Because the resorts are business entities that contribute much to our community and economy. They are good neighbors. Gulf front owners who kickpeople of their beach and put up chains are greedy bastards.
I've been visiting the area for 28 years and I've been a member on the SoWal forums for 11 years. I've been following these discussions over the past couple of years as I've noticed the area, beaches, restaurants, roads and other amenities get more and more crowded.
I definitely see, understand, and respect the multiple points of view of ALL sides in this discussion (there aren't just "2 sides").
I do want to continue the discussion, though, about the large communities being allowed to place no trespassing/private beach signs (and I've even heard of wristbands or other ID being required), while smaller developments or single family owners are not allowed to place such signage or require such credentials.
It is stated above that the reason for this difference which some see as an inconsistency is because the larger (and more upscale) communities are "businesses entities that contribute much to our community and economy." I don't disagree that these businesses and/or their owners contribute to varying degrees in civic and community contribution as well as revenue generation. But does that give them more leverage to tell an inland-dwelling, non-beachfront property-owning resident of SoWal, or a visitor, for that matter, that they can't walk or hang out on their beach, yet it doesn't give a single unit beachfront property owner, or a small unit condo association, the same power?
To be honest, I wish everyone could "beach" wherever they want to, without annoying other beachers or crowding people out or blocking their view. But I see signs less prominently at houses and small condos than I do at the "large communities" including Seaside as pictured above in last week's Walton Sun...