ST. PETE BEACH \u2014 City commissioners unanimously adopted a much-debated beach sign ordinance on second reading June 23, even as the mayor conceded the rules aren\u2019t right yet and opponents warned a lawsuit is likely.<\/p>\n
The amendment to the city\u2019s sign ordinance prohibits stakes, poles, posts and other sign structures within 50 feet of the mean high-water line or visible water line along the Gulf. Property owners who want to erect a sign must obtain a permit and submit a deed, title history, insurance and a survey showing the sign\u2019s location.<\/p>\n
City Attorney Ralf Brookes reminded commissioners that the vote would codify an emergency ordinance adopted April 28 and set to expire June 27. Without action, he said, the city would lose its 50-foot sign-free zone along the Gulf.<\/p>\n
Brookes called the zone a matter of public safety, citing beachgoers who walk at night or play football, catch and Frisbee, or frolic in the waves. \u201cTonight\u2019s meeting is not about a few signs,\u201d he said. \u201cIt is about the proliferation of signs across the entire beach.\u201d<\/p>\n
The ordinance drew objections from both sides.<\/p>\n
Resident Dominic Isgro told commissioners it does not go far enough. He said it \u201callows private landowners to interfere with and obstruct lawful public rights of access, intimidate beachgoers and fill our beach with signs.\u201d<\/p>\n
Isgro urged the commission to add cones to the restriction and to ban signs anywhere seaward of the coastal construction control line. \u201cAny offending sign should be removed and only allowed to be relocated landward of the coastal control line,\u201d he said. \u201cThere should be no more than one sign per lot.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cThese changes are necessary because private property owners have already attempted to use signage to attack our customary use right,\u201d Isgro said. \u201cThey want to criminally trespass us, when we\u2019re sitting on a beach towel as we have for decades. We are not abandoning our lawful rights to use this beach.\u201d<\/p>\n
Robert Czyszczon, owner of the Plaza Beach Hotel, called the ordinance \u201cabsolutely unconstitutional.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWe have the right as property owners to mark off our property and put up no-trespassing signs, private property signs,\u201d he said. \u201cYou all do it at your own homes. You all do it at your own businesses, so we also have that right. That beach is our backyard and we have the right to protect it.\u201d<\/p>\n
Czyszczon said the rules would not stop anyone from walking the shoreline. \u201cWe just don\u2019t want you parking on the beach and staying on private property,\u201d he said. \u201cYou\u2019re allowed to pass through freely.\u201d<\/p>\n
He said clear signs are essential for enforcement. \u201cWithout signs people don\u2019t understand where the property lines are,\u201d he said. \u201cThere has to be a clear marker for the sheriff to enforce.\u201d He warned the ordinance would invite a legal challenge: \u201cThere most likely will be a lawsuit.\u201d<\/p>\n
Alyssa Gagnon, an attorney, told commissioners the revision did not fix the ordinance\u2019s constitutional problems but made them worse.<\/p>\n
\u201cThis is not a narrow safety regulation. It is an outright speech ban,\u201d Gagnon said. She said the rules bar private citizens from placing signs, stakes or posts near the water while expressly allowing government signs in the same area. \u201cThe government gets to speak but private citizens do not,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
The safety rationale collapses under scrutiny, Gagnon argued. \u201cIf one pole holding a no-trespassing sign is such a serious safety hazard that it must be banned, then so are umbrellas, chairs, tents, cabanas and every other common beach item that can obstruct access, injure someone in the dark or become windborne in a storm,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
The permit process only deepens the problem, she added, by forcing owners to submit a deed, title history, insurance and a survey \u201cfor a sign to protect their own property.\u201d Gagnon also argued the ordinance conflicts with Florida\u2019s trespass statute, which requires posted notice to enforce trespass. \u201cFlorida law tells them posted notice matters, but then they can\u2019t post that notice to get people off their property,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
Commissioner Karen Marriott said the goal was to fix a safety issue without making it worse, though she worried the vote \u201cwill make everybody mad.\u201d Still, she said, removing permanently placed signs within 50 feet of the water was \u201cas good as we\u2019re going to get right now.\u201d<\/p>\n
Mayor Scott Tate shared her unease. \u201cI feel we don\u2019t have this right yet, but I\u2019m worried about the alternative,\u201d he said. \u201cI fear not moving forward puts us in an extremely untenable position.\u201d He said he wanted to keep working to address property owners\u2019 concerns and give them a way to push back against abusive visitors.<\/p>\n
Tate said he disliked the prospect of a cluttered beach. \u201cI\u2019m not a fan of signs on our beach,\u201d he said. \u201cI don\u2019t want to see something long-term where we\u2019re just the beach of signs.\u201d He stressed the commission was not trying to alter customary use. \u201cIn fact, it is our explicitly overt assertion that we are not doing that,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n
\u201cI don\u2019t love where we are headed, but I\u2019m more fearful that if we don\u2019t do this we end up in a more untenable situation,\u201d Tate said. \u201cIt\u2019s the abusers that\u2019s causing all of this, and frankly I rather regulate the abusers.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201cWe may not be able to get the right answer here,\u201d he said, \u201cbut we got to do something.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"ST. PETE BEACH \u2014 City commissioners unanimously adopted a much-debated beach sign ordinance on second reading June 23,…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":324500,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[202,204,203,199,201,200],"class_list":["post-324499","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-st-petersburg","tag-st-pete","tag-st-pete-headlines","tag-st-pete-news","tag-st-petersburg","tag-st-petersburg-headlines","tag-st-petersburg-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/324499","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=324499"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/324499\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/324500"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=324499"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=324499"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-fl\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=324499"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}