Mike, I'm guessing you and Mr. Baron are a joy to be around at parties.
I thought George did a very good job explaining why it isn't simple (and therefore inexpensive) to offer two fuels at the same airport, even if they purchase a shiny new 1000 gallon fuel truck. Yes, RHV has one of those new trucks with "GAMI" plastered on the side, but they ALSO have a tank to store an entire semi load of fuel. You should re-read George's comment about how that makes all the difference vs. having to call a tanker and doing a "truck to truck" transfer, which is very expensive.
As for the infrastructure at the vast majority of airports only supporting one type of fuel, that is also true. I don't argue that in the olden days, when I started flying, many airports did have multiple types of fuel. But that is not the case today, since almost all planes can get by just fine with 100LL. When the demand for the alternate fuels went away, so did the pumps and the tanks. Sure, those airports could put in new tanks and either a pump or a truck, but who will pay for that? What is the incentive for those small airports to invest that much money? The other problem with a truck is that you have to pay someone to operate it, and it wouldn't be open 24x7, which most municipalities try to offer.
And 20% higher cost for G100UL??? I think the two airports that sell both 100LL and G100UL (Tupelo and Watsonville) have the price differential around 50 cents, which is closer to a 9% increase. Comparing the price vs "other nearby airports" is patently unfair. We can all find a nearby airport that charges more than 20% more than we are paying for 100LL.
I'm still surprised you guys dislike George and GAMI so much, when I don't think you are claiming it is your planes that have been damaged by G100UL. I'm happy they are trying to solve the lead problem, and if I decide I don't want to try it in my plane, I won't try it. If 100LL is banned, and G100UL is the only option, then yes, I'll use it and be happy that I still have an option to use my plane.
Ute