Can we please get Mayor Harrell’s cell phone number? I’m sure there are lots of Seattleites that have some truly shocking nude photos to share with him…

As someone noted in the previous thread of this non-shocking non-story, it's not a "queer nude beach." It's a beach. It's for everyone in Seattle to use. Your language validates the very claim of appropriation Sloan made.

Do you really want to show Sloan was right, just to keep hammering away at your point about how the Mayor did a (useless) favor for a rich donor, then refused to admit it?

His complaint is that there are nude people on the nude beach, but for what it’s worth most nude beaches are de facto “queer nude beaches” for reasons that should be obvious. So he was right about the nudity but wrong about its legality.

human beans
are Disgusting
if Gawd had In-
tended for us to
be NEKKID He'd
make us be Born
that way. nuff said

@4: ‘…most nude beaches are de facto “queer nude beaches”…’

One advantage to nudity being it’s easier for you to pull your “facts” straight out of your ass?

But you inadvertently made a good point. In previous attempts at belaboring this neverending non-story, the Stranger tried very, very hard to imply Sloan and Harrell were really opposed to LGBTQ+ persons using the beach, which is slanderous nonsense. At least the Stranger seems to have dropped that smear as a failure.

Have you ever been to a nude beach? It’s all gay dudes. Straight people are too repressed for public nudity, which is really the driving force behind this whole story. No queer person would ever page the mayor because they saw a naked guy at the beach.

"Straight people are too repressed for public nudity"

Best laugh I've had this week.

@3:

"Do you really want to show Sloan was right, just to keep hammering away at your point about how the Mayor did a (useless) favor for a rich donor, then refused to admit it?"

So, you admit there was blatant favoritism at-work here, even if you apparently defend the idea that only the rich are allowed to have direct access to elected officials, so thanks for that.

As for "appropriation", well, a half-century of past practice would invalidate YOUR claim, not to mention the fact it's completely hysterical and unfounded. No one is prevented from using the beach, and since public nudity isn't illegal in Seattle, nudists have every right to use the beach to sunbathe. If someone has an issue with that, that's on THEM, not those otherwise engaged in a completely legal activity. Sloane OTOH clearly intended to restrict access to the beach from citizens engaged in such legal activity, which most certainly WOULD meet the broader definition of "appropriation".

Speaking of repressed. What’s funny about it to you, raindrop? I love making people laugh.

@9: “So, you admit there was blatant favoritism at-work here..”

That’s exactly what I wrote, yes. (As @1 had already mocked, as well.) Please do try to keep up.

“…apparently defend the idea that only the rich are allowed to have direct access to elected officials,”

Within the confines of a single sentence, you flipped from not understanding what I clearly wrote, to making stuff up from what I did write. (Why, it’s almost like you disagree with me, but lack the honesty to address my points directly…) Plenty of citizens enjoy privileged access to elected officials. Organize a community effort which reliably delivers 100,000 votes, and you can chat up your Congressman or Mayor any time you like, for example.

The point here is, Sloan’s access got him nothing of what he wanted, because citizens opposed it. That’s actually great news, but the Stranger desperately needs material to feed into its hate-propaganda machine, so here we are.

(If you’re concerned about “appropriation,” then please direct your ire to the Stranger, for repeatedly attempting to mislabel a public beach as a resource dedicated to tiny minorities of the citizenry.)

@7: Sad to see your limited life experiences have left you with such a bigoted worldview.

Not all straight people are sexually frustrated puritans of course but you’re not exactly beating the allegations.

Also your argument is deeply hypocritical coming from a guy who alleged there was a vast homophobic conspiracy to take down Ed Murray when he faced multiple credible accusations of child sexual abuse. You’re happy to feign allyship when you think it helps you defend a child molester politician you support, even when it’s harmful and deeply offensive to queer people to do so, but you flip the script as soon as a different politician you support is accused of trafficking in anti-gay bigotry at the behest of a rich donor who has him on speed dial.

How old is this Sloan character and at what do most people learn that if they don't like something they see, they are free to stop looking at it? I appreciate the effort he took to photograph total strangers with their kit off, totally normal behavior. If it's against the law, call the cops. If it's not, go pound sand.

Similar thing happened out here in the outer boroughs…some rich folks whose houses overlook a small beach decided to claim it for their own. The city eventually returned it to public use. Not everything you see belongs to you, folks, no matter how much you think so.

@12: "...there was a vast homophobic conspiracy to take down Ed Murray..."

Two of his accusers were represented by Jack Connelly's law firm. Connelly and his wife had each contributed tens of thousands of dollars to the 2016 anti-trans bathroom initiative, and Connelly himself had attempted to run for office in 2012, on an anti-gay-marriage platform. (Yes, for the very same election in which Washington state's voters legalized gay marriage.) Murray's former ward, Jeff Simpson, started making accusations against Murray only after Simpson had converted to fundamentalist Christianity, and taken advice from the viciously anti-gay Rev. Ken Hutcherson. So, three of Murray's five accusers had ties to local anti-gay bigots, bigots who had lost political battles to Murray. (Also, I never used the word "conspiracy," for the simple reason no evidence existed of collaboration between Simpson and Connelly's clients, so perhaps your understanding of what I wrote isn't quite as good as you think it is.)

Please note that only two of Murray's accusers (including exactly none of those represented by Connelly's firm) were able to show they'd ever actually met Murray, making the number of his accusers in cahoots with local anti-gay bigots larger than the number of accusers who could show they'd ever even met him.

"...multiple credible accusations of child sexual abuse."

Four of Murray's accusers were adolescents, not children, when he (allegedly or actually) met them. (Delvonn Heckard, by his own admission, was a sex worker, who had already hustled other men for money before he allegedly met Murray.) Murray's estranged cousin, from the staunchly anti-gay side of Murray's family, might have claimed to have been a child when that alleged abuse happened. If so, he was the only one claiming child sexual abuse.

"... a child molester..."

Again, underage sex and child molestation are two different things. You really don't have the knowledge of this situation you believe or claim you have.

"...politician you support,"

I actually thought Murray was a terrible mayor, and I was glad to see him leave office. A civilized society does not change political leaders via assassination, and that includes character assassination. That was my objection.

"...it’s harmful and deeply offensive to queer people to do so..."

All queer people everywhere feel deep gratitude at having you to speak for them, no doubt.

Furthermore, the "harmful and deeply offensive" thing about the accusations against Murray was how they pandered to the ancient "blood libel" against gays, about how gays supposedly want to recruit children and adolescents into homosexuality. That is a hateful lie, one which should always meet strong opposition.

"...accused of trafficking in anti-gay bigotry..."

So far, it's a completely false accusation, despite the Stranger's attempts to insinuate it is true. Does anything about that bother you in the slightest?

First of all, Jesus Christ.

Second. I don’t think the mayor is guilty of anything other than, perhaps, a too-cozy relationship with a wealthy donor. The wealthy donor OTOH is an absolute freak and a cowardly bully who thinks he can throw his weight around behind the scenes because he’s got deep pockets. Nothing illegal took place but it’s not a great look for the mayor even though he did the right thing in the end. The public has a right to know when donors try to pull favors from elected officials and everyone can arrive at their own conclusions about the why and how.

Still flogging this horse, huh?

I think it's interesting that Sloan has owned the property since 2002, built a new house there in 2018, and is just now getting a bee in his bonnet about booty (see what I did there?). Maybe the new house has a better view of the beach. Maybe he's just getting old and prudish.

And yes, it's too bad that he has the Mayor's number. I guess. Maybe they were buds before he became the Mayor. Who knows? Who cares? Harrel is an OK Mayor, as far as Seattle Mayors go. Most of the recent ones have been drips (Durkan) or way too cozy with business on a grand scale (see Norm Rice and the acquisition of the Seattle Municipal Tower/Sale of surplus City office space created by that transaction).

And speaking of Mayor's lets pause for a moment to remember Charlie Royer, who passed away the other day. About the only dumb thing he did was to put the old Fire Chief in as Superintendent of City Light (but that was plenty dumb)

The point, for the 10,000th time, and which The Stranger staff ignores, is that citizen activism worked. The "good guys" won. The activism defeated the cronyism. The dreaded "Seattle Process" came through.

@15: Agree with your second paragraph. That story was reported and discussed already, so why does the Stranger continue to beat this dead horse?

As for your first paragraph, well, there may be a point in there for you to learn, about making false accusations.

15: “The public has a right to know when donors try to pull favors from elected officials and everyone can arrive at their own conclusions about the why and how.”

You’d run out of storage space on the internet if you published that list.

@2 -- 100% agree. The biggest stink from this, other than sweaty ass-cracks at that beach, is the bald-faced inequality re: access to power. No bueno.

@17 - Aclitteration!

OMG, were there any new developments in this important breaking story over the weekend? I expect nothing less than 24/7 coverage! Editors: consider adding a chyron.

Here's how the Stranger used to characterize Denny Blaine:

"voyeurs and pervs seem to have colonized Denny Blaine, so wear shoes if you don't want to get sperm between your toes"

When did this morph into merely "enjoying a legally protected right to nudity?"

*https://www.thestranger.com/horrors/2019/07/22/40831261/welcome-to-summer-dont-drink-the-water

@17 The other stupid thing Royer did was successfully lobby the state to ban local rent control. That by itself had undeniably negative consequences that will continue to outlive him. However, outside of Pacific Place, Rice was decent Mayor-- not perfect but no real scandals, and he reflected a positive image of the city. I was an SCL employee too, for 18 years, just after Rice left, and was in a position to judge from the inside as well.

@23: Great catch. Although the Stranger has since consigned it to the Memory Hole, Sloan’s original complaints to Harrell concerned “hazardous waste” at the park, and Harrell agreed this was not acceptable. Thanks for finding the Stranger had expressed a such concern as well.