Under normal circumstances I would tend to agree. You could easily move ahead under the “proceed and ignore” policy. The unions would sue and Gaylord would likely prevail in court

Unfortunately the game changes DRAMATICALLY when there is litigation against the EIS. All the union has to do is find 1 vernal pool created by their own tire tracks, or a single burrowing owl nest and the whole thing can get VERY MESSY. Everyone knows that if someone looks hard enough they will find at least 1 endangered/protected species on a coastal site that size, and in a worst case scenario, Gaylord could be required to purchase a similar property (location, size) to relocate all endangered species and deed the property to be held as open space indefinately.

All the support in the world from the city of Chulajuana wouldn’t do Gaylord a bit of good if the Unions challenged the EIR in court and dragged the State/Fed EPA into it.

Unless the city was willing to accept ALL responsibility and liability for producing a clean EIR on the site, on the first mention of challenging the EIR, walking away was clearly the best exit strategy for Gaylord.