Just for discussion sake, if BFO were willing to share the beach using the County's proposed "sole uses", but still retained the right to exclude if people would not abide by those sole uses and/or disturbed the quiet enjoyment of the owner and/or others on their property, could supporters of CU live with that? Part of the reason that the CU ordinance failed miserably was due to lack of understanding of the rules by virtually everyone (including code enforcement) and a lack of enforcement or ineffective enforcement due to not wanting to upset the tourists and lack of staffing. Two to three people per shift cannot cover the whole beach in any kind of timely fashion. The County could have avoided all of this IMO if they had established a set of rules that were similar to the sole uses across the entire beach and then truly enforced those sole uses. If CU advocates are willing to accept sole uses on privately owned beaches, would they accept it for ALL beaches? Based on the number of tents, canopies, newfangled sun shelters of varying kinds, gigantic coolers, blow up furniture, toys, and whatever else people can think of to drag down to the beach, I have difficulty believing that people will ever accept that they can't reserve and occupy the beach in whatever manner they see fit. Maybe THAT is why BFO are fighting to protect their rights rather than the widespread belief that they just don't want anybody on their beaches.
