ORIGINAL: cj_rumley
Well, you have said previously in this forum IIRC is that the efforts to build a regional site in CA was killed by some tree huggers and their concerns over the welfare of some obscure species of toads that breed in vernal pools put the kibosh on that plan. Do I need to dig that up from the forum archives for you?
Perhaps you should scour the forum archives if only to refresh your memory on what I actually wrote. I never mentioned tree huggers, toads or vernal ponds. I did write that the California State Department of Fish and Game ultimately did the project in over concerns of potential habitat for a small fish (as I recall, I may have the species wrong) that has not been seen outside of the Sierra proper, some 75 miles or so away.
How that impacts the chances of a new project to build a District flying site is that it has placed a heavier burden on any future projects since it would be viewed by many on the EC, as well as the membership, as good money after bad. The first time around was approved by a narrow margin and was only just barely popular, especially outside the District. So due to the way that the first project proceeded and ended it has raised the bar even higher for the consideration of future projects.
I have been making the point that I am not sure that proposing another effort demonstrates a full grasp of what happened the first time around and how that impacts the chances for a second time around. Sort of a learning from our mistakes kind of thing.