Jon
I don't see your logic, which implies you could build a links golf course in the middle of London, if you wanted to.
Sean
The political process implies that more people will enjoy the dunes as part of a golf course than as dunes per se.
Jim
Well said.
Rich
Rich,
with enough money you could build a links style golf course in the middle of London. Isn't Sandhills links style despite being a good distance from the sea? Wasn't the farmland the KB, CS or the Castle Course far from being the credible looking links landscape they are today?
If all land is equally unique as your statement requires it to be to be a viable counter argument Sean's then are you of the opinion that the proposed site is the 'only' possibility for this project and if so why?
I would be obliged if you would do me the courtesy of answering this straight forward question.
also your point about more people enjoying the dunes as golf course than now is actually missing the point of the SSSI. It is to do with nature and not how much fun we can extract from a particular place or thing. We won't be able to fix this after we have broken it.
Jim,
here are all of my posts so far,
‘it is a SSSI of European importance and not farmland. Regardless of how good a golf course could be built on it, it will still ruin the site. There are just some sites hich you don't build on. There are just some sites hich you don't build on. As to the buildings, have a look at Trumps proposal. It ain't exactly the R&A Clubhaouse’
-------------------------------------------------------------------
‘the fact that Mark Parnisen (Kingsbarnes & Castle Stuart) rejected this site due to the enviromental issues should be a good indication of the problems here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
‘I would suggest instead of berating Sean you should stop and think about what he is saying. The stupidity of some of yours views views beggars belief even by your standards. I do believe that you might have an inkling about golf and the various facets of the game. It is just a shame you refuse to use it.’
--------------------------------------------------------------------
‘it amazes me how you can miss a point that is this big. It isn't a question of if the land can be put to good use by society. It is a unique NATURAL site and should be left so. People are not the only creatures on this world and maybe we should be thinking about other animals as we have destroyed enough of there living space already.
Will Scotland benifit from Trump's project, hell yes of course it will. Does it need to be built on the unique SSSI. NO, maybe Donald should visit Kingsbarnes to see what can be done with farmland.’
----------------------------------------------------------------
‘I think this is a case of the state should be protecting this site because the site is important. I am pretty well aware of the process of making something SSSI status and they only do something if it is felt of significant importance to the area it is in. The state has the responsibility to protect these sites taking the well being of the site as the top priority.
With the sort of money that Donald is going to through at this project he could take flat farming land and turn it into something outstanding. Look at KB and CS'
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
‘It would however have been wise for the council to have found another site, possibly better located for transport links that they would have supported. This way they could have said we want the project but we would prefer it to be here. Trump is an intelligent business man who would have listened to another option if he thought it would be fanincially good. The council however just said no to the project and now it is a case of who is going to win. This isn't about the site this is all about ego now.’
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'sorry for using the word "they" but I did not intend it to be taken as reffering to anybody in particular.
I still stand by what I said in my earlier post. A project should be judged on its values but even if it is of overiding importance to an area that doesn't, IMHO, give it the right to ride shotgun over all other considerations. If there is another site that is equally suited to this project and is less sensitive then surely it would be wiser to use it don't you think? As I said in my last post I don't think it is an issue of the land as with enough money you can do almost anything. There is a lot of know how out there.
Lou,
I normally don't put in such comments but in Patrick's case I make an exception. Its not even a serious thing really, Patrick makes some wild comment. Someone corrects him. He knows he will have to admit he is wrong and so ignores it and goes off at a tangent.
Starting a discussion about your point of view by rubbishing the other person is an old tactic used mainly when you do not believe your point of view will stand up on its own merit (you could have also made some belittling comment about the use of the word "views" twice just for alittle extra effect ).
Also if you read my posts you will find I have made my case. That you have not chosen to address it is your decision but please don't accuse me of not doing something when I have.
Although you are correct that environmental concerns are connect with economic well being it doesn't mean that in times of economic decline that environmental concerns should go out of the window. This is the point that is for me the main stubbling block. If this site was the only possibility then I would be pro project there but I don't think it is.
You know what they say Lou, "don't kick a man when he's down..."’
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
‘Rich,
If all land is equally unique as your statement requires it to be to be a viable counter argument Sean's then are you of the opinion that the proposed site is the 'only' possibility for this project and if so why?’
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think my point is made clearly in the above but as you have not been able to understand it I'll say it again:
What I am saying is the project is in the best interests from an economic point of view to the area so it should be pushed. I don't however think it should be on a SSSI if other less sensitive sites are available that will allow the project to be built with the same propects of success.
There are quite clearly other sites that would allow this and indeed some that have better lines of communication. There are also enough examples to show you do not need the perfect piece of land to produce a masterpiece if you have enough money and the right people.
One last point, I don't agree with you on your a majority rule sanctioning everything stance. I don't believe that the fact that there might be more people for something than against it automatically gives the green light to go ahead. A society has a responsibility to protect the interests of others (be they people or mother nature) if they are not able to protect it themselves.
I am sure when you think about it that you also don't really believe what you put forward in your earlier post.