Know
Beach signs ignite a bigger fight on St. Pete Beach
Commissioners approved Ordinance 2026-11, creating a 50-foot buffer that prohibits permanent stakes, poles and similar structures near the Gulf.
The St. Pete Beach City Commission approved new restrictions on beach signs Tuesday, following a lengthy debate that revealed a much larger conflict over public beach access and private property rights.
Residents argued the signs discourage the public’s longstanding use of the dry sand, while hotel owners said they are simply trying to identify private property, protect guests and give law enforcement the tools to address trespassing.
Commissioners ultimately approved Ordinance 2026-11, creating a 50-foot buffer that prohibits permanent stakes, poles and similar sign structures near the Gulf while still allowing removable A-frame signs outside the restricted area under specific conditions.
The broader dispute, however, is far from settled.
The debate centers on Florida’s customary use doctrine, which recognizes that the public may establish the right to continue using privately owned dry sand beaches if that use has historically been ancient, reasonable, uninterrupted and free from dispute.
In a phone interview with the Catalyst, Commissioner Karen Marriott said the ordinance reflects growing pressure on a beach that has changed significantly in recent years.
“For decades,” Marriott said, “people were pretty good at getting along.”
Today, she said, “more people are shoved into the same amount of space. There starts to be a little bit of friction.”
ALSO READ: St. Pete Beach cracks down on beachfront ‘no trespassing’ signs
Supporters of the ordinance argued private beach signs have become an attempt to discourage those historic rights.
“Government can regulate them, but cannot revoke them,” St. Pete Beach resident Dominic Isgro told commissioners. “We have those rights, and we insist on them.”
Isgro argued the ordinance should go even further. “The sign ordinance, frankly, doesn’t go far enough.”
Photographs included in the commission’s agenda packet show large sign assemblies near the shoreline. One stack begins with “Private Beach” and “Private Property – No Trespassing” before listing additional restrictions, including “No Alcohol, No Coolers,” “No Tents, No Umbrellas, No Chairs,” “All Bags Subject to Search” and “No Pets.”
Other images show standalone “No Trespassing – Private Beach” signs alongside hotel beach furniture, as well as rebar survey stakes capped with orange flags protruding from the sand.
To some residents, the signs represented far more than property markers.
“The sign that started all of this was egregious,” resident Deborah Schechtman said. “It was uncomfortable. It was threatening.”
Schechtman said language stating “All Bags Subject to Search” suggested authority private property owners do not possess.
“What we have here,” she said, “are hotels trying to take over our right to walk on the beach.”
Property owners offered a sharply different perspective.
Plaza Beach Hotel owner Rob Czyszczon rejected the notion that beachfront businesses are attempting to keep people off the shoreline.
“We are not telling anybody they cannot walk the beach,” Czyszczon said. “We just don’t want you parking on the beach and staying on private property.”
Czyszczon said clearly marking private property is essential because law enforcement relies on those boundaries when responding to trespassing complaints. He warned commissioners the ordinance could ultimately end up in court.
“If you pass this ordinance, there will be consequences,” he said. “There most likely will be a lawsuit.”
Attorney Alyssa Gagnon, representing beachfront property owners, argued the ordinance is “vague and overbroad” and raises First Amendment concerns.
Melanie Vandergrift, representing Islands End Resort, said beachfront property owners also worry about liability. “If anybody gets hurt,” she said, “they’re going to sue the property owner.”
Marriott said the issue escalated after a beachfront property owner was advised that clearly marking property boundaries was necessary before law enforcement could effectively address trespassing complaints. That led to a survey company installing rebar stakes topped with orange flags to mark property corners along the shoreline.
Marriott said she understood why the owner wanted “to mark his property line. But maybe this isn’t really the best option.”
That search for an alternative ultimately led commissioners to allow removable A-frame signs while prohibiting permanent sign structures closest to the water.
Environmental concerns also factored into the discussion.
During Tuesday’s meeting, St. Pete Beach City Attorney Ralf Brookes cited research suggesting exposed posts can interfere with sea turtle nesting. A study included in the commission’s agenda packet found nesting activity declined by about 41% in a test section of Melbourne Beach where researchers installed exposed pilings designed to simulate shoreline stabilization structures.
Marriott acknowledged the ordinance is unlikely to satisfy everyone.
“I don’t think any of us feel like we really got to the right answer,” she said. “But it’s kind of a start.”
John Edyvean
August 3, 2026at11:44 am
Well there’s a federal law that was passed back in the 50’s. Which tells anyone who buys ocean front property they have no rights to control access to any beach. Or stop people from going, this means they can’t make you pay or be ticketed. But judges don’t like this law so they still enforce you to pay. Its over money and power. If the ocean waters were rising they wouldn’t be building.
Jack Flenniken
July 1, 2026at11:03 am
I always loved St Pete Beach and have gone there since childhood. The COVID invasion has changed it all to the point that us locals are pretty much done with it. The beach in Florida belongs to all of us and these Yankee transplants can all go to you know where.
DANIEL SHERIDAN
June 27, 2026at3:05 pm
Beachfront property should be publicly accessible, provided individuals refrain from trespassing on private property, that rests on a balance of environmental heritage, legal precedent, and civic equality. Throughout U.S. history, coastlines have been viewed as a shared natural resource, not a commodity to be hoarded by a privileged few. This viewpoint does not seek to compromise the right to private property, but rather distinguishes between the actual footprint of a private home and the natural shoreline surrounding it.
Several core principles support the argument for open, respectful coastal access:
The Public Trust Doctrine: Deeply rooted in historic English common law and Roman law, the Public Trust Doctrine dictates that the foreshore—the area of land between the water and the mean high tide line—is held in trust by the state for the perpetual use and enjoyment of the general public. Because the wet sand area is legally recognized as a public good, individuals have an undeniable right to traverse and enjoy it, even if it is directly in front of a private residence.
Doctrine of Customary Use: Many states recognize the Doctrine of Customary Use, which dictates that if the public has historically, continuously, and peaceably used a stretch of dry sandy beach for generations, the public retains an inherent right to continue using that space for recreation.
Respecting Private Boundaries: This stance strongly distinguishes between the public space and a private homeowner’s yard or deck. Public access advocates agree that walking, sitting, or fishing along the shoreline is perfectly acceptable, provided beachgoers respect clear boundaries and do not wander onto patios, into private dunes, or onto posted private upland property.
Environmental & Cultural Identity: Coastlines are critical ecosystems and essential parts of a community’s local identity. Restricting access to the entire length of a beach limits the public’s ability to appreciate natural habitats and enjoy the socio-economic benefits of tourism.
Fair Use of Taxpayer Funds: Many beachfront areas receive taxpayer-funded beach nourishment projects to widen the sand and protect private homes from erosion. Because public money is used to maintain these coastlines, it logically follows that the public should have the right to access and enjoy the reclaimed shoreline.
Nancy Hoffman
June 26, 2026at11:32 am
Last week we opened our two beach chairs at the high tide mark in between Hilton and Rumfish. A Hilton patron got out if her 3rd row cabana to tell us it was fresh of us to block her view. Not only were we between resorts, there were two rows of cabanas and a row of chairs/umbrellas in front of her. It’s not the same friendly St Pete Beach of years ago. Shame.
Christine Bennett-Mir
June 26, 2026at12:49 am
I don’t believe anyone should “own the beach.”
If beachfront property were reasonably priced so regular families could afford to live there, this conversation might be different. But that’s not reality. Million-dollar homes, luxury condos, hotels, and corporations have bought up mile after mile of coastline, leaving everyone else fighting for access to what should be a shared natural resource.
It’s bad enough that we already have to pay to park at beaches our tax dollars help maintain. Now we’re talking about restricting where people can even walk or sit? That’s taking things way too far.
Owning beachfront property should never mean owning the beach itself. The sand, the shoreline, and access to the water belong to everyone. Protect private homes from trespassing, absolutely—but don’t turn Florida’s beaches into private clubs for the wealthy.
Enough is enough.