Except in this case the availability of this space to the middle class was supposed to be explicitly guaranteed via an agreement with the Inn. In exchange for being allowed to expand they were to maintain the campsite and parking lot for public use.
So this isn't an idle "the rich own too much!" complaint followed by populist grandstanding, this appears to be a literal violation of an explicit contract.
So this isn't an idle "the rich own too much!" complaint followed by populist grandstanding, this appears to be a literal violation of an explicit contract.