I bring up the police because gracie identified a Florida Statute. A Florida Statute is a law (as least as far as I understand it). The law says "A guest may be removed, regardless of his/her behavior, if the guests fails ..."

Who do you want to enforce the law? The hotel management?

If the guest is unwilling to leave and has to "be removed", do you want the hotel management to forcibly remove the guest?

I don't. If I were the hotel manager, there's no way on this earth I would try to forcibly remove a guest. If a Florida law needed to be enforced, I would call in "law enforcement", i.e. the police.

Tell me, how else do you interpret gracie's post? What does "be removed" mean to you?

How do you thinkg a guest can be removed????? Did Management ASK them? That is where I would start (and knowing me probably end.) But I think the couple that decided to stay longer should have been ASKED to move for the one night.

sheesh! Removing a guest, and asking them to move, are two entirely different things. Gracie's post that you seem to think supports your position, was about a statute that allows a hotel to REMOVE a guest who over stays.

The issue probably nothing to do w/ the OPs situation - but popped up during the discussion.

There's no reason to go back and forth on this. Only the players know what happened. You don't know that the management DIDN'T ask the stayovers to move.

You thanked gracie for finding the law.
You thanked Neo as well.

The law states that a guest can "be removed". IMO, only law enforcement should do that.

That is my opinion.

It is also my opinion that I would drive away if I saw management had called the police OR chose to forcibly evict another guest. I don't want to stay in that type of place. That is my choice and my opinion.

My best guess is that the management has no "right" to attempt to forcibly remove a guest. In this country, law enforcement is the vehicle to enforce laws.

So, those are my opinions. They are worth what pays for them - so be it.

I think there were ways to handle it before getting police involved. When the original guests told the resort they wanted to stay an additional night, the management could have responded " well, I'm sorry to inform you that cabin 6 is reserved for tomorrow night, but you are welcome to extend your stay in Cabin 3 at $___ for your last night". This gives the original guest a choice to make without snubbing the original poster who made his deposit and was promised Cabin 6. (I am disregarding the fact that he never posted here before)

I can think of plenty of instances in which I would be happy if a hotel I were staying at called the police to evict another guest: drug dealing, prostitution, starting fires, excessive loud noise, violence, etc.

I'm sorry, msjames. You are right, and I was unclear. I would not want to stay in a place where the management would forcibly evict a guest simply because they wanted to stay another night.

The best thing I guess is to put my money where my mouth is. I can promise you, the next time I am in the area, I hope to stay at Rolling Waves. I also hope to be able to post a RAVE review of the cabins, the grounds and the management team

Oh my goodness Starsville, no need to apologize. Perhaps I've just stayed in some dumpier places than you, ha ha! If you go to Rolling Waves, we will all be waiting for your review.

I can't believe anyone would think badly of Rolling Waves because of the initial post. We have no idea what really happened. In case you are not aware, competitors write up NASTY feedback on tripadvisor.com all the time. This very well could be that very situation. We have no idea. So you can't judge Rolling Waves based on this, because the original poster has not been back and frankly has posted nasty things about them on other websites too - and also hasn't been back for clarification on those sites either.

But then again, we are all entitled to make our own judgments. Analytically speaking, I believe it would be a poor judgment to write off an establishment based on the suspicious post that refused to tell us where they did stay (and liked) and whose OP has never come back to clarify anything.

birder makes a very good point. The only GOOD reason I can think of for the original poster to have purposely NOT mentioned the great alternative she found, is if the poster was the owner of that alternative. We wouldn't want to be figured out, badmouthing the competition by putting our own business name in the complaint, would we? Otherwise any REAL traveler who dumped a "bad" place and found a great alternative would have been MORE concerned about giving good press to the good one -- or at least mentioning its name! There's something fishy on Longboat here.

I believe this happened. Looking at other sites I can see that she posted it all over the place.
I also think that she is an inexperienced traveler and probably 'difficult'.
I hear these people in airports, on planes and while standing in line to check in at hotels.
They b**** about every little thing. The complain about weather delays, during big storms. They complain about the hotel only having 4 people at check in and 10 people in line. They complain that the donuts at the LaQuinta were not "just out of the oven" fresh. They complain about all sorts of crap.
They have no consideration for the people around them... in fact, the people who did not check out of this hotel may have been one of these entitled complainers.
SHI* HAPPENS!
I am a platinum level traveler on AA and a few trips back there was this crazy person in the terminal raising hell because she could not get seats together with her teenager. The agent told her that the flight was full and there were not 2 seats together. She told her that it was pretty common for people to move around in the cabin to help out. Well, Ms. Priceline was not satisfied and continued to raise her voice and complain to anyone within earshot. The gate agent ultimately called up another customer and asked if they would trade seats. The customer reluctantly agreed. The lady did not say thanks. She snatched the boarding passes and continued complaining.
Traveling is so much more enjoyable if you just deal with the bumps in the road.

The poster who started this thread has 395 posts at Flyertalk.com. Also, he came back and identified the "good" hotel as Linger Longer in Bradenton. He is even on a first name basis with the owners:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=689609

I am not a member of FlyerTalk. Does the OP have posts about all sorts of topics?
I can't tell the tone of your post.
Do you think this is a 'fake' or not?

Joan:

THANK YOU! That makes it much more credible.

Wow - I sure sound angry in my post!
I am not - really!

Tx, I'm not a member either, so couldn't read any of the posts. Perhaps another Fodorite who also posts on flyertalk can sleuth and report back. But the "public profile" shows number of posts, and also that the poster is frequent status at Hilton, Marriott, etc. So probably not "inexperienced traveler". Yet, I wonder how somebody gets to that elite hotel stay level without knowing a hotel can bump/walk you. Maybe scsOO never experienced a mom-and-pop type operation, where selection is very limited?

Like you, I find the bumps often turn out to be the best part of the road (just like the OP finding a better hotel for cheaper). That's the memory I'd be posting about!

Yes, the poster uses the name of Scotty on Flyer Talk and has many posts. Reading through a handful of them indicates he is a "major" traveler, with numerous posts about FF miles, awards, and upgrades, etc. He posted the exact same message there as here, but when someone asked what the other place was, he answered -- apparently because he spends a lot of time at that site.

Another interesting point, however, is that they ended up at Anna Marie Island, some distance north. I only just realized that here he said "When we arrived the MORNING of our check-in", so now I'm wondering why they were even there. Did they go by some 5 or 6 hours before check-in time (3 PM) to check it out and perhaps decided they didn't like the looks of the place and this was a good "out"? Or were they trying to check-in early which may have been part of the problem? I would understand a bit if he had complained about the bed arrangement in the alternative cottage --but he never mentioned that -- I even wonder if they were aware of it -- but there's something about that complaint of being two cottages further from the beach they couldn't see anyway, or supposedly being right on the road, when it wasn't that just seems odd about all this. Meanwhile it's interesting that once they refused this place, they drove past dozens and dozens of other places, some miles away before finding one they settled on.

The hotel manager shouldn't have "confirmed" cabin #6. A good hotel will tell you instead that you are making a "request," and that "requests" will be honored - if possible.

The internet is a perfect place to expose bad business practices. If you think OP has no complaint, OP has done Rolling Waves a favor drawing attention to their lodging even causing some to want to stay there for some reason.

At any rate, under the circumstance, I think the guests wanting to extend their stay should have been asked to move.

"At any rate, under the circumstance, I think the guests wanting to extend their stay should have been asked to move."

Who says they weren't?? We ONLY have one ranting post from one person w/ one side of the story. No one knows what really happened . . . . .

I think we need Columbo to sort this one out.

I'm surprised we haven't heard back from Scotty. You'd think a regular travel forum poster would have difficulty not checking back in on his own post here.