The city’s Denny Blaine Park “nude zone” proposal
(Image: Denny Blaine Park for All)
The City of Seattle has dusted off its old proposal to create a nude zone at Denny Blaine Park as it filed a court-ordered “plan of abatement” for addressing complaints of illegal sexual activity in the ongoing lawsuit brought by a group of neighbors and property owners over the popular nude beach.
The plan filed Monday in King County Superior Court includes five elements including 1) “Limiting the portion of the Park that is clothing optional to the area of the Park least visible from residences” 2) “Establishing visual barriers to separate the clothing optional area of the Park” 3) “Installing clearly marked signage throughout the Park and at its entrances stating Park rules” and 4) “Implementing a substantial increase in staffing of Park Rangers and/or Seattle Parks and Recreation staff at the Park.”
As for 5), final element would focus on how best to police the new rules “using a progressive discretionary enforcement approach, which may include educating, warning, and citing individuals who do not comply with Park rules and, where necessary, requesting assistance from law enforcement to address criminal activity such as sexual criminal lewd conduct.”
The filing by Seattle City Attorney Ann Davison argues that “a solution is possible that balances Plaintiff’s rights as Park-adjacent landowners and the LGBTQIA+ community’s historical use of the Park as a nude gathering space.”
“The City’s Plan seeks to accomplish such a balance while continuing to prohibit public sexual and lewd acts,” the City Attorney writes.
The city proposal comes in response to Judge Samuel Chung’s order in a preliminary injunction proceeding as neighbor group Denny Blaine Park for All has called for the park on the shores of Lake Washington east of Capitol Hill to be closed until the city addresses complaints of nudity and sexual activity at the popular LGBTQ nude beach.
The judge must now weigh the plan and decide if its meets his standards for keeping the park open as the lawsuit plays out.
Judge Chung, meanwhile, has a larger legal question to weigh that might supercede the abatement plan. The City Attorney’s office also filed a “motion for reconsideration” arguing that it should be given more time to engage in abatement efforts. That motion is now also in the hands of the judge.
How any immediate abatement effort moves forward remains to be seen. Group Friends of Denny Blaine that has been working on community solutions to the issues around the park, its place in queer and nude culture, and the wealthy surrounding neighborhood had proposed a plan that focused on park rangers and new signs to keep Denny Blaine open — and nude.
But the city is now focused on a plan that would split Denny Blaine into zones. “To address Plaintiff’s concern that nudity should only be permitted in particular areas of the Park, the City’s Plan limits nudity to a specified area, with a visual barrier separating that area from the remainder of the Park,” the court-filed plan reads. “The City has selected the portions of the Park that will be clothing optional based on the Park’s geographical terrain and the historical use of the park.”
The Denny Blaine zones have been on the table before. At the start of the summer of 2024, the city backed off its plan to institute the zones that officials said had been formed with input from park users and neighbors.
That proposal would have split the park across Zone A near the water where visitors are invited to enjoy the space with or without a swimsuit ,and Zone B around the park’s entrance where visitors are asked to wear clothing or, at least, a towel. The parks department said comment regarding the proposed “supplemental use guidelines” for Denny Blaine did not line up with codifying nudity in the beach park popular in nudist and queer communities.
That decision followed a victory in 2023 as hundreds of supporters won the right to “Keep Denny Blaine Nude,” pushing back on an attempt by Seattle Parks to add a children’s play area at the popular clothing optional hangout on the shores of Lake Washington.
CHS reported in December 2023 as the parks department backed off a plan to add the children’s play area paid for by an anonymous donor — later revealed to be Seattle real estate developer Stuart Sloan — amid massive public outcry.
This summer, neighbor group Denny Blaine Park for All says things have gotten worse at the park. “Since the injunction, public safety has worsened—underscored by a large overnight party that drew a major police response after one parkgoer brandished a gun and another slashed tires during a heated argument,” the group said in a statement sent to media.
“Public sex acts, masturbation, indecent exposure, and lewd conduct also continue,” the neighbor group said. “The plan ignores the park’s ‘free-for-all’ reality and growing risk of serious harm to park goers and the community.”
CHS reported here on the July 16th incident that happened around midnight after posted park closure hours and long after any sunbathers had turned in for the night.
The next hearing in the case is scheduled for early August.
$5 A MONTH TO HELP KEEP CHS PAYWALL-FREE
🌈🐣🌼🌷🌱🌳🌾🍀🍃🦔🐇🐝🐑🌞🌻
Subscribe to CHS to help us hire writers and photographers to cover the neighborhood. CHS is a pay what you can community news site with no required sign-in or paywall. To stay that way, we need you.
Become a subscriber to help us cover the neighborhood for $5 a month -- or choose your level of support 👍
this “clothing required” zone makes NO sense in a city where nudity is legal everywhere else
Why do you believe that public nudity is legal in Washington State? The Fremont Parade case, which was many years ago, only addressed nudity in a performance and even that came with limits, such as body paint.
I am looking for insight, nothing that I googled gave me the impression that public nudity is legal in Washington State
Here’s the legal case that established Seattle’s legal public nudity standard (Seattle v. Johnson). Some more recent (2018) discussion about it on KUOW.
You may be conflating public nudity with public indecency, but indecency is more than just sitting around naked and sunbathing or tossing around a beachball topless.
Seattle v. Johnson was an unpublished opinion by Court of Appeals, it has no weight in law.
The KUOW discussion only covers the topic of whether or not public nudity has been made an offense by the City of Seattle; the article does not address RCW, which is what the Judge cited in their opinion with regards to Denny Blaine. The writer for the KUOW article was very careful in how they framed their opinion.
If you want RCW changed in a way to allow public nudity in a public park? You need to convince Olympia to change the law.
Yup. They essentially turned a large chunk of Denny Blaine into one of the few places you CAN’T be nude in the city. Stuart Sloane and his cronies got exactly what they want. Surprise surprise, the rich people won in the end. Ugh.
Absolutely no compromises on this.
I don’t understand how this solves a single problem – it just would make everyone crowd into the tiny beach area, which would then overflow, and now they’ve made it newly illegal. It won’t stop Sloan, who will still have to deal with seeing the naked people.
Does anyone see this as a real compromise? This is like thousands of people vs 5 homes (none of whom actually use the damn park, their properties are larger than the park).
Go look at google maps satellite view of the park right now. They want to cram everyone at the park into that tiny space.
And they still have not said how SPD who have said they don’t have enough office to police the “lewd activities” going on that are already illegal, but they WILL have enough to ensure nudity does not happen? Makes absolutely no sense at all.
A few rich prudes don’t want to see a boob. Meanwhile nobody wants to look at their gawdy McMansions that spoil an otherwise beautiful landscape.
Seems the amicable solution is to bulldoze the McMansions and move the prudes to a shelter where they no longer have to get triggered by boobies.
In all reality, this will get appealed to the WA supreme court, which will uphold the rights of humans to be humans.
Soooooooooooo, they have enough police/rangers/parks people to enforce nudity restrictions, but not the ACTUAL lewd issues that are supposedly the root cause? Make complete sense! /s
So I believe the reports at the part and the court case has been immensely falsified. Making it a false report and a false case. Since I know of what happened for some of those events they speak of were not because of a random guy taking out a gun. It was actually the Mexican mafia going after a dude and that dude slashed their tires while leaving. I remember seeing that. None were nude. None were down there.
Also putting up the fences is only gonna make it worse and more discreet.it will not stop what they were intending to stop…. even though it was false info given.
The neighbor who recently moved there has been scaring people off.getting angry. And probably hired the judge himself. And probably provided false evidence. That neighbor who moved into the home did not like people were nude and that it was a nude beach so he has been causing a comotion.thats the true story. And closing the park and causing these issues he should be counter sued if everything is proven that he’s the reason all this happened. The fences and the discomfort of the community and the habitat change where there are more serial acts happening then ever only because of him and all the other LGBT have steered away from the beach now when I visit. That… is truly a homophobic and disgusting behaviour.
Now only that he’s been putting the idea to make it a children’s playground and trying to enforce it. And by doing this… he’s only trying to manipulate everyone into doing it.
This isn’t a lgbtq+ incident.its a man trying to enforce laws and stupidly made a fence get out there that makes it easier for people to do more dangerous stuff with better privacy. He has ruined the park. And he has made the city believe without proof it’s a hostile environment. And is now promoting the park to a new weakness. If that fence isn’t replaced by signs in the next few weeks and he doesn’t stop harassing people there will be a counter sue yet to u cover the truth. Just you wait.