Homelessness advocates say they will appeal a recent King County Superior Court decision that upheld the City of Burien’s ordinance restricting public camping, calling the ruling a dangerous precedent for the rights of unhoused people across Washington state.
As we previously reported, on May 15, 2025, Judge Michael K. Ryan ruled in favor of the City of Burien in a lawsuit brought by the Seattle/King County Coalition on Homelessness (SKCCH), along with several impacted individuals, including plaintiffs Mr. Paz and Mr. and Mrs. Hale. The plaintiffs had sought to block the city’s ordinance, arguing that it effectively banishes people from public spaces when they have nowhere else to go.
“We are disappointed — but not deterred,” the Coalition said in a statement it released to The B-Town Blog on May 23, 2025. The group has 30 days from the ruling to file an appeal, which they say is likely.
“We took up this case to affirm that all people should enjoy protection from injustice and cruelty under our state Constitution,” said Alison Eisinger, Executive Director of the Coalition. “Threatening people with arrest, fines, or jail time for sleeping in public or otherwise trying to survive is cruel, unjust, and unreasonable. Mr. Paz and Mr. and Mrs. Hale, along with many others, are trying to stay connected in their home community, which has no shelter for them. I am profoundly troubled that the court seems to interpret our state Constitution as unable to offer protections to people who are too poor to have a place to live.”
Lead attorney Scott Crain of the Northwest Justice Project called the ruling flawed and out of touch with the current housing crisis.
“This decision contradicts fundamental constitutional principles and ignores the reality that Burien provides insufficient shelter options for its unhoused residents and none at all for single men. We respect the court’s attempt to thoroughly address each issue presented and explain its analysis to the parties but strongly disagree with this ruling, which forces the homeless out of Burien. We will be consulting with our clients about appealing this decision to ensure Washington’s constitution protects everyone, regardless of housing status.”
Judge Ryan’s decision found that the ordinance did not violate the Washington State Constitution, stating that the court must “respect the limits of its role” and cannot “fix every societal problem.” But critics argue the court failed to acknowledge the lack of local shelter options, particularly for those trying to remain in their community.
The ordinance allows Burien to remove encampments from public property, even when no alternative shelter is available. Advocates say this results in forced displacement and criminalization of homelessness, not solutions.
“Burien deserves better than a ban,” the Coalition stated. “Banishing people, especially from their home communities, is not the answer to homelessness. Residents, both housed and unhoused, are harmed by such bans. Communities are not improved by such ordinances, which do nothing to address the need for affordable homes, supportive services, or living-wage jobs.”
Full Text of Statement
Below is the full text of the statement released to The B-Town Blog by the SKCCH:
“Official Statement re: Recent Superior Court ruling in Seattle/King County Coalition on Homelessness, et al. vs. City of Burien
“On Thursday, May 15, 2025, King County Superior Court Judge Michael K. Ryan ruled in favor of the City of Burien in our case against Burien’s unjust banishment ordinance. We are disappointed — but not deterred — by the court’s decision to refuse our request for summary judgement and to uphold an ordinance that punishes Burien residents who have nowhere to live. We have 30 days from the date of the ruling to file an appeal.
“We took up this case to affirm that all people should enjoy protection from injustice and cruelty under our state Constitution. Threatening people with arrest, fines, or jail time for sleeping in public or otherwise trying to survive is cruel, unjust, and unreasonable. Mr. Paz and Mr. and Mrs. Hale, along with many others, are trying to stay connected in their home community, which has no shelter for them. I am profoundly troubled that the court seems to interpret our state Constitution as unable to offer protections to people who are too poor to have a place to live.”
– Alison Eisinger, Executive Director, Coalition on Homelessness
“This decision contradicts fundamental constitutional principles and ignores the reality that Burien provides insufficient shelter options for its unhoused residents and none at all for single men. We respect the court’s attempt to thoroughly address each issue presented and explain its analysis to the parties but strongly disagree with this ruling, which forces the homeless out of Burien. We will be consulting with our clients about appealing this decision to ensure Washington’s constitution protects everyone, regardless of housing status.”
– Scott Crain, Lead Attorney, Northwest Justice Project
“Burien deserves better than a ban. Banishing people, especially from their home communities, is not the answer to homelessness. Residents, both housed and unhoused, are harmed by such bans. Communities are not improved by such ordinances, which do nothing to address the need for affordable homes, supportive services, or living-wage jobs.”
Such a waste of time fighting this being that the Supreme Court has ruled against public camping and Burien is following that approach, if those three haven’t been helped in all this time what exactly does the Homeless Industrial Complex do?
Please help me understand… to file a lawsuit I believe it takes money to do so. So these people who are homeless they don’t have any money to rent a place to live correct but somehow they have the means ($$$) to hire a lawyer so as to keep suing the City of Burien??? Now I could be wrong maybe these “lawyers” are doing it for free or are they really if you get what I mean, they’re getting paid from us the taxpayers from all the taxes being taken for the homeless?
Life is not easy. Forcing taxpayers to downgrade their lives to enable addiction and squalor, benefits only the individuals that call themselves activists. Forced treatment may be the only solution.
Agree
I agree
An incredibly obvious and troubling trend emerges again with certain homeless advocacy groups/activists resorting to frivolous or excessive litigation as a tactic to circumvent democratic debate, impose burdensome mandates on cities, and/or shift public land use without voter input or community consent.
Ordinances that regulate the use of public space are neither unjust nor cruel—they are legal frameworks that allow cities to act when encampments become unsafe, unsanitary, or disruptive.
The City of Burien has repeatedly sought partnerships, explored housing solutions, and pushed for meaningful investments in shelter and services and will continue. But the absence of shelter beds cannot justify a free-for-all in public spaces that threatens public health, public safety, and community cohesion. Court rulings must be based on the law—not an advocacy group’s interpretation of morality.
Attempting to use litigation as a tool to invalidate local ordinances—especially those passed in response to direct community needs—is undemocratic and counterproductive.
People want balanced, lawful approaches that protect the dignity of all individuals while preserving the integrity of public space for the entire community.
Regarding the Ordinance and it’s enforcement, how is it that a large tan RV with accompanying white van have been allowed to be parked on Ambaum behind Azteca restaurant for well over a week? What happened to the 24 hour parking rule on Public Right of Way that is obviously not being enforced, and the camp flotsam runs over on onto the sidewalk and Azteca’s lawn. Camping is banned in Burien for obvious reasons and those rules apply to RV’S as well, so Burien PD, what’s the delay here or with the others in front of Value Village?
Please everyone remember who’s who when our next election comes up for City Council. Do we want our City to keep going forward as it has been these past few months or do we want it to go back to the way it was? Remember who these activists are and who their followers are that are already in office.
As a community member of Burien and a mom of 2 young children, I have a really difficult time supporting the attempt to reverse the decision to ban camping in public places. I am not naive enough to believe that every single person experiencing homelessness is an addict or mentally ill, but it infuriates me that the Coalition on Homelessness writes their statements and arguments as if all of the unhoused in our area who were previously camping were all upstanding citizens without drug problems or severe mental illness. Quit discussing this issue with blanket assumptions and only speaking about or interviewing individuals who support whatever side you’re defending.
Not all unhoused people are a danger to our community, but unfortunately until we are able to properly fight the mental health and addiction crises, banning public camping to keep our community safe feels most appropriate. I, personally, am happy this ordinance is being upheld so I can finally take my children to the library without worrying about them seeing the coroner, an OD in the bathroom, or someone shooting up in broad daylight at the entrance (all of which have happened to my family in the past).
A small victory for common sense. Prohibiting people from sprawling anywhere they want with all their messy belongings on public property hardly amounts to “injustice and cruelty under our state Constitution” as A. Eisinger seems to believe. If she wants to host these people on her own private property I have little against it, but she has no right to make the rest of us suffer for her delusions that abetting homeless behavior is somehow helping anyone.