In July of last year Camden county filed a lawsuit seeking to force a company to sell land on which the county had long planned to build a launchpad for commercial rockets. The company backed out...
In July of last year Camden county filed a lawsuit seeking to force a company to sell land on which the county had long planned to build a launchpad for commercial rockets. The company backed out of the sale when Camden county residents voted on a referendum opposing the spaceport with the majority of residents voting against building it. Previous discussion
The county tried saying that the referendum was unconstitutional. In February of this year Georgia's high court upheld the referendum - the linked article.
I'm not really sure what to think here - I considered the safety and environmental effects at play, but felt it seemed low enough (or at least mitigable) to warrant moving forward. I wonder where...
I'm not really sure what to think here - I considered the safety and environmental effects at play, but felt it seemed low enough (or at least mitigable) to warrant moving forward. I wonder where the push against it comes from? Have there been companies who've shown interest/expended money on this project? This doesn't emerge in a vacuum.
If memory serves me correctly, the proposed spaceport had two main issues... One was close proximity to protected (?) / land that is in need of environmental protection...the 2nd issue at play was...
If memory serves me correctly, the proposed spaceport had two main issues... One was close proximity to protected (?) / land that is in need of environmental protection...the 2nd issue at play was that the proposed spaceport was poorly designed and was not thought to be able to survive long term due to poor business planning.
Essentially, it seemed like somebody wanted to do something because they could and darn the cost or impact to local communities and wildlife...according to my neighbors that used to live there.
Considering the munitions and pesticide factory which used to be there (per the article) I'm not convinced environmental protection is the main driving force in the opposition. That second one...
Considering the munitions and pesticide factory which used to be there (per the article) I'm not convinced environmental protection is the main driving force in the opposition. That second one seems like it holds more water, but could be explained away as a "cost of entry" point. They could upgrade things later if it proved successful.
I have no stake in this and only this article to go off of, so I could be missing the mark on all accounts.
In July of last year Camden county filed a lawsuit seeking to force a company to sell land on which the county had long planned to build a launchpad for commercial rockets. The company backed out of the sale when Camden county residents voted on a referendum opposing the spaceport with the majority of residents voting against building it. Previous discussion
The county tried saying that the referendum was unconstitutional. In February of this year Georgia's high court upheld the referendum - the linked article.
This saga is still unraveling. Like the county was still spending money after the supreme court's ruling and does the company who owned the property need to give back the money the county had already given them? Camden kept taxpayer meter running well after voters, courts snuffed chances for spaceport launch.
I find the entire thing interesting, and will probably look for another update next year.
I'm not really sure what to think here - I considered the safety and environmental effects at play, but felt it seemed low enough (or at least mitigable) to warrant moving forward. I wonder where the push against it comes from? Have there been companies who've shown interest/expended money on this project? This doesn't emerge in a vacuum.
If memory serves me correctly, the proposed spaceport had two main issues... One was close proximity to protected (?) / land that is in need of environmental protection...the 2nd issue at play was that the proposed spaceport was poorly designed and was not thought to be able to survive long term due to poor business planning.
Essentially, it seemed like somebody wanted to do something because they could and darn the cost or impact to local communities and wildlife...according to my neighbors that used to live there.
Considering the munitions and pesticide factory which used to be there (per the article) I'm not convinced environmental protection is the main driving force in the opposition. That second one seems like it holds more water, but could be explained away as a "cost of entry" point. They could upgrade things later if it proved successful.
I have no stake in this and only this article to go off of, so I could be missing the mark on all accounts.