what is actually happening. We have common sense telling us that now people can be trespassed for smelling bad, for consuming food or beverages that are prohibited in the food and beverage guideline of the library. â€œThe Councilâ€™s intentions were not bad, I appreciate that the staffâ€™s intentions are not bad, but I submit that neither if relevant to the facts at hand. This is being used as a tool to criminalize homelessness and we need to repeal the ordinance in its entirety today.â€ Councilmember Gerald Robison said he was unhappy at the fact the ordinance was not being considered as a new tool for police to deal with bad behavior, but that the matter â€œbecame characterized as a war on the homeless. I deplore that.â€ Robison said it was a â€œmuch gentler processâ€ to trespass people away from a venue for a week or a month than to arrest people, prosecuting them and putting them into jail. Councilmember Steve Armstrong said the measure is â€œnot about homelessness, it is about all of us respecting our property, and treating in and each other fairly.â€ He added that there had been no arrests, but 19 trespass notices issued â€“ â€œthis is a very useful tool for our police.â€ Berkowitz responded, saying it was â€œdisingenuous to say it is not about the homelessâ€ because four of the 19 trespass notices were for sleeping in the park or being in the park after closure. The city manager said he was not sure whether the people trespassed in the park were homeless, maybe or maybe not. About homelessness â€“ or not? She later saidÂ the Council accepted a request that city staff and police keep facts and figures on the people issued trespass notices, so it can be determined whether homeless people are or are not being trespassed more than others, or that homelessness is being criminalized under the ordinance. Councilmember Bob Edgar said he supported the changes in the trespass ordinance as submitted by the city staff, noting also that the measure was not intended to be about homelessness. Robison moved and the Council voted 4 to 5 to remove behavior that is â€œunsafeâ€ since it is in the eyes of the beholder as to what type of behavior is safe and what is unsafe. The Council voted 4 to 3 to not accept attempts to remove â€œunreasonably disruptiveâ€ behavior from the ordinance. The Council also defeated 5 to 2 a motion that all trespass violations had to be personally delivered to the offender because often that person had already left the area and the city often would not have a valid mailing address. â€˜100 percent in favorâ€™ Just one amongst the citizens speaking on the trespass ordinance was in favor of it. Business owner Darla Green said she was â€œ100 percent in favor of Ordinance 606 (the â€œtrespassâ€ ordinance). â€œYou guys, by supporting this ordinance are supporting your tax paying residents and business owners by keeping our city clean and crime-free,â€ Green said. â€œWe did not build our Burien Town Center, maintain our public parks at our tax dollars expense to house the needs of able-bodied people that continue to use these beautiful places as their places to do drugs, prostitution, to sleep in alleyways at night. â€œWe need to retain this ordinance so we can keep our streets free of crime as much as possible,â€ Green said, noting the ordinance provides for giving warnings to people, â€œnot one strike and you are out â€¦ there comes a time when they have to help themselves.â€ Many citizens opposed Several persons said the ordinance should be repealed or modified as the Washington branch of the American Civil Liberties Union has told the city. Burien resident Don Franks urged repeal of the so-called â€œtrespassâ€ ordinance and proposed amendments. He said he has volunteered for organizations that deal with the homeless and â€œthey are just like you and me.â€ The ordinance is â€œpiling on people at the lowest point in their lives,â€ he said. Ann Slater said she only recently moved to Burien â€œand was utterly appalled by the passage of this ordinance.â€ She called it unconstitutional and â€œmeanâ€ and the ordinance â€œcriminalizes people for being poor.â€ Former Burien Mayor and Councilmember Sally Nelson, who retired from the Council in 2009 after serving the first 16 years of Burienâ€™s existence as a city, said the â€œtrespassâ€ ordinance was not â€œthe way to get to â€˜safe.â€™â€ She said rules should be posted in City Hall and other public places informing people of the rules for â€œbehavior that is appropriate or not appropriate.â€ Nelson also criticized the use of the word â€œunreasonableâ€ in the ordinance as an â€œarbitrary word,â€ suggesting what is unreasonable to one person may not be for another. Goodspaceguy told the Council that Burien public property is owned by all citizens â€œincluding the homeless and it would be nice if Burien were a place where the homeless are treated better than other cities and communities throughout Washington state.â€ He advocated the city “establish showers for allâ€¦â€ Resident Mark Manning said the ordinance is â€œoffensive to meâ€ and is being used to â€œpunish people who are disadvantaged.â€ He urged its repeal and that no replacement for it be considered. Dave Hutchinson, the now-retired elected mayor of Lake Forest Park who now lives in the Town Square condominiums, told the Burien Council that the problems the â€œtrespassâ€ ordinance is designed to handle is â€œnot defined clearly.â€ He said the cost of the â€œquasi-judicial processâ€ are not clear and may need to be spelled out in a fiscal note. The homeless issue is a separate one, Hutchinson said, and is not to be considered as part of the ordinance. Holly Koelling, director of operations for the King County Library System, said the ordinance is not about the homeless, but about â€œthe civil society and behavior.â€ She said the idea was to work with the city to define expectations for behavior and consequences for â€œbehavior that makes it difficult for all to enjoy and participate â€¦â€ Chestine Edgar said the ordinance is not about criminalization of homelessness, adding the city needs â€œsome kind of trespass ordinance just as the surrounding cities and unincorporated parts of the county have.â€ She said there needs to be a count of the homeless in the city and to work with other local government so that homeless people are not driven into Burien from surrounding areas. Linda Plein said â€œwe have a City Council member that renamed a city ordinance which is actually a trespass ordinanceâ€ as â€œcriminalization of the homelessâ€ but Mayor Krakowiak told her that she could not single out Councilmembers. Councilmember Lauren Berkowitz has made such a charge in a Facebook posting over the past weekend, and has also referred to the trespass ordinance in that manner many times at Council sessions. â€œThere is no need for any of them to publically embarrass and humiliate â€¦ and be disrespectful of there people.â€ New Deputy Mayor The Council elected a new Deputy Mayor â€“ Councilmember Nancy Tosta â€“ for a one-year term to replace Councilmember Bob Edgar. Mayor Lucy Krakowiak is serving the second year of a two-year term. The body also used its first meeting of the year to change its rules for public comment. Now people will be allowed 2 minutes to speak in either of the two times each meeting a citizen is allowed to address the Council and all desiring to address the group will be allowed to, regardless of the number of people involved. Mayor Krakowiak said a person may speak only once at the two comment periods, but may address the body at each of the two times.]]>
Senior Reporter Jack Mayne passed away in December, 2021. In his honor we have created the Jack Mayne Journalism Scholarship. More by Jack Mayne
Elitist douchebags in Burien ?
Elitist? Just because we don’t like tweakers disrupting our public places?
That comment is just off the wall bonkers…
I think Randy Johnson’s comment was a swing and miss!
1) we should not permit certain citizens from disrupting the enjoyment other citizens should get from a public space.
This position’s logic supports the ordinance and would allow removal of the offenders
This position’s logic denies lake burien homeowners from locking out the rest of the tax payers
2) we should permit certain citizens to disrupt the enjoyment other citizens should get from a public space
This position’s logic rejects the ordinance and let’s the offenders stay
This position’s logic agrees with lake burien homeowners locking out the rest of the tax payers
Can’t have it both ways – do we allow people to “overuse” their rightful share of public spaces or not?
I also wanted to thank goodspaceguy for showing up and commenting. I vote for you every time your on the ballot brother – you’d do a much better job than what we have now.
Council Member Berkowitz is apparently living in a twilight zone of her own making. My observation is that she needs a strong dose of common sense, something she is completely lacking, not only on this issue, but on a myriad of previous issues.
Except the vote wasn’t 6-1 or even 5-2. The final vote included someone near and dear to your heart voting with Council Member Berkowitz.
Its what comes out of your mouth that defiles you Joey. Not the actual vote itself.
Riddle me this John… What’s worse, the proven lies coming out of your mouth or my potty mouth?
Comments are closed.