This is a parody. Not affiliated with the Original Save Our Beach, its political committee, or the City of Deerfield Beach. The fine print is real.
Save Our Parking LotThe Original. Est. 1998.

Up there: the beach. It is not on the ballot.

Save our
beach
parking lot

4.3 acres of oceanfront asphalt, undefeated at the ballot box since 1998. This November the City wants to ask you about it. We are against the asking.

Four questions, translatedSee what's at stake

How to read this site

Example

Red signs are us, in character

We are doing an impression of a campaign that has spent 28 years defending a parking lot and calling it a beach. Nothing on a red sign should be read into the record.

Example

Ballot boxes are the fine print

  • Everything in a box like this is fact: what the ballot questions say, what the original campaign says, and where to check both.
  • If a box is wrong, tell us and we will fix it. That offer does not extend to the signs.

Sources: linked in every box.

Who should control Deerfield Beach's future?

The answer is simple: Deerfield Beach voters. The ones from 2002.

For decades the City Charter has protected your right to be consulted, by citywide referendum, on floor area ratios and the minimum legal size of a parking space. On November 3 the Commission plans to take that right away by the underhanded method of asking you.

We asked them not to. We wrote a letter. A vote on whether to keep our rules is an attack on your right to vote on our rules, and if that sentence confuses you, a yard sign is available.

The fine print (real)

Who decides on November 3

  • Nine charter amendments are on the ballot. Each one takes effect only if a majority of Deerfield Beach voters approve that specific question.
  • The beach-area rules were adopted in 2002. No one under 42 has ever been able to vote on them.
  • The city had about 64,000 residents the last time these were voted on. It has about 90,000 now.

Sources: Boca Post, July 21, 2026; City of Deerfield Beach.

Four questions, translated

Nine questions are on the ballot. The original campaign is fighting four. Here is each one twice: once the way we put it on a sign, once the way it is written.

DMove city elections from March to November

Our sign says

They are cancelling elections

Two of them. March 2027 and March 2029, gone, and everyone on the dais gets 20 bonus months. We prefer elections in March of odd years, when the electorate is small, familiar, and mostly us.

Is your next vote worth $1.15? That is our real slogan. We did the math ourselves.

The fine print (real)Our pick: Yes, with a wince

Question D

  • True: no city election in March 2027 or March 2029. Current terms run about 20 months longer. Districts 1 and 2 next vote in November 2028; Districts 3 and 4 and the mayor in November 2030.
  • Also true: from then on, city elections share the November even-year ballot, when far more residents vote, and the city stops paying for stand-alone March elections.
  • The extension is the one real cost on this ballot. The campaign's lawyer proposed the alternative: hold both March elections and cut those terms four months short. A Broward judge declined to pull D from the ballot in August.

Yes No

Sources: Boca Post; WLRN, Aug. 20, 2026. The $1.15 figure is a campaign volunteer's own estimate, unverified.

EWho approves city land deals over $750,000

Our sign says

Three commissioners. A data center.

Wouldn't you want a vote if three commissioners tried to sell city land to a DATA CENTER? Nobody has proposed a data center. We picked it because it polls worse than "lease renewal."

Also, "three commissioners" sounds like a gang. It is a majority of the five people you elect, which is how the budget passes too, but we don't put that on shirts.

The fine print (real)Our pick: Yes

Question E

  • Removes the referendum requirement for selling, leasing, trading or giving away city property worth more than $750,000. The Commission would decide, in public, by majority vote.
  • $750,000 was set in 1998 and never indexed. It is worth roughly half that now.
  • Existing carve-outs for the pier restaurant lease and beach and pier amenity contracts are unchanged.
  • Fair point for the other side: if E passes, a future lease of the main beach lot would be a Commission vote, not a referendum. That is the honest argument. It fits on a sign. They went with the data center.

Yes No

Sources: Boca Post; original campaign home page.

GFloor area ratio east of the Intracoastal

Our sign says

They are coming for the height limits

Without us: towers. Shadows on the sand. A skyline like everywhere else. Our website lists building height caps among the protections you are about to lose.

Please do not open Question G and check.

The fine print (real)Our pick: Yes

Question G

  • Keeps the 45-foot commercial and 55-foot multifamily height caps in the Charter.
  • Keeps the lot-coverage limits in the Charter.
  • Removes floor area ratio maximums and the restrictions on mixed and accessory uses. Same envelope; the change is how much usable floor fits inside it, and whether a building can put shops under apartments.

Yes No

Sources: Boca Post; The Real Deal, July 23, 2026; original campaign, What's at Stake.

HThe main beach parking area

Our sign says

The lot is under attack

This is the big one. This is the asphalt itself. For 24 years the Charter, the city's constitution, has fixed the minimum dimensions of a parking space at the beach. You cannot put a price on that. We have tried; it is $25 and comes with a t-shirt.

The fine print (real)Our pick: Yes

Question H

  • Removes the Charter's minimum parking-space-size rules for the main beach parking area.
  • Removes the limit on commercial use of the lot to 15 days a year. That cap is why events there are rationed.
  • Removes the ban on counting those spaces toward other properties' parking requirements.
  • Does not sell, lease, or build on the lot. Nothing on this ballot does.

Yes No

Sources: Boca Post; City of Deerfield Beach.