Thrive
Why St. Pete Beach’s beach signs sparked a legal fight
“A beachfront parcel can be privately titled,” while also being subject to public recreational rights.
One month after St. Pete Beach approved new regulations governing private beach signs, City Attorney Ralf Brooks held a public seminar Thursday to explain the legal doctrine at the center of the controversy.
Brooks walked residents through Florida’s customary use doctrine, recent court decisions and the city’s own legal history as the city defends a federal lawsuit challenging the recently adopted beach sign ordinance.
The lawsuit, filed this month by Plaza Beach Motel, LLC and Undertow Beach Bar – St. Pete Beach, Inc., challenges the ordinance regulating signs placed on privately owned portions of the beach.
The seminar came just weeks after the City Commission approved an ordinance prohibiting permanent stakes, poles and similar structures within 50 feet of the Gulf while continuing to allow removable A-frame signs outside that buffer under certain conditions. The ordinance followed months of controversy over signs declaring portions of the beach private property and warning beachgoers against trespassing.
Brooks said one of the biggest misconceptions about customary use is that it determines ownership.
“A beachfront parcel can be privately titled” while also being subject to public recreational rights established through customary use, he explained.
Brooks traced Florida’s customary use doctrine back to the Florida Supreme Court’s 1974 City of Daytona Beach v. Tona-Rama decision. Courts, he said, look for evidence that public use of a particular stretch of beach was ancient, reasonable, uninterrupted and free from dispute.
Each case, Brooks said, turns on the history of a specific stretch of beach.
“If you have 300 feet or you have 600 feet, probably not all that 600 feet is going to be customary use,” Brooks said. “Only that portion that you can prove.”
Brooks also reviewed a June federal court decision involving Palm Beach, where a judge found the town had established customary use over a 0.4-mile stretch of beach despite more recent trespassing complaints from a property owner.
He noted the ruling applies only to that section of shoreline and does not establish customary use across Florida.
Brooks also discussed the city’s legal history with Silver Sands Beach and Racquet Club, which challenged a previous customary use ordinance. The case settled before a judge ruled on customary use, and the city later repealed its ordinance while allowing the condominium to keep its existing private property signs.
During public comment, the discussion shifted from legal history to how residents and beachfront property owners believe the beach should be managed.
One resident urged the city and beachfront property owners to avoid years of litigation by focusing on disruptive behavior rather than broad efforts to exclude people from the beach.
“We could get along, and it could be win-win,” the resident said. “Fighting like seven years of fighting in Walton County is not what we want to do.”
The resident argued concerns raised by property owners, including alcohol use, bonfires and disorderly behavior, can already be addressed through existing laws without making trespassing the central issue.
A representative of local hoteliers offered a different perspective, saying beachfront businesses welcome residents walking the shoreline but object when non-guests set up chairs, umbrellas and tents on privately owned property.
“The hoteliers are not saying that the residents are not allowed on the beach,” the representative said. “We welcome the residents on the beach.”
The representative said public beaches already exist elsewhere within the city for those wishing to spend the day with chairs and umbrellas.
Several attendees also asked why signs and stakes near the water could not simply be removed immediately.
Brooks said the city can regulate unsafe sign structures and that the recently adopted ordinance prohibits rebar, stakes and poles within the restricted area. However, he said enforcement must still follow established legal procedures.
Brooks also confirmed the city’s attorney’s office is defending the federal lawsuit challenging the beach sign ordinance.
“The city’s attorney’s office is defending the case that has been recently brought against the city for the signs in the water area,” Brooks said
