Trump's Aberdeen Episode

[Garland Bayley]

...
He produces quality products.  He puts his money where his mouth is.
...

Patrick! Go join the nearest Trump course! After all, it has to be of the highest "quality".

When I followed the LPGA visit to Trump's CA course, I found it quite humorous to listen to and read interviews where the golfers were continually pushed to say the course was good, but strained their best to not say that. They all came out with the same response. The views from the course are wonderful. As I recall, it seems they had a one year run for that event at that course.

As for the firing, it would almost seem that it had to be in the show as a promotion for his other show, where his tag line is "You're fired!"

[Niall C]

Niall, welcome to the New American Way - and believe me when I say it makes me want to vomit.

George

Let me make one thing clear, I am against this development in principle but it most certainly has nothing to do with the nationality of the developer. Neither is it to do with me being anti development/golf etc. which obviously I'm not being on this website. As a matter of fact I'm in the property industry and until a couple of years ago actually worked for an Aberdeen property development company, allied to the fact that I once seriously looked at getting into the golf course design business and clearly I don't have any inbuilt prejudice against the principle of golf development or any other development for that matter.

The reasons I'm against this development are because firstly the whole Planning process has been subverted by a heap of PR, spin, gladhanding and for that I blame the politicians of all parties both local and national, and the second reason is because they are building this course on a SSSI which simply will be destroyed by the process of building the golf course. I have to believe that a shifting sand dune system has to be lost as soon as you stabilise it and turf over it.

Compare this to the development of Machrihanish Dunes where the developer was made to jump through hoops with what I would percieve was a lot more restrictions on a SSSI site than the Trump team are having to contend with. And yet if they stopped playing golf tomorrow at Machrihanish the course would revert back to what it was. I wonder, would the same thing happen at Balmedie ?

Patrick has been the only one defending Trump on this thread and fair play to him, as without wishing to appear flippant, someone has to do it. He has met the man and has experienced a different side to him than the cartoon villain he is usually portrayed as being. He's also pointed out that a lot of what he has to say is about promotion and again that is a side of any business. However this thread started with Trumps involvement in the design process and I personally don't see how that is gouing to make the course better. Even if the course turns out to be a belter you still won't convince me that it couldn't have been even better without interference from the owner.

Niall

ps. sorry about the green type in my last post

[George Pazin]

Niall, thanks for the clarification and thoughtful response, but I knew you weren't disparaging Trump because of his nationality. Similarly, I wasn't disparaging all Americans with my previous post. I was simply saying that the tactics and strategies employed by many titans of industry these days leave much to be desired. Sadly, many choose to take the path that many years ago would not have been taken except by the unethical and criminal. Today, those lines are much less clear, and that's to everyone's detriment.

Apologies if my post wasn't clear before.

[Steve Okula]

Patrick,

I have long admired your skills of argumentative analysis on this forum, but in this case you have truly outdone yourself. I disagree with practically everything you say, yet you are still right! You are one hard-headed cantakerous son-of-a-bitch, but you fill me with wonder and envy. I mean that sincerely.

Whatever position people have on the issue, I think your tenacity and surgical dismemberment of one arguement after another deserves a standing ovation. It's the rhetorical equivalent of Chuck Norris beating up a bar full of bikers.

Are you a trial lawyer? I'll bet you're expensive.

Full disclosure, Pat, do you have any direct interest in the fortunes of Donald Trump? Or is this just sport for you?

[Dan Boerger]

Perhaps the best way to get this project done, as close to budget and on time as possible, is the way Trump is doing it. Did one ever think of that?

If ones' argument is that the project shouldn't be done at all, those that allowed him access to the land and approvals should be taken to task -- not Trump (unless he's broken a law I'm not aware of).

Fast forward 10 years ... Lots of Americans alone travel to Scotland for a great golf experience. As we Yanks plan trips to the Motherland will we include this course in our itinerary? I STRONGLY suspect plenty will and for numerous reasons. But that remains to be seen.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, what are the facts?  

Jim, you were the one alledging that Trump tried to use eminent domain to remove neighbors.

Private citizens and private corporations can't exercise eminent domain, that's a governmental function.

You made the allegation, thus you have the burden of proof.
Were you just parroting the words of others ?  Or did you exercise due diligence and determine the facts before you submitted your post ?

Eminent Domain is a use based principle.

AND, those having their property taken vis a vis eminent domain must be FAIRLY compensated for their property.

So, please, since you made the allegation, present the facts to substantiate your claim.

Thanks

[Garland Bayley]

Patrick,

As a lawyer, you should be familiar with the fairly recent Supreme Court decision that granted greater powers of eminent domain to local governments. That decision came about allowing private land to be taken and given to other private parties for their use in building revenue generating properties. Therefore, I find it disingenuous that you would claim eminent domain is solely a government function.

Now since you know we computer nerds don't know our law very well, I suspect you will try to educate me. But, no matter, I think the rest of the people reading the thread get the drift.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I have long admired your skills of argumentative analysis on this forum, but in this case you have truly outdone yourself. I disagree with practically everything you say, yet you are still right! You are one hard-headed cantakerous son-of-a-bitch, but you fill me with wonder and envy. I mean that sincerely.

Steve,  Thanks.  And, I mean that sincerely.
Yesterday I had fairly serious surgery.  Afterwards, the surgeon said that I couldn't drive, fly, play golf or have sex for six (6) weeks.
He then asked me, what I was going to do.   I told him, I'm going to get another opinion, that I was going to find another doctor who would let me do all of those things.  A doctor whose opinion would agree with mine..   We both laughed.  The doctor, a stranger before I had this particular problem, has become a good friend, as have all of my physicians and surgeons.

I think they like seeing patients with a positive attitude and a decent sense of humor.
 
Being strong willed/stubborn, plus having a sense of humor, got me thru very serious cancer (as if there's any other kind) and a lot of serious medical and other issues.

Another friend called today to see how the surgery went.  When I told him what my surgeon said, he said, well, I guess we can't play in my member guest in Florida on March 30th.
I said, "why not ?" He said, "because you can't fly"  To which I said, "Don't worry, I'm making reservations on the train, and, I'm putting and chipping in my living room every day, so, I'll be ready, and I'll be competitive, so send our entry in and start working on your game."

I know one thing.  If you say you can't, you can't, you're beaten already.  But, if you say you can, and you try, even if you're not successful, the effort is a noble one.  Now, I won't go overboard to the point that I compromise my health, but, I will push myself in an attempt to achieve my goal.

A few years ago, after pre-operative chemo, radiation and surgery, I wanted to take a short break in Florida before returning to full time chemo.
The doctor said I could travel, but NO GOLF.  I said, what about putting and chipping ?  He said, OK, but NO GOLF.
So, I went to Florida, I putted and chipped and it felt pretty good, so I PLAYED GOLF.  But, I didn't tell the surgeon until two years later.
Yesterday, when the surgeon told me "NO" on the activities, my wife told him, "you don't understand who you're dealing with, he's nodding his head in agreement, but, in the back of his mind, he's saying, oh yeah, we'll see about that."

If you tell me I can't do something, I'm going to do it, or at least try to do it.
If you ask me for something, I'll do what I can to do it for you.
It must date back to an early problem with authority (;
I'm watching TV, channel surfing a while ago, and I see some guy who has to cut 4 out of 12 gorgeous women, and he's crying.
Are you F'in kidding me, he's crying ?
What the F has happened to us, we've become a nation of creampuffs, neutered marshmellows.[/b]

Whatever position people have on the issue, I think your tenacity and surgical dismemberment of one arguement after another deserves a standing ovation. It's the rhetorical equivalent of Chuck Norris beating up a bar full of bikers.

Please don't let this get out, but, I do listen to reason.
And, I have changed my mind.
Interestingly enough, one such instance was over Merion.
Originally, I told Moriarty and MacWood that they were dead wrong, but, as they presented more facts, more evidence, I began to transition from rejecting their premise, to embracing it.  
If someone presents a set of facts followed by a reasoned argument, I'll consider it and may change from rejecting to supporting it, but, I've found no such facts or reasoning on this thead, only emotional responses (;[/b]

Are you a trial lawyer? I'll bet you're expensive.

I was all set to go to law school, when, I eloped and got married, thus ending what would have been a brilliant career before it began.
Although, I did spend a good deal of today arguing with two attorneys on a critical issue.
After six hours of back and forht debate, they agreed with me.  I think, because I presented the facts, and a reasoned, logical argument that led to a path that allowed us to solve a very delicate and difficult problem.  Plus, my mother always said I should have been a lawyer.  There's something about the law and being a lawyer, that I like.  My daughter is an attorney, so maybe it was in the genes.[/b]

Full disclosure, Pat, do you have any direct interest in the fortunes of Donald Trump? Or is this just sport for you?

Not in the least.

In fact, he got a little miffed at me when I saw him over Thanksgiving in Florida.
I was at his course, on the practice tee and he was next to me hitting balls.
He had 3-4 caddies around him, two staffers and a few members.
As he was hitting balls, he was having a discussion with the caddies.
The caddies were insisting that caddying made you a better golfer.  They were listing the reasons why.
So, Donald says, "so you really think that caddying makes you a better golfer ?"  They all answer, "YEP"
So, I turn to him and say, "Donald, would you like to loop for me today ?"  Everyone laughs histerically.
He does not look happy.  So, I say to him, "What are you worried about, I'm a big tipper, you'll do Okay today"
Again, everyone laughs but him.
He was playing with two fellows I know, one I've known since 1988.
I'm sure he asked them about me, but, I could be wrong.
After golf, at lunch, he couldn't have been nicer.
We spoke about a few things and he was so nice to my son.  He asked him questions, was attentive, etc., etc..
He was incredibly gracious.  And, I enjoyed our conversation.  If anything, I owe him a thank you note for being so kind, so solicitous toward my son, who's only 12 and knows who he is, but, doesn't really know who he is.

I have other friends who have done business with him, who claim that he's difficult, and I know another fellow who's had a hard time with him over what seemed trivial to me, but, that's the way he is.  We all have good days and bad days, we all relate to different people differently, so, who knows.  He was incredibly nice to my son, and that's almost all that counts in my personal experiences with him.[/b]

[Patrick_Mucci]

...
He produces quality products.  He puts his money where his mouth is.
...

Patrick! Go join the nearest Trump course! After all, it has to be of the highest "quality".

When I followed the LPGA visit to Trump's CA course, I found it quite humorous to listen to and read interviews where the golfers were continually pushed to say the course was good, but strained their best to not say that. They all came out with the same response. The views from the course are wonderful. As I recall, it seems they had a one year run for that event at that course.

Garland,

Remind me, who designed Trump LA ?

Was it Pete Dye ?[/b]

As for the firing, it would almost seem that it had to be in the show as a promotion for his other show, where his tag line is "You're fired!"

I can see how you could think that, but, just from the way he took Paul aside in the beginning makes me discount that as the motivating factor.
Time will tell.

[Sean_A]

Patrick,

I have long admired your skills of argumentative analysis on this forum, but in this case you have truly outdone yourself. I disagree with practically everything you say, yet you are still right! You are one hard-headed cantakerous son-of-a-bitch, but you fill me with wonder and envy. I mean that sincerely.

Whatever position people have on the issue, I think your tenacity and surgical dismemberment of one arguement after another deserves a standing ovation. It's the rhetorical equivalent of Chuck Norris beating up a bar full of bikers.

Are you a trial lawyer? I'll bet you're expensive.

Full disclosure, Pat, do you have any direct interest in the fortunes of Donald Trump? Or is this just sport for you?

Steve

What argument?  Pat insists folks get their facts straight and folks don't seem inclined to do so.  The facts that are on the table don't make most people envy Trump's tactics in this case.  However, Trump is getting his way and that seems to buck against the trend for similarily protected properties.  

My beef is more than just the land being destroyed, the way the Scottish Gov't stepped on the toes of the planning authority and how Trump under-handedly threatened with CPO of four families.  No, I have never seen any figures other than Trump's on this development.  Just the headline figure of £1billion has dropped to £750 million.  It would be interesting to know what an independent expert thinks the project will produce in terms of number of jobs, what sort of jobs, who will get the jobs, how much much added to the local economy, what sort and how many low cost houses will be built etc.

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

...
Remind me, who designed Trump LA ?

Was it Pete Dye ?
...

Quotes from their website.

"The Donald J. Trump Signature Design course design"

The Donald claims the credit. He also claims "Noted as the most expensive golf course ever built"

[Patrick_Mucci]

Niall,

Your question is one for the ages, not just about Trump, but about any developer and their architect.

I might have a different view than others on this subject.

I don't think great ideas reside solely within the brains of people with the initials ASGCA after their name.

I believe that people like Kenny Bakst, Steve Wynn, Dick Youngscap, the O'Neal brothers, Mike Keiser and others steeped in golf and golf course architecture, have valueable contributions that can be brought to the table.

Your headset is that he's a meddler.
Maybe his is.
But, did you ever think that maybe he's a really smart guy who may be able to bring something to the table architecturally ?
Why is everyone so anxious to throw him under the bus, to discard him as architecturally inept.
I think he's smart enough to know what he doesn't know, architecturally, and at that point, all too willing to defer to the architect.

And, don't ever forget, that when the cameras are rolling, IT"S SHOW TIME.

Even Tom Doak knows the difference between "Reality" and "Reality TV" (;

[Garland Bayley]

...
Why is everyone so anxious to throw him under the bus, to discard him as architecturally inept.
...

See the design credit for Trump LA given above.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

As a lawyer, you should be familiar with the fairly recent Supreme Court decision that granted greater powers of eminent domain to local governments. That decision came about allowing private land to be taken and given to other private parties for their use in building revenue generating properties. Therefore, I find it disingenuous that you would claim eminent domain is solely a government function.

As a lawyer or a layman, you should KNOW that the Supreme Court has NO JURISDICTION IN THE UK.

How could you miss that ?

Aberdeen is IN SCOTLAND, not the U.S.

Now since you know we computer nerds don't know our law very well, I suspect you will try to educate me. But, no matter, I think the rest of the people reading the thread get the drift.


In case they didn't, go back and reread:

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION IN THE U.K. (SCOTLAND)(;

[Garland Bayley]

Patrick,

As a lawyer, you should be familiar with the fairly recent Supreme Court decision that granted greater powers of eminent domain to local governments. That decision came about allowing private land to be taken and given to other private parties for their use in building revenue generating properties. Therefore, I find it disingenuous that you would claim eminent domain is solely a government function.

As a lawyer or a layman, you should KNOW that the Supreme Court has NO JURISDICTION IN THE UK.

How could you miss that ?

Aberdeen is IN SCOTLAND, not the U.S.

Now since you know we computer nerds don't know our law very well, I suspect you will try to educate me. But, no matter, I think the rest of the people reading the thread get the drift.


In case they didn't, go back and reread:

THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS NO JURISDICTION IN THE U.K. (SCOTLAND)(;

Patrick,

If you had been reading the news cited, you should have noticed that the analogous concept in Scotland is not called eminent domain. You are the one that has been writing about eminent domain repeatedly. I simply asked you about eminent domain, and now you go off on Scotland.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Garland, here's your quote.

If you had been reading the news cited, you should have noticed that the analogous concept in Scotland is not called eminent domain.

You are the one that has been writing about eminent domain repeatedly. I simply asked you about eminent domain, and now you go off on Scotland.

I didn't bring up eminent domain, Rory Connaughton brought it up in reply # 50.
He alleged that DT was trying to convince the authorities to exercise ED.
He's the one that should produce facts supporting that allegation.

As to ED in the U.S., yes, I'm familiar with the ruling that expanded it's use.
I'm also familiar with the backlash rulings against the expansion and abuse of its use.

In one sense, the innner cities need ED if we're to rebuild them.

When ED is used to cannibalize one development after another, under the BBD theory, it's a bad concept.

[Jim Nugent]

Jim, you were the one alledging that Trump tried to use eminent domain to remove neighbors.

Private citizens and private corporations can't exercise eminent domain, that's a governmental function.

You made the allegation, thus you have the burden of proof.
Were you just parroting the words of others ?  Or did you exercise due diligence and determine the facts before you submitted your post ?

Eminent Domain is a use based principle.

AND, those having their property taken vis a vis eminent domain must be FAIRLY compensated for their property.

So, please, since you made the allegation, present the facts to substantiate your claim.

Thanks

I said his willingness to use compulsory purchase (eminent domain) fills me with contempt.  He has done this more than once.  He tried to use eminent domain in Fresno California, to build a golf community there.  He tried to use eminent domain to force people out of their homes and businesses in Atlantic City, so he could build a bigger parking lot for his casino. 

The same threat has hung over Aberdeen.  The Press & Journal, a newspaper that serves N. Scotland, reported it.  The P&J quoted Neil Hobday, Trump's Menie resort project director, as saying “The mechanism for compulsory purchase exists but we very much hope we won’t get to that.” 






 

[Niall C]

For clarification, Compulsory Purchase powers can only be used by the local authority or central government, and not by private individuals/companies. They are typically used for large infrastructure projects or developments of national or regional importance (not exactly the correct definition but its early on a Saturday morning for me). For instance I'm peripherally involved in a flood alleviation scheme for the town of Elgin which has involved the authority invoking Compulsory Purchase powers to acquire property required for the scheme. The reality is that the owners do a deal with the council before the powers are actually used as they know if they don't the Council would be able to acquire their property anyway. In every case the owner gets the value for his property plus most get certain other payments related to disturbance etc. (again a bit of a very rough overview of the process)

They are also occasionally used in large scale commercial developments where the authority deem it beneficial for the scheme to go ahead and where the project is of national or regional significance, again not exactly the correct definition but thats the gist of it. In practice CP is rarely used for commercial developments as authorities prefer the developer to acquire the property by negotiation. That isn't always possible and therefore the Council may acquire part of the site for the developer and sell onto the developer to allow the development to proceed. Typically, and as I say this doesn't happen often, it will be for some comprehensive town centre redevelopment scheme, usually retail, which will allow comprehensive development of rundown areas which wouldn't happen otherwise.

Councils have had CP powers for decades but have been reluctant to use them. It is only recently that the Scottish Government have been encouraging Councils to use them more. Even so, it would have been astonishing if the Council had used them in this instance given the nature of the developement, the fact that the houses aren't required to allow the development to proceed which is a fact that the Trump organisation acknowledged early on.

Patrick

No doubt there has been some talented amateurs however taking the comments that Trump made in the programme (still haven't seen it so basing this on what was posted at the start) it didn't sound as though there was a lot of clear architectural thought beyond ponds are good, big ponds are better, and if you think they've got a wide fairway wait to you see ours. Now as you say, its show time, which takes me back to my second post about what happens after the cameras have stopped filming. Does Donald turn round to Martin and say, "Forget all my comments on ponds and fairway widths, you're the architect, you do what you think best". I suspect neither if us will ever know the answer to what really happens but I wopuld guess not.

Niall

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Nugent,

You said,

I said his willingness to use compulsory purchase (eminent domain) fills me with contempt.  He has done this more than once.  He tried to use eminent domain in Fresno California, to build a golf community there.  He tried to use eminent domain to force people out of their homes and businesses in Atlantic City, so he could build a bigger parking lot for his casino.  


Unfortunately, I've been to nearly all of the casinos in AC, including his.
Specifically, what homes and businesses are you talking about ?

The Casino Reinvestment Development Authority has used ED extensively in AC, to the betterment of AC.
Almost every casino/hotel in AC had ED enacted in order to build and expand ?
And, if the initial residency requirement had been upheld, ED use would have been more widespread, again, to the betterment of AC.
If people are given fair market value for their property, what's wrong with ED ?
Or, is it only wrong to enact ED when Donald Trump is involved ?[/b]

The same threat has hung over Aberdeen.  The Press & Journal, a newspaper that serves N. Scotland, reported it.  The P&J quoted Neil Hobday, Trump's Menie resort project director, as saying “The mechanism for compulsory purchase exists but we very much hope we won’t get to that.”

It's nice that you posted that, but, why didn't you post this article in the P&J, which states that Donald Trump said that he would NOT use CPO's

It would help if you would post all of the facts, not just snippets taken out of context[/b]

Published: 31/01/2011

Donald Trump has lifted the eviction threat hanging over families living around his planned £750million Scottish golf resort – declaring that he will not ask for compulsory purchase orders to be used against them.

After nearly two years of speculation, the US developer has said he will not request local government intervention to secure four homes – Mill of Menie, Menie Fishing Station, Hermit Point and Leyton Cottage – which he has included in his plans for the Menie Estate, in Aberdeenshire.

Mr Trump was granted planning permission to add the properties to his proposals in May 2009, despite the absence of an agreement to buy them.

However, he insisted that talk of compulsory purchase orders, or CPOs, should be shelved while his team negotiated with the owners.

The property owners rejected the deals offered to them, leading to claims that Mr Trump would ask the council to step in to use the powers. The action would have had to be agreed by councillors and, potentially, the Scottish Government.

Last night, however, the billionaire said he would not seek to have the families removed.

He told the Press and Journal: “We have consistently said that we have no interest in compulsory purchase and have never applied for it.

“It remains part of the Scottish planning process but we have not, and will not, request that Aberdeenshire Council use their CPO powers to purchase houses.

“The only reason CPO was even brought up by our opposition is that they have consistently lost on every other front and this is the only way for them to continue to gain free publicity on the back of the Trump name.”

It is understood that no further offers will be made to the homeowners, meaning the development will now go ahead around them, with Mr Trump planning to use trees to screen them from the view of his golfers.

A statement from the Trump Organisation last night said: “Through a combination of landscaping and planting, the preliminary work to eliminate the negative visual impact of the poorly maintained and unkempt properties that border our development has completely succeeded.

“As everyone knows, our great golf course, which is now well under construction, was never affected, either visually or physically, by the out parcels given that they are far from the course.



As to your remark below, read it more carefully.
THEY're the ones raising the use of CPO's, NOT Trump.[/b]

They fear compulsory purchase orders (CPOs) will be used to remove them from their homes, despite the fact the billionaire has publicly stated that he will not ask the local authority to use the powers.

 
There are four (4) homeowners involved.
The P&C went on to say the following:[/b]

There will always be casualties of any major development. People have sympathy for those affected, but a balance has to be struck between the personal needs of the individual and the economic needs of the greater community. This comes at a time when the general consensus is that the planning system needs overhauling to make it easier for developers, rather than harder. Judging by the long-drawn-out Trump saga, the voices in opposition appear to have been given a fair hearing under the existing rules, but an impartial view is required on whether or not the rules themselves are fair.


Or this one:[/b]

ast night, Mr Trump again urged the Menie residents to sell up “for the greater economic good” of the area.

He said: “Five years, 10 planning applications, a lengthy public inquiry, a parliamentary hearing, two financial bonds and three Section 75 agreements – this project has gone through an extensive planning process involving local officers, area committees, the full council, three government planning reporters and Scottish ministers.

“It is regrettable that Mr Milne has chosen to work against this project and continues to challenge Scottish planning law and the democratic decision-making process, rather than working with us to find an agreeable solution – of which there are many – for the benefit of all and the greater economic good of the area.


I'm not familiar with ED in the UK, but, aren't property owners compensated fairly, receiving fair market value for their property ?
Hasn't the value of their property gone up SOLELY because of the Trump Development at Aberdeen ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Niall,

The answer to your question may lie with his response about the siting of the tennis courts.

While he may be impulsive, I also believe him to be reflective.
If Hawtree disagrees with him on an architectural issue, I'd be surprised if he didn't make his case, rather than remain silent.
And, I believe that Trump listens to prudent thought, especially from the professionals he's retained.

While he may have a penchant for a particular feature, a pet project, he didn't get to where he is by ignoring the advice of the professonals he's retained over the years.

Look, the program on the Golf Channel was a show, not unlike "The Apprentice" or "The Celebrity Apprentice", and who's the ringmaster on that show ?  He is, so, he's going to be "The Donald" acting as "The Donald"  but, don't ever mistake his on air persona for that of a very smart businessman.

I'm fairly familiar with the Bedminster area and to tell you the truth, I would have bet you all the tea in China that he'd never get the permits and approvals needed to bring that project to fruition.  There was no way it could happen.  But, the rascal did it.
He persevered and got the approvals he needed, and I give him credit because the deck was clearly stacked against him.

What's interesting about the anti Donald posts is that he was given the right to acquire those properties from the get go.
They were in the acquisition package all along.
He didn't subsequently petition the authorities to go get those homes as others disengenuously reported.
He was given the right to acquire them some time ago, but, he's chosen to negotiate with them rather than exercise CPO's, which are within his rights to do.

So, the demonization of Trump by others was disengenuous, with the proper facts NOT reported.

Niall, he's an easy target to dislike, especially as a wealthy foreigner, as some locals have declared.
But, you have to ask yourself, is the project good for the community, the region ?
If it is, and he builds one or two good to great golf courses, why the intense resistance ?
Why the animosity ?

If it was Mike Keiser developing this project, the same cretins objecting to Trump would be fawing all over Keiser.
Declaring the project the greatest thing since sliced bread.

So, I say, let's see how the course turns out FIRST.
Then let objective architectural review follow.

[Jim Nugent]

Patrick, Trump now says he won't use compulsory purchase.  Good, if that is how things turn out.  But he has threatened the property owners with that for the last few years.  His project manager makes this clear when he says "The mechanism for compulsory purchase exists but we very much hope we won’t get to that.”

Trump tried to use ED in the past.  I don't care if every casino in Atlantic City does the same thing.  It's still legalized theft.  Government uses its ultimate police powers to force people to sell their homes and businesses. 

Fair market price is a joke.  Even if you can determine it, it means nothing to people who don't want to sell.  In Trump's Atlantic City case, the city valued the property at $251,000.  Yet ten years earlier the owner had been offered $1 million for it.   

Trump has shown his willingness to use ED: he's tried to do it more than once.  I feel contempt for that.     

[Niall C]

Patrick

On the various threads on this website about Trumps Aberdeen project I have shied away from making personal attacks on Trump because I don't want to weaken my arguments on the merits of whether this course should have got the go ahead by attacking someone I've never met, and secondly the real villains in this piece are the politicians in any case. So if I may I will continue to side step the debate on Trumps persona, public or otherwise.

Now to take up a couple of points in your last post. Your point about getting planning permission at Bedminster is well made as the success of any developer rests on largely being able to assemble a site and get the requisite consents to allow the development to happen. At Balmedie I suspect he has trumped, if you pardon the pun, anything he did at Bedminster. Stewart Milne is one of the most successful developers in Scotland and easily the biggest in the north east, he owns the local football club and is a pillar in the community. I very doubt that he would have got this scheme off the ground in terms of planning. From memory the officials recommended refusal right from the start. Frankly it was a no brainer, the land for the hotel and housing was zoned as agricultural and the site of the golf course not only was designated as SSSI but had been identified as being one of the few shifting dune systems in Scotland. In addition the public infrastructure simply didn't/doesn't support a development of this scale.

Trumps argument was that he required to do the housing and hotel development to generate the profits to pay for the world class golf course, sorry the best golf course in the world. How many houses do you need to build and how big a hotel do you need to pay for a golf course that will be earning money anyway ? And does it justify ripping up the Local Plan and throwing it away ? The answer should have been a clear no, and indeed by the thinest margin it was voted out at Planning Committee.

The Scottish Government then called it in. The Call In procedure is used where planning decisions at a local level are made on developments which have a regional or national significance. This development was neither despite the claims of "world class golf course". It was a large housing and leisure project which impacted at a local level only, yet the Scottish Government still called it in. Patrick, let me tell you these call in procedures are only ever used when consent has been granted however in this case the Scottish Government called it in even though planning permission was refused and then granted permission on what was a local matter. This has no precedent that I know of. Frankly it was a shocking decision which pissed all over the planning process.

Supporters of the scheme used to say that if the planning application was refused it would make Scotland look like a third world country that wasn't open to business. To me I can only see the opposite, we have a government which abandoned all due process to allow a leisure scheme for fucks sake. Nothing shouts banana republic more than that. Embarrassing.

Now to correct you on the paragraph in your last post where you say the following;

"What's interesting about the anti Donald posts is that he was given the right to acquire those properties from the get go.
They were in the acquisition package all along.
He didn't subsequently petition the authorities to go get those homes as others disengenuously reported.
He was given the right to acquire them some time ago, but, he's chosen to negotiate with them rather than exercise CPO's, which are within his rights to do."

Firstly Scotland is a free democratic country where property can be bought and sold at anytime with consent and agreement between purchaser and seller. Trump didn't need planning permission to buy the property, he was free to approach the houseowners at any time and make them an offer which they would have been free to either reject or accept. Indeed he did make an approach through Neil Hobday who posed as a Mr White who had nothing to do with the development.

With regards to "the acquisition package" there was no acquisition package unless you refer to when he bought the Balmedie Estate but this didn't include those houses. You may however be referring to the fact that the houses were contained within the planning application/consent however that doesn't mean he has any right to acquire them. FYI the way our planning works is that anyone can make a planning application on any property whether they own it or not. For instance you could if you wanted make a planning application for change of use to use Edinburgh Castle as a lap-dancing bar. It is extremely unlikely (to the nth degree) that you would get planning consent however even if you did you couldn't use it unless the Crown agreed to sell it to you.

Finally with regard to CPO powers, as I said in a previous post he doesn't have those powers, those powers reside in the local authority. I read enough in press comments to get the impression he was angling for them and while he might not have formally requested such a thing you can bet every cent you own that they explored the possibility if it could happen with the Council before deciding not to make any formal application.

Niall
 

[Rory Connaughton]

Pat

  With respect to your reply 115 and 118, understand that I raised the issue of eminent domain (which is the same as a Compulsory Purchase Order) because DT clearly contemplated the use of CPO's if terms could not be reached. DT's team toned down talk of CPO's when it became clear that they didn't have the votes.  That the DT group current stated position that it will not seek CPO's is nice but its based on political reality not magnanimity and to say it wasn't previously contemplated is re-writing history

From the Sept 27 2009 Herald


Trump’s lawyer advised Scottish Executive on compulsory house purchase policy

    * 6589975

    * Donald Trump

Rob Edwards
Share 

27 Sep 2009

American tycoon Donald Trump has been accused of buying up government expertise to advise him about the problem of Scottish home­owners who won’t sell to make way for his luxury golf resort.

The Trump organisation has employed lawyer Ann Faulds, who previously advised the former Scottish Executive on its policies for compulsory purchases of land for development.

According to one critic, this shows power is being “bought and sold for Trumpton gold”. But the accusation has been forcefully rejected by Trump, with his senior aide attacking the media for spreading “shit”.

On Thursday Aberdeenshire Council is due to discuss whether to use compulsory purchase powers against the owners of four homes on the Menie estate, near Balmedie. Trump says these properties are “critical” to his controversial plans for two championship golf courses, 1450 homes and a 450-bed hotel.

Although Trump originally asked the council to consider compulsory purchase, he has backed off since the Sunday Herald reported last month that most councillors were likely to reject the idea. The issue is still due to be debated, however, because a motion opposing compulsory purchase has been lodged.

In the past, compulsory purchase orders have mostly been used to acquire land essential for developments of national importance, such as transport and housing schemes. According to govern­ment figures, of the nine orders issued in 2008, none were for private developers.

Despite this, Trump had originally been hoping to enlist Aberdeenshire Council in the pursuit of compulsory orders against the homeowners. To help him, he has had the services of Ann Faulds, a partner with the Edinburgh law firm, Dundas & Wilson.

She is head of the firm’s planning and transportation team, and helped represent Trump during the public inquiry into the development last year. She was also a member of the former Scottish Executive’s research team on compulsory purchase and compensation. As a member of that team, she was a co-author of a 2001 government report on compulsory purchase.

The report predicted compulsory powers would be increasingly used and concluded “it may no longer be appropriate to restrict their use to cases of last resort”.

Her role has upset opponents of the Trump development, including David Milne, one of the four householders facing eviction. He has promised the only way he will leave his home is “horizontally in a box”.

“This is indicative of the way the Trump organisation works,” Milne said. “They engage people who have worked for government to allow them to understand every wrinkle, loophole and furrow in the legislation.”

He was backed by Green Party MSP Patrick Harvie, left. “His threats to use compulsory purchase orders against people who simply want to stay in their homes have been widely condemned, even alienating many of his former supporters,” Harvie alleged.

“Now it turns out he is being advised by the legal firm paid by Scottish ministers to help write their policy on compulsory purchase. This is revolving-door government of the most insidious sort, with influence and power apparently being bought and sold for Trumpton gold.”

Martin Ford, the independent councillor who has lodged the motion opposing compulsory purchase, accused Trump of trying to “steamroller” through his plans.

“The attempt by the residents at Menie to defend their rights is such an unequal struggle,” he said.

Such accusations provoked a furious personal response from Trump and his senior aide, George Sorial, who called the Sunday Herald from New York.

Trump argued only a “moron” would think it wrong for him to hire the best lawyers. He said: “Should I hire a farmer to act as my legal adviser? Would you hire a truck driver to carry out brain surgery? It’s the most asinine argument I’ve ever heard.

“I can’t imagine you’ll make this into a story. You’ll look stupid. The whole point of your story is absurd.”

Sorial denied the Trump organisation had an unfair advantage. “We have taken compulsory purchase orders off the table. The only people now talking about them are those who oppose them,” he said.

He insisted progress was being made in negotiations with “all but one” of the homeowners and hinted surprising things could happen. The owners have been offered 15% more than the market value for their properties, although none has so far accepted.

Sorial accused the Sunday Herald of writing “shit” about the Trump development, and warned legal action would be taken if anything inaccurate was published.

Dundas & Wilson said it advised all clients according to their needs and tried to deliver the best professional service available. “This expertise is available to all our clients and to suggest this is in any way inappropriate appears commercially naive,” said a spokesman.

A Scottish government spokesman added: “This is ludicrous, and relates to something eight years ago.

“The Trump organisation is obviously free to employ people of their choice.”

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, Trump now says he won't use compulsory purchase.  Good, if that is how things turn out. 
But he has threatened the property owners with that for the last few years. 

No, he hasn't.
He's specifically stated that he won't pursue CPO.[/b]
 
His project manager makes this clear when he says "The mechanism for compulsory purchase exists but we very much hope we won’t get to that.”

That's also not true, and you've taken a snippet out of context.
His project manager issued that statement AFTER the homeowners raised the issue[/b]
 
Trump tried to use ED in the past. 

WHERE & WHEN ?
Cite specifics not phantom generalized references.[/b]

I don't care if every casino in Atlantic City does the same thing. 
It's still legalized theft. 
Government uses its ultimate police powers to force people to sell their homes and businesses. 


How do you think the Interstate and National Defense Highway System came into being.
ED has been an accepted public policy for centuries.[/b]

Fair market price is a joke. 
Even if you can determine it, it means nothing to people who don't want to sell.


Despite your lack of understanding of the principle, ED remains a valueable public policy principle.
It's not a perfect solution, but, it's a pretty good one, one that's been around for centuries.[/b]

In Trump's Atlantic City case, the city valued the property at $251,000.  Yet ten years earlier the owner had been offered $1 million for it.   

Jim,

You've left out a few facts, critical facts, in your example above.

I've been to AC, pre and post casinos.
AC went from a terrific resort city.. to a crime ridden dump prior to the introduction of casinos.
If you're going to reference an issue, tell the whole story, not just the part that would seem to support your position.

The case you cited is the Vera Coking case.
Vera owned a three story house when in 1983 a CASINO allegedly offered her $ 1,000,000 to sell in order to make way for the Penthouse Casino/Hotel.  When she didn't sell, the Casino, not a Trump Casino, built all around her house, which resulted in the devaluation of the house.
That house wasn't worth anything near $ 1,000,000.  It's ONLY worth was to the Casino Developer, Penthouse.
The Penthouse project went broke, construction stopped and the house sat in that location.
Fast Forward to 1994.  Trump acquires the failed casino project, demolishes the old casino and starts construction on a new 22 story hotel/casino.
Vera Coking's house has deteriorated in the intervening 11 years.
The CRDA, NOT TRUMP, offered her $ 241,000, for a property that NO private citizen would buy.
Had she sold to Penthouse's casino project she would have gotten $ 1,000,000 for a house that no private citizen in their right mind would have paid one quarter of that amount if it wasn't for the casino's interest.

Decades subsequent to the legal procedings, the Supreme Court, in a Connecticut case, broadly expanded the definition/use of eminent domain
[/b]

Trump has shown his willingness to use ED: he's tried to do it more than once. 

Please provide specific examples to substantiate your claim

Again, the application of ED, as Niall informed you, does NOT reside within the private sector.
It's strictly a governmental exercise.[/b]

I feel contempt for that.     

Do you drive on the Interstate Highways in the U.S.
State Highways ?
All of them used ED in the process of AROW

With your intense contempt, do you refuse to use those roads, or, do you drive over them, knowing that the land upon which you drive was seized, as you allege, through the government's use of "police powers"

If Eminent Domain is not employed, how are we going to revitalize our cities, our old cities, our cities with slums and decribit buildings ?
How are we going to modernize ?

Do you know how they do it in China where they're building and rebuilding the most modern cities in the world for their citizens ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Rory Connaughton,

You must be a graduate of the Mike Cirba, "if it's in the newspapers, it must be true" school of logic.
You've cited a newspaper article, you haven't produced any facts demonstrating that DT used or stated he would use ED/CPO to gain possession of the four properties.

Would you cite examples where Donald Trump states that he's going to exercise ED/CPO to gain possession of the four homes ?

Thanks

Let's move the discussion to Glassgow.
If a tenement resided in a zone where a developer was going to revitalize the neighborhood by building modern, lower, middle and upper class residences, would you stand in opposition to that project, and the implementation of ED/CPO, or, is it just any project associated with Donald Trump ?