I am baffled mputnal. With the exception of the signage, you can absolutely do what is in your quote above and the signage might very well go away with some changes. I don't know ANYONE who likes signs on the beach itself. I find several things interesting about this whole mess: 1) Virtually EVERY heart warming, sentimental picture of CU shown by FBFA or old pictures of actual beach usage would never have created this firestorm in the first place. Look at the pictures closely sometime. Observe the density of people on the beach. Observe the uses on the beach. Observe the equipment on the beach. 2) Before this situation became so contentious. a beach share plan was proposed. Was it perfect? Was it a start? Was it worth trying before millions of dollars would be spent on lawsuits? Could it have been a test case or pilot program to at least TRY? 3) Even AFTER the County had effectively decided to have a CU ordinance, they convened a committee of people in favor of CU and property owners who were in favor of property rights, but willing to work together to see if some compromises would lead to peace on the beach. What happened? That committee found common ground and made a unanimous proposal to the BCC. Unfortunately, parts of that recommendation were either dismissed or diluted, but even so, the ordinance had some possibility of working UNTIL it was decided that enforcement would be complaint driven and there were insufficient code enforcement officers to handle the task, not to mention that they had little time to even completely understand what they were to enforce before the season began. To top that off, how much peace do you think it brought to the beach for BPOs to have to complain in order to get enforcement? Didn't work for all the reasons I've listed. If there is ever to be a "compromise", some people have to adjust their attitudes and the ones that can truly make a difference (like the BCC for one) have to make some hard decisions. They need to address: *Density of both people and equipment on the beach. *Address "presets", that do nothing more than reserve an area of the beach. Why should any owner entity have to accept people who are not their guests "reserving" beach when the people aren't even there to enjoy the beach but their equipment is? The managed vendor program is addressing this issue for vendors, but not the general public. * Behavior CAN be improved and needs to be. Can you control other people? No, BUT you can make it unappealing to continue bad behavior, including disrespect. I've used this example before, but I'll use it again to make this point: I own a restaurant (beach parcel). I serve the public (tourists and non-BPOs). Without them, I don't have a successful business (tourism). However, I have control over how many people are in my restaurant at one time (density). I have the right to deny service to individuals or even groups (exclusion), which I rarely exercise, but I do have that right. If individuals or groups create a disturbance in my restaurant, I have the right to speak to them about the behavior creating that disturbance (behavior). It they don't change the behavior, I can ask them to leave (exclusion). If they refuse, I can get help from law enforcement (Code Enforcement/WCSO). There's a lot of beach out there. If everyone would just look at all those wonderful pictures of "historical use" and reassess their need to have a reserved outdoor living space/camp setup at the beach, there might be hope again, but I'm not holding my breath. Way too much entitlement in this world today. Not just at the beach.