I have no idea. However, your question is somewhat ambiguous in the general context of this discussion. Individuals who rent property in OPA, whether short or long-term, are "associate members" of OPA and have use of the facilities on the same terms as owners. They are not the "general public" as used in the Court decision.

The Court ruling in the Beach Parking case did not address what OPA calls "associate members" in the Charter. The court ruling contained this: "Accordingly, we have affirmed denial of a § 501(c)(4) exemption to a private subdivision that limited use of its facilities to individuals who owned property within the development and their guests."

The Court decision also contained this: "Indeed, the Association's excellent counsel conceded at oral argument that the parking lots and beach club 'obviously' do not benefit the general public."

Can OPA possibly be "private?" Perhaps, but it cannot be private and also be a 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organization. At least that is my take.

So long as OPA is a 501(c)(4) tax-exempt organization, your questions are meaningless.