At its 2:00 PM workshop on January 28th, the Madeira Beach City Commission will hear a “Tom & Kitty Stuart Park Bathroom and Post Storm Update” from the city’s public works department. But will any of the elected city commissioners present ask about the city’s assignment of use rights of this public park park to the private business that is Caddy’s restaurant? Many residents are up in arms about the issue, and may show up because public comment will be taken at the workshop.
Tom and Kitty Stuart were local pioneers, and a married couple where both came from nothing and did well for themselves. Both passed away many years ago. After her husband had passed, Kitty executed this warranty deed in 1987 in which she donated the beachfront land to the city that is now Tom & Kitty Stuart Park in Madeira Beach.
Kitty’s deed was very clear: “this deed is made and accepted [by the city] on the condition that the land hereby conveyed be used and maintained solely as the site of a city park” (bold-facing and underlining added). In fact, Kitty used the term “solely” twice more in the one-page deed, perhaps at the advice of her attorney James Holton (now retired).
Apparently, Kitty wasn’t clear enough because after Hurricane Helene, the city has arranged things in the park such that the public’s use is reduced 80% or more compared to before the Hurricane. Meanwhile, the adjacent Caddy’s restaurant now has use of it. Such “privatization of public lands” is something that the Guardian was covered before, all up and down the Pinellas beaches. This noxious phenomenon is a cause for concern, even when it’s only temporary, because a public park is a public park. There is no “post-hurricane exception” to that standard, and especially not one that benefits private interests to the detriment of the public.
Below is a picture taken January 12th that shows two parking spots at the northwest corner of the park.
Were you able to tell that the slot on the right is public parking…and the one on the left is private parking belonging to Caddy’s? Neither were we, given that no signs are present to inform the public.
Notably, this is the only spot open to the public at this time, as seen by the below picture of the area behind these two parking slots (at the location of the bicycle seen in the middle right of the above picture).
Note the four public parking slots are blocked off from use for no apparent or stated reason, and with no date informing the public when they will become available for use again. This arrangement also conveniently allows Caddy’s to have its patrons enjoy a one-way traffic flow in through the city park on its south side, into Caddy’s parking garage. Those patrons then exit in their cars, again in one way traffic, through the north end of Caddy’s.
Caddy’s entered into this agreement with the City on April 25, 2025 for use of the park in this fashion. The agreement even spells it out: the city agreed to relocate “a portion of the security fence at the Park and allowing Caddy’ and its customers access to the Caddy’ restaurant through the portion of the Park which will be open to the one lane of traffic following the movement of the fence.”
The agreement recites that “Caddy’ believes that the Park being fenced off creates a traffic and/or safety concern for Caddy’ customers” and that the city is entering into the agreement “in order to alleviate Caddy’ perceived traffic and/or safety concern” (bold-facing and underlining added).
The city apparently did not make its own determination as to whether a “traffic and/or safety concern” existed, relying instead simply on Caddy’s stated “belief” and “perception” about the matter.
How do less fortunate residents get the city to solely act on the resident’s beliefs and perceptions? And at no cost, as is the case with Caddy’s agreement. They did not pay one penny for this exclusive use of public land.
As always….the Guardian reports and the readers decide. Please like our Facebook page to find out when we publish new stories.