@Danny Glidewell: While I do not know exactly why there is opposition, here are some things I have heard:
1) Fear of making their property difficult to rent or sell due to influx of people to the beach in an area that has typically been relatively free of others beside the condo owners/renters. Extension of this is the concern that property values might go down.
2) Traffic congestion: There are times (generally at night, sometimes at lunch) that 30A gets backed up waiting for people to turn into Stinky's to valet park.
3) If people come to park and the parking is full, there is concern that overflow parking will extend to areas of 30-A and/or neighboring streets, some of which are in nearby neighborhoods.
4) Some people feel that this will become Stinky's parking paid for by taxpayers.
I know there is a lawsuit attempting to stop this purchase. I don't know what the complaints are in the lawsuit. The above mentioned items are things I have heard from people who live nearby, but are not actually in the adjacent condos.
It is worth noting that the parking that is drawn on the lots is a proposed plan that was a suggestion of how parking might be done by someone representing the seller, I believe. It may be that there will not be that many parking spots. If the County does NOT allow overflow to park on 30-A (except in specifically designated parking spots) and they
don't allow beach parking in the neighborhoods nearby (and enforce the no parking), then that might allay some concerns. In terms of the financial aspects of rental, selling, or property values, those questions may not have an answer right now.
In terms of Stinky's parking, most of the excess demand occurs in the evening when may beachgoers have left the beach, but that is another unknown.