Don't you suppose there is more to this? Like possiby vanity and self-serving. Way different philosophies may be a part, but why would an influential person who helped form an organization(and encouraged it to form) soon thereafter sets up a competing entity? Maybe I am reading more into it, but something has caused some bad blood.

From a personal standpoint, is it that critical to own the light, or is it just as effective to allow a community to own it and let a group manage it by long term agreement?

Yes, many hands make the work load lighter, and it would make sense to collaborate on a project. We all want the lighthouse(s) to benefit from the efforts. But you have one group trying to undercut the other in this case.

Stirring the pot, thinking aloud, but there is more to this than what has surfaced so far.

IMHO,

Dave