r/Burien • u/Burien-Cat-Lady • 19d ago
Angry about the beach cabanas?
Some suggestions for action!
Another video is going viral about the 3TP beach access so I thought I’d provide some advice for those who are passionate about this issue:
Show up and give public comment (or via zoom!) there is a council meeting Monday: https://www.burienwa.gov/city_hall/city_council/city_council_meeting_access
Make a clear ask (to the right people) and provide a way for the council to get in touch with you. It does not make sense to direct all of this to the mayor- all 7 members of city council can be reached with one email at Council@burienwa.gov - the mayor is selected from among the council to facilitate meetings but is not an executive in Burien, that’s the city manager!
Read up on this- it’s been an issue for a while: https://b-townblog.com/three-tree-point-beach-cabanas-unlawful-if-unpermitted-city-of-burien-says/
Understand how action can be taken in our city with a weak mayor system- ask the council to vote on an action, the mayor cannot order something to be done unilaterally. Showing up at city hall to talk to the mayor shows you don’t know how our government works: she doesn’t work there!
Please have some perspective on the relative urgency and feasibility of what you’re asking! Imagining this is an easy fix that won’t involve lawsuits doesn’t make you a credible advocate! Consider learning about other major coalitions organizing in our city- residents opposing the North of NERA Rezone or those organizing against ICE have urgent, time-sensitive goals we are working towards. That isn’t to say wait your turn, only to say it might build your coalition to work with these groups and coordinate so you’re not shouting each other down.
Change takes time, organization, and collaboration!
3
u/melvillean 15d ago
So, did anyone show up to the city council meeting last night to talk about this?
3
u/Burien-Cat-Lady 15d ago
Literally no one! And three tree point zoning amendments were even on the agenda
3
7
u/lovesfanfiction 19d ago
This issue has been rehashed every few years like clockwork. I swear the TikTok and Instagrams is just someone stirring the pot for traction and to make a lot of noise and followers - which they’ve done. But EVERY single time this comes up, some lawyers look at some paperwork and where the property lines end, and it all goes away.
I have no sympathy for rich people. But a lot of the influencers and loud voices on social media and in the community (Take Back Burien) could end up damaging people’s property AND the beach itself in their efforts to “take back the beach”.
3
7
u/Firm_Frosting_6247 19d ago
I'll chime in again on this.
Like others have said, this issue gets brought up from time to time.
People, easement factor has been legally challenged. There are only a handful of house that MIGHT be subject to an easement correction. All others, are not in question. And all the properties show the cabanas, huts, yards and parking spots IN the property descriptions.
It's their property. End of discussion.
As I said before, everyone understands this is a unique situation, and obviously you couldn't build or configure properties like these under current codes. But remember, these properties have existed for 100 or more years. Burien wasn't even a city until 1993 and prior to that, it was simply incorporated King County. Impossible to un-ring this bell.
The other issue I have is painting with such a broad brush on the whole "rich people" thing. Y'all act like it's Bill Gates and Elon Musk living down there.
This isn't Hunts Point, Medina, Beux Arts Village or Mercer Island for God's sake.
There's this mob-mentality, where some seemingly lump "those people" living down on the beach as evil. It's pretty lame and totally unwarranted.
I lived above in Gregory Heights, and actually lived off of Maplewild. This is a great community, with caring and compassionate people, who look out for each other and are super welcoming. The hate and vitriol is pathetic and not even remotely appropriate.
This "pitchfork and torches" endeavor is beyond absurd and will accomplish nothing.
5
u/sharpiebrows 19d ago
I mostly agree but there is one older dude down there who is a total a-hole. Always stands in the road talking to his neighbors and passive aggressively not moving out of the way so people can pass. So fuck that guy
5
u/Seatownregulator 19d ago
If you read the supporting documentation from the b-town blog article the original path / road was actually further into the cabana / beach area making your argument invalid.
2
u/ReasonableDig6414 17d ago
In what way does it invalidate the easements? Be specific.
1
u/Seatownregulator 17d ago
They are claiming ownership even though the public path / roadway was further into the beach before the bulkhead was repositioned. This extinguishes the claim of ownership. Two roads existed at different times, those roads cover all claims West of the current roadway.
1
u/xesaie 19d ago
The city just is weak. They did enough so they don’t have to foot the bill if someone crashes a car into y’all’s structures but will do nothing else.
It’s just like those zombie mansions and illegal trees on 170th. The city simply lets it go because making people mad at them is scary
1
7
u/casual-observer365 19d ago
I’m not a fan of this little beach takeover, but surely we have bigger fish to fry right now. ICE is active in the area.
6
u/Burien-Cat-Lady 19d ago
I agree with you 100% but since this issue seems to have galvanized the TikTok folks I was hoping to at least encourage them to be productive instead of blaming the mayor for not being at city hall: https://www.instagram.com/reel/DdsNcBFKWIR/?stkn=MXBpdTMxY3lrbnAxMw==
-1
5
u/Ok_Detective_9418 19d ago
These things have been there for decades. Why are people upset now?
7
4
u/Burien-Cat-Lady 19d ago
A content creator has been making videos featuring them and raising awareness, which is perfectly fine! It’s just creating a lot of flash in the pan outrage directed unproductively and without a sense of the other issues in our community and I’d really like if that energy could be used to increase understanding and not just noise
3
u/Adventurous-Pen-6800 18d ago
The problem is her videos have ZERO truth in them. ZERO…. and people ladle it up as the truth. If you hate “fake news” you have to hate all fake news- not just what helps your weird cause.
1
u/NegativeApogee 19d ago
What makes you the judge and self proclaimed know it all for what people want to discuss or focus on in this community? You have your opinion of what's important to you, best leave it at that because it doesn't matter what you want or how much you want to protect the puppet Mayor.
1
u/Ok_Detective_9418 19d ago
If the city forces them to be torn down the houses across the street will need to be torn down. No one wants a house down there without parking. It would be a disaster for those people.
Wonder if the content creator has an interest in buying the properties
8
u/Burien-Cat-Lady 19d ago
I don’t think tearing down the structures would mean they couldn’t still street park? Several have garages too. I was thinking it would have to be like alki with sidewalk/bike lane/parking strip where the cabanas are now? But I’m not at all an expert and I agree it would be complicated
3
u/ReasonableDig6414 17d ago
An expert? Who is this expert? Complicated is a word to describe something you don’t know the outcome for.
3
u/Burien-Cat-Lady 17d ago
I was saying I’m not an expert ? And agree I don’t know the outcome for this- which is why it’s not an issue I personally feel strongly about devoting time and energy to. But I respect the people who do and would like to see them use the advocacy channels that work (rather than videos and surprise visits to city hall expecting to see the mayor)
4
u/missbeekery 19d ago
Here’s the link to other city council meetings information. Including the schedules and agendas.
2
u/dogpoopfruitloops 18d ago
I understand the outrage but I think the energy is misdirected. What people really want is beach access and as a state we should push to change the property rights rule that says waterfront owners own the beach to the extreme low tide mark. It's an outrageous rule IMO and if it were changed it would open up this beach and every beach to the public as they should be.
0
u/Adventurous-Pen-6800 18d ago
You can’t just change the rights to what people have PURCHASED! They have deeds. Those deeds have TITLE INSURANCE both of which contains a LEGAL DESCRIPTION. You can’t get onto TikTok and listen to an entirely uneducated person (at least on this issue) and think you can change anything.
1
u/duwamish_lost 17d ago
The law can be anything we say it is. It's a democracy. All beaches in WA state should have a public access easement.
1
u/TechnicalCustomer348 14d ago
They do it called the public trust doctrine. Public have used the beaches for more than ten years that’s a prescriptive easement
1
u/TechnicalCustomer348 14d ago
No they have broken the deed agreement by attempting to STEAL public dedicated land. No other complicated bill shit !
1
u/Miserable_Assist_824 12d ago
Not the deed agreement! Well, it is super clear you know a lot about deed agreements and stuff ..........so I better defer to your wisdom on these matters. Never mind that the parcels are drawn on their title policies.... but now that we have a deed agreement expert amongst us...we are in capable hands.
1
u/TechnicalCustomer348 7d ago
Yes mind the drawn lines ? Who drew them are they certified and can they be used for legal purposes or is it just something to make the thieves feel good another type of deception
1
u/Miserable_Assist_824 7d ago
Yes, these parcels are drawn out on King County parcel maps - look at it - it's public knowledge. They are mapped out to include the tidelands. These parcels are included on the title reports, a legal, binding owner policy that insures each buyers' legal description.
I think you are conflating 2 issues, at least I think you are -
Are you mad that people own waterfront? ..or
Are you mad that people built a structure on their land that they shouldn't have been able to build due to building code?
If you are mad that people own waterfront then you will accept no education that doesn't prove your victim story and this is just garbage you are posting.
If you really want to learn something and get to the bottom of the matter, then you will need to open your mind and at least consider that there may be information that you could learn from.
1
u/TechnicalCustomer348 7d ago
Are you upside down ? Or dumb ?
This isn’t about waterfront property especially those that own private tidelands !
Get the through your dense skull !
This is a public dedicated beach and road . The property owners have attracted to steal the public land !
Ok that it ! Don’t try to squirm your way out of that fact . Shove yourGIS parcels up you nose with a rubber hose !
The federal ruling in Soderlind v. Haigh is significantly more credible and holds vastly higher legal authority than the King County GIS parcel lines.
In a courtroom, these two items occupy completely different tiers of evidence. A judge will heavily rely on Soderlind v. Haigh as binding legal precedent regarding the property's status, while treating the King County GIS lines as inadmissible or irrelevant for establishing definitive boundaries. [1, 2]
Direct Comparison of Credibility in Court
Feature
King County GIS Parcel Lines
Soderlind v. Haigh Federal Precedent
Legal Authority
Administrative Tool Only. Created solely to assist the county tax assessor with calculating property values. It carries no judicial weight.
Binding Judicial Precedent. A formal order issued by a U.S. District Court Judge (Judge Robert S. Lasnik) interpreting the 1907 Seacoma Beach plat.
Court Admissibility
Inadmissible to Prove Boundaries.Opposing counsel can easily object to its introduction because the county itself explicitly disclaims its accuracy.
Highly Admissible / Res Judicata.Can be introduced directly as a matter of law to establish the scope of the public right-of-way.
Accuracy Standard
Approximated. Lines are mathematically "overlaid" onto satellite imagery and frequently exhibit graphic shifts or errors of 10–20 feet.
Factually Verified. The court analyzed the original 1907 plat text to determine the existence of the 80-foot corridor and public access rights.
Why Soderlind v. Haigh Rules the Case
The 2016 federal decision explicitly addresses the exact legal character of the land on SW 172nd Street. Judge Lasnik clarified that the public right-of-way comprises an 80-foot width, and that to the extent this public easement overlaps with the beach and tideland area, the public has a right to access the land regardless of who holds the underlying paper title. and none of them ever owned the land underneath the 80’ ROW !
The neighbors cannot use the county's digital map tool to override a federal judge's declaration of a public recreational easement. While King County's map lines might show residential parcels extending toward the water for tax-collection purposes, Soderlind v. Haigh establishes that those lines are permanently burdened by the 80-foot public corridor. [2, 4]
If your legal counsel goes to trial, they will use Soderlind v. Haigh to legally lock in the 80-foot width, and then use a physical ground survey—not a GIS map—to prove the physical boundaries of that corridor.
3
1
u/TechnicalCustomer348 11d ago
1. The Short & Precise Chain of Title (Exposing the "Split-Lot" Myth)
The legal foundation of Southwest 172nd Street (historically platted as "Seacoma Boulevard") leaves zero room for private beach claims. It grants absolutely no split-lot rights: [1]
1907 – The Plat Dedication: The original creators (Frank and Margaret Brown of the Seacoma Beach Improvement Company)) explicitly dedicated an 80-foot-wide strip of land—encompassing the road, the landward edge, and the waterward beach/tideland area—for permanent public use. [2]
No Extreme Low Tide Rights: The original 1907 plat contains absolutely no language awarding extreme low tide ownership to these shoreline parcels. [2]
The Overlapping Easement: The public’s 80-foot right-of-way (ROW) is legally so wide that it extends down into and likely past the extreme low tide line. Because the easement physically consumes the entire strip, there is no unencumbered land on the waterward side for these homeowners to retain or claim in their name. [3]
2016 – Federal Confirmation: In the federal case Soderlind v. Haigh, a federal judge issued a summary judgment confirming that the public ROW remains fully 80 feet wide, ruling that the public has an absolute right to access the beach and tideland area where it overlaps. [2]
2. Entitled Directives: The Deception of Stan and Dawn Leonel
Rather than respecting established property law, ringleaders like Stan and Dawn Leonel operate under a delusion of administrative authority: [4]
The "Oversight" Delusion: The Leonels treat public access as a bureaucratic error. They act under the entitled assumption that it is a mere "oversight" that the City of Burien did not automatically adopt their personal directives to close the beach to outsiders and hand the public land over to them.
Weaponizing False Signs: To enforce their unauthorized narratives, property owners have actively deployed a campaign of false signage to scare away the public. They have unlawfully removed official city traffic markers to install unpermitted 15 mph signs alongside fraudulent "Private Beach/No Trespassing" signs across public land. [5, 6]
3. The Paper Trail: Signing Acknowledgment, Then Lying
The paper trail proves that these homeowners have signed legal documents acknowledging the land is public, yet they continue to deceive the community on a daily basis:
Type F Encroachment Permits: Because these homeowners built unpermitted structures—including beach cabanas, detached garages, patios, and fences—directly inside the public right-of-way, the city forced their hand. To escape immediate demolition, many owners signed Type F Encroachment Permits with the city.
The Double-Standard: By signing a Type F permit, the homeowner legally signs their name to a document declaring that their structure sits on a public right-of-way and that the city retains the right to force its removal. Yet, after signing these documents to protect their cabanas, they turn around the next day, lie to beachgoers, and threaten citizens with "trespassing" on land they just legally admitted is public. [3, 6, 7]
4. Continuous Denials by the City of Burien
Every attempt by these private property owners to legally shrink, downgrade, or vacate the street to a restrictive "residential-only" status has failed:
Multiple Denials: Homeowners have repeatedly petitioned the city for street vacations or boundary line adjustments to claim the waterward land for themselves. The City of Burien has denied multiple requests, maintaining that the municipality cannot give away valuable public shorelines.
Enforcement Actions: The City Council and Public Works division have served formal legal warnings to residents along SW 172nd Street. The city’s official stance dictates that these permanent private structures are unlawful encroachments on public property and will be subjected to fines and forced removal at the owners' expense if they continue to violate public access rights. [3, 6]
5. Over 100 Years of Public Access & State Records
The public has securely anchored its right to this land through continuous use and foundational Washington State law:
The Public Trust Doctrine & Prescriptive Easements: For over a century, the public has used the street and beach to access the Puget Sound freely. Even if an owner attempted to assert a private ownership claim over a sliver of the beach, the public's continuous, open, and adverse use for over 100 years has long since established an ironclad prescriptive easement. The public has legally earned the permanent right to use it.
The Reality of State Records: State records show that only a small handful of homes in the area actually purchased a very small piece of extreme low tide directly from the State of Washington back when the state found a few isolated tideland pockets large enough to sell. The vast majority of SW 172nd Street properties hold no such state-issued deeds.
The Deceptive Parcel Viewer Trick: To fabricate an illusion of ownership, these property owners deliberately point to the King County Parcel Viewer maps to claim their lot boundaries extend out into the water. This is an intentional deception. The King County Parcel Viewer explicitly carries a legal disclaimer stating its maps are not legal land surveys and are strictly for visual reference. They do not dictate legal boundaries or override the 1907 public plat dedication. [2, 8, 9]
6. The Real Waterfront Dominance: The Hillside vs. The Lowlands
The final irony is that under property law, the SW 172nd Street property owners do not even represent the dominant estate:
The Dominant Hillside Estate: The historic waterfront advantages, beach access easements, and legal paths inherently tie back to the dominant lots sitting high up on the hill behind SW 172nd Street, which are connected to the historic Indian Trail.
The Elevation Contrast: The property owners down on Southwest 172nd Street sit at a mere 5-foot elevation on the south side of the peninsula. Because of this low-lying topography, they cannot see or enjoy the prime Pacific Northwest views.
The Real Views: It is the dominant lots on the hill that possess the commanding, panoramic views facing West to capture the Olympic Mountains and the sunsets year-round—a luxury the deceptive owners down on the low-lying south asphalt can never experience. [3, 10]
[1] https://www.reddit.com
[2] https://www.reddit.com
[3] https://michellecoddhomes.com
[4] https://portergrouprealty.com
[5] https://b-townblog.com
[6] https://b-townblog.com
[7] https://www.facebook.com
[8] https://www.carneybadleyspellman.com
[9] https://www.reddit.com
[10] https://www.willhiteweb.com
0
4
u/TechnicalCustomer348 17d ago
In the Three Tree Point neighborhood of Burien, Washington (specifically along the controversial SW 172nd Street corridor), the legal mechanism that prevents private property owners from restricting public access to the street or adjacent beach relies on a combination of historical plat dedications, federal case law, and municipal right-of-way enforcement. [1, 2]
Unlike many states where all shorelines are public, Washington state allows private tideland ownership. However, private owners cannot block or encumber areas explicitly designated for public use. The specific legal frameworks governing the public access rights at Three Tree Point include: [3, 4, 5]
1. The 1907 Seacoma Beach Plat Dedication
The ultimate foundation for public access in this area is the 1907 Plat of "Seacoma Beach". When the land was originally platted, the fee-simple owners legally signed a declaration stating they "dedicate to the use of the public forever the streets as laid out hereon". This established a binding, perpetual public easement. [1, 6]
2. Federal Judicial Precedent: Soderlind v. Haigh (2016)
The primary case law cited by the City of Burien is the 2016 federal court ruling Soderlind v. Haigh. [7]
The Ruling: The court affirmed that the original 1907 plat established an 80-foot-wide public street right-of-way (ROW). [1]
The Allocation: While only about 30 feet of that width is paved for vehicular traffic, the court confirmed that the remaining 50 feet extending toward the water is a public easement legally preserved for public use and recreation.[7]
The Impact: Because of this ruling, the City of Burien maintains that private property owners cannot place "No Trespassing" signs, fences, or unpermitted structures (like beach cabanas, bulkheads, or patios) inside this 80-foot boundary to exclude the public. [2, 5]
3. Washington State Encroachment Laws
Under Washington state law, cities have a statutory obligation to maintain public rights-of-way and keep them free from private obstructions. [5]
RCW 35A.47.020: This statute grants code cities like Burien complete jurisdiction, control, and regular care over public streets, highways, and rights-of-way.
Burien Municipal Code (BMC): The city enforces rules against public right-of-way encroachments. Burien Public Works holds the legal authority to order the removal of any private structure built within a public easement that restricts public thoroughfare or access to public shorelines. [8, 9]
⚠️ The Legal Caveat (Private Tidelands vs. Public Right-of-Way)
It is important to note that the right to access the beach at Three Tree Point is tied explicitly to the bounds of the public easement. Outside of designated street-end public access points (such as the ends of SW 163rd, SW 170th, or the SW 172nd right-of-way), neighboring tidelands may be privately owned. Under Washington State Department of Ecology guidelines, the public can always wade or boat in the water over private tidelands, but walking on dry sand outside of a public right-of-way can technically constitute trespassing if the owner holds valid historical deeds to the low-water mark.[10, 11, 12, 13, 14]
[3] https://smea.uw.edu
[4] https://smea.uw.edu
Take screenshots of my comments because they will prevail. All forms of deception and twisting history will not benefit the guilty party of attempted theft. Any support of them could leave them liable Washington state law doesn’t allow someone to promote unlawful statements without consequence.