News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


John Kavanaugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Donald Trump "Golf Film" Debuts in Chicago on Friday
« Reply #50 on: January 21, 2012, 04:27:22 PM »
I can handle being caricatured as a right-wing reactionary . . .

Nobody could do a better job caricaturing Lou than Lou himself.
_______________________________________________________



Whatever the actual merits of the project, Trump could not be a worse ambassador for the game.

The only thing worse is hiring Rosie to represent the opposing side.  I'm firmly in Trump's corner solely based on that decision. 

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Donald Trump "Golf Film" Debuts in Chicago on Friday
« Reply #51 on: January 21, 2012, 04:57:13 PM »
The only thing worse is hiring Rosie to represent the opposing side.  I'm firmly in Trump's corner solely based on that decision. 

Be careful Barney, with such in-depth analysis as this you might give the Lou, the Donald, and the Rosie a run for their money in the self-caricature department.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Donald Trump "Golf Film" Debuts in Chicago on Friday
« Reply #52 on: January 22, 2012, 11:07:41 AM »
Patrick

I have absolutley no objection to Trump, or the idea of development as I've stated in many a Trump/Aberdeen thread. I believe I've been quite consistent on that. My objection centres on planning permission being given for a development on a SSSI site that was identified by the official environmental organisations as an area of regional significance. The development doesn't alter the site, it trashes it. Do I blame Trump for trying to go forward with this development ? Not at all, but I do think the politicians that OK'd this should be kicked out of office. Furthermore I think there should be a public enquiry into this decision to determine amongst other things whether their was any impropriety given how off the wall the decision to grant planning was.

With regards to the land value, as I stated I think there was a claim he paid £13m, which seems very top heavy to me unless it was subject to planning.

Lou

Apologies for calling you a leftie, now that's the last apology your getting ! I'm very familiar with the planning system in Scotland and you are correct, Local Plans are reviewed every 5 years. Furthermore anyone is allowed to make planning applications that are contrary to the plans if they want, and they may get planning if the local authority think there is good reason. Trumps reasons in this instance centred on the economic argument. I'm suggesting and others are suggesting, that the economic argument was likely grossly overstated and that it very possibly wasn't challenged or analysed.

Tiger

Se  what I'm saying above. With the cost of the land purchase and the cost of the course I could perhaps believe £16m but certainly not $160m.

Niall

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Donald Trump "Golf Film" Debuts in Chicago on Friday
« Reply #53 on: January 22, 2012, 12:23:43 PM »
Niall,

Just last night I was watching a movie about Jack Abramoff.

I concluded that I want RICH guys getting elected to office.

The Rockefellers, Jay and Nelson, Bloomberg, Michael, The Kennedys, Robert, Teddy and Jack, etc., etc..

They don't need the money, they won't be influenced by financial gain.

And, it's not a practice limited to the UK and the US, it's universal, around the globe.
Political corruption knows no bounds.

On the other hand, neither does ego, so what are we to do ?

What concerns me is the lack of balance and/or common sense.

New York City, Washington DC, Boston, Chicago, St Louis, Miami and Philadelphia could never be built based on today's evironmental and legal climate.

With many projects, the cost or remediation may be prohibitive and the alternatives unrewarding and unproductive.

Benevolent dictators seem to work well solely within the boundaries of Golf clubs.

What are we to do ?

Pursue the return of government to the local level ?

 

Jason Hines

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Donald Trump "Golf Film" Debuts in Chicago on Friday
« Reply #54 on: January 22, 2012, 12:29:16 PM »
Richard,

I saw the documentary on Friday evening and have a quick question.  When the police came to arrest Anthony when he was visiting a lady’s property next to the course, they cited a code that he was under arrest for, however, there was narration and I had trouble hearing.  Do you know the code he was arrested under?

Jason

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Donald Trump "Golf Film" Debuts in Chicago on Friday
« Reply #55 on: January 22, 2012, 08:42:58 PM »
The only thing worse is hiring Rosie to represent the opposing side.  I'm firmly in Trump's corner solely based on that decision.  

Be careful Barney, with such in-depth analysis as this you might give the Lou, the Donald, and the Rosie a run for their money in the self-caricature department.

How did I miss this?  I'll take "the Donald", but please Dr. Moriarty, not "the Rosie".  Her manner and world view much much more closely resemble yours.  Hugs & Kisses, the Lou.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2012, 10:34:00 PM by Lou_Duran »

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Donald Trump "Golf Film" Debuts in Chicago on Friday
« Reply #56 on: January 22, 2012, 09:06:15 PM »

They don't need the money, they won't be influenced by financial gain.



That is the funniest thing I've read here this year.

No, the rich never have any ideas about getting richer.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Donald Trump "Golf Film" Debuts in Chicago on Friday
« Reply #57 on: January 22, 2012, 09:09:16 PM »

They don't need the money, they won't be influenced by financial gain.



That is the funniest thing I've read here this year.

No, the rich never have any ideas about getting richer.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Donald Trump "Golf Film" Debuts in Chicago on Friday
« Reply #58 on: January 22, 2012, 09:15:02 PM »

They don't need the money, they won't be influenced by financial gain.



That is the funniest thing I've read here this year.

Then you've got bad judgement and a worse sense of humor


No, the rich never have any ideas about getting richer.

Tom,

Then it's your position that the Rockefellers,, Kennedys and Bloomberg were in it for the money

How did any of them try to get richer through their terms in office ?


Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Donald Trump "Golf Film" Debuts in Chicago on Friday
« Reply #59 on: January 22, 2012, 09:33:30 PM »

They don't need the money, they won't be influenced by financial gain.



That is the funniest thing I've read here this year.

Then you've got bad judgement and a worse sense of humor


No, the rich never have any ideas about getting richer.

Tom,

Then it's your position that the Rockefellers,, Kennedys and Bloomberg were in it for the money

How did any of them try to get richer through their terms in office ?



I didn't say all rich people get into politics for the money.  I found it funny that you implied that none of them are in it for the money.

I wouldn't say that the rich have any higher or lower percentage of crooks among them.


Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Donald Trump "Golf Film" Debuts in Chicago on Friday
« Reply #60 on: January 22, 2012, 11:01:07 PM »
It is rather easy to cite politicians of relatively modest financial means who have joined the upper ranks of the 1% after completing their "public service"- Bill Clinton and his side-kick Al Gore come to mind; Newt hasn't done too badly either, though he is not in the same league.  A popular GCAer who has run campaigns for several Dems had my attention in a bar for quite some time as he described in detail how congressmen monetized their seniority after they left " public service", often involuntarily- a one term Rep could "earn" low to mid six-figure salaries for "working" a few hours a week.  A two-termer, mid to upper six figures; after four terms, he can write his own ticket.  The "work" is primarily influence peddling afforded by the access to the House floor that apparently is retained after leaving office.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Donald Trump "Golf Film" Debuts in Chicago on Friday
« Reply #61 on: January 22, 2012, 11:02:36 PM »

They don't need the money, they won't be influenced by financial gain.



That is the funniest thing I've read here this year.

Then you've got bad judgement and a worse sense of humor


No, the rich never have any ideas about getting richer.

Tom,

Then it's your position that the Rockefellers,, Kennedys and Bloomberg were in it for the money

How did any of them try to get richer through their terms in office ?



I didn't say all rich people get into politics for the money.  I found it funny that you implied that none of them are in it for the money.
Tom,
That's what you inferred, not what I implied.
 I specifically cited the Rockefellers, Kennedys and Bloomberg.
I would have thought that you would have understood the context in which my reference was made.
The Rockefellers, Kennedys and Bloomberg were not seeking additional wealth when they entered and when they served their terms in public service.

I wonder, how many men who entered office very rich, entered politics to get richer ?
I doubt many, if any.
 


I wouldn't say that the rich have any higher or lower percentage of crooks among them.

I think that determination may lean more toward men who became rich IN or AFTER their term in office, rather than those who were rich before they entered office.

Other than ego and perhaps an unusual and deep commitment to public service I can't think of any reason why a rich/very rich person would enter politics, especially in this age of media scrutiny/trashing and gotcha journalism..




David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0

Paul OConnor

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Donald Trump "Golf Film" Debuts in Chicago on Friday
« Reply #63 on: January 23, 2012, 09:05:31 AM »
Well I guess this settles all the rating questions.  From Trump's director of international development, George Sorial,

"We have spent now approximately £100m and we have built the greatest golf course in the world."

Is it possible that Trump really spent that much?  Seems like an outrageously high number for one golf course.


Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Donald Trump "Golf Film" Debuts in Chicago on Friday
« Reply #64 on: January 23, 2012, 09:23:20 AM »
Patrick:

This thread wasn't about the Rockefellers, the Kennedys, or Michael Bloomberg.  Except for Bloomberg, everyone you cited is dead, so I don't think they are valid stand-ins for today's rank of politicians.  [And I use the word "rank" in all senses of the word.]

I agree with your premise that lots of lower-income politicians are in it for the money, and are happily bought off. 

But, who is buying them off?  A bunch of poor guys?  I'm guessing not.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Donald Trump "Golf Film" Debuts in Chicago on Friday
« Reply #65 on: January 23, 2012, 09:42:17 AM »
Patrick:

This thread wasn't about the Rockefellers, the Kennedys, or Michael Bloomberg.  Except for Bloomberg, everyone you cited is dead, so I don't think they are valid stand-ins for today's rank of politicians.  [And I use the word "rank" in all senses of the word.]

I agree with your premise that lots of lower-income politicians are in it for the money, and are happily bought off. 

But, who is buying them off?  A bunch of poor guys?  I'm guessing not.

I don't think it's rich or poor guys, I think it's those in between.

Do you think Trump's goal in running is to gain more wealth while in office ?

There's a reason for blind trusts


Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Donald Trump "Golf Film" Debuts in Chicago on Friday
« Reply #66 on: January 23, 2012, 12:06:46 PM »
From David Tepper:

The irony of this situation is that you are embracing the very "statist" outcome you abhor, especially if you believe that governmental issues are best handled/decided on a local or regional level and not by dictates from a national or federal government.

Yet that is exactly what has happened here. The local/regional governments of the Aberdeen area, following legally established procedures, decided the Trump project should not be allowed.

That decision was then overruled by the national government of Scotland, invoking dubious claims of "the national interest." My guess is, if the same thing happened in Texas, you would be appalled.

P.S. If there was a market for a documentary about the evils of green energy, wouldn't there be one?

Response:

DT- addressing the P.S. first, are there not any documentaries?  If not, might it have to do with the tendency that people involved in commerce do so for a profit, and that for the most part, those pursuing productive endeavors do not have the time or inclination to dwell in aesthetic judgements and free association?  BTW, I am not against documentaries, pro or con.  I just think that perhpas this may not be the place to advertise them.

On the charge of my embracing “statist” outcomes, it is my understanding that the local government’s decision was very narrow, by one vote, driven primarily by one individual heading the deciding group.  If memory serves, that group was but a small subset of the elected local government body.  Both at the local and regional level, the project had substantial approval of the citizenry as measured by numerous polls.  From most everything I’ve seen, the process was very democratic; the national authorities intervening only when it was clear that the public interest as demonstrated by the project’s wide support was being frustrated by an individual intent on substituting his personal preferences for that of his constituents.

Regarding your guess, you could not be more wrong.  I do believe in federalism, but not for one second do I think that every local and state decision is right and not subject to appeal to a higher authority.  I do believe that the higher authority MUST defer to the Constitution, not as any current administration wishes it to be (a “living Constitution”), but as it was written and properly amended.

I’ve represented several landowners in zoning cases and know first hand that the preferences of the NIMBYs, often under the guise of environmentalism, can become statutory through their undue influence.  As the U.S. Park Service has noted from experience, “the person who built his mountain cabin last year is an environmentalist.  The one who wants to build it this year is a developer”.

Private property rights are the foundation of the economy.  No political body acting “for the public interest” should be allowed to take these rights under ANY circumstances without fully compensating the owners.

Richard seems to believe that government creates value by what it “allows” a property owner to do with his property.  In effect, the deterioration of private property rights has been ongoing, at different rates in different places.  Under the cover of environmentalism, his view appears to be carrying the day.  The traditional bundle-of-rights vested in the owner is being increasingly usurped by the Common without compensation, leaving him as a mere supplicant with maybe as much liability as opportunity to enjoy what is supposedly his.

Had the hold-out owners in Aberdeenshire (sp) been forced to sell, I would have been concerned.  And yes, I am troubled by the Kelo case, though am encouraged by the reaction in a majority of the states.
        


 


 
« Last Edit: January 23, 2012, 12:17:32 PM by Lou_Duran »

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Donald Trump "Golf Film" Debuts in Chicago on Friday
« Reply #67 on: January 23, 2012, 01:59:58 PM »
I suppose £100m might equate to $160m depending on your exchange rate but I simply don't believe they have spent anything like that amount of money. I could believe that they have temporarily shelved the hotel and housing until the market improves. The housing and hotel was where the profit is, thats always been the case.

Patrick

Earlier in the thread Tom D questioned the comparison of Balmedie to the Amazon rainforest. Perhaps that was hyperbole but please believe this isn't an ordinary piece of linksland. I suppose the nearest analogy I can think of would be if Trump had got planning to build his course in one of your National Parks and insisted that he needed to knock down a couple hundred of your biggest and oldest trees because that was the best land for the course. Yes the course might provide economic benefit to some but would you really need it that much ? Basically it comes down the cost of something and the value of something. What they have destroyed is priceless IMO.

Niall

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Donald Trump "Golf Film" Debuts in Chicago on Friday
« Reply #68 on: January 23, 2012, 02:02:05 PM »
This is a response from someone who doesn't understand the planning process in Scotland.  I have said it before, how was was the Planning Subcommittee (which was empowered to make decisions on behalf of the Council - a VERY common practice - contrary to the notion that polls decide planning applications) meant to vote?  Was it meant to vote against SSSI protection?  I know if I was in that situation I would be very hesitant to do so.  Furthermore, I would request independent research into the economic impact of the project.  This is far too big a deal to trust Trump's numbers.  How was the Chair of the Subcomm meant to vote with his casting vote, contrary to his original vote?  You cast a serious alligation against the Chair of the Subcomm, and with very little evidence.    

"On the charge of my embracing “statist” outcomes, it is my understanding that the local government’s decision was very narrow, by one vote, driven primarily by one individual heading the deciding group.  If memory serves, that group was but a small subset of the elected local government body.  Both at the local and regional level, the project had substantial approval of the citizenry as measured by numerous polls.  From most everything I’ve seen, the process was very democratic; the national authorities intervening only when it was clear that the public interest as demonstrated by the project’s wide support was being frustrated by an individual intent on substituting his personal preferences for that of his constituents."

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Donald Trump "Golf Film" Debuts in Chicago on Friday
« Reply #69 on: January 23, 2012, 02:11:16 PM »
How did I miss this?  I'll take "the Donald", but please Dr. Moriarty, not "the Rosie".  Her manner and world view much much more closely resemble yours.  Hugs & Kisses, the Lou.

You see what I mean Barney?  People like Lou cut the world in two based on little more than knee jerk reactions to their own superficial mischaracterizations and presumptions about the politics of the parties involved.  Don't be a Lou. Surely we can all form opinions about this proposed development and about the likes of Trump, Rosie, and even Lou without letting our respective political dogmas be our only guide.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2012, 04:17:06 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Richard Phinney

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Donald Trump "Golf Film" Debuts in Chicago on Friday
« Reply #70 on: January 23, 2012, 03:53:34 PM »
Richard,

I saw the documentary on Friday evening and have a quick question.  When the police came to arrest Anthony when he was visiting a lady’s property next to the course, they cited a code that he was under arrest for, however, there was narration and I had trouble hearing.  Do you know the code he was arrested under?

Jason

Thanks for braving the snowstorm!  I believe what he is saying is that he is detaining Anthony (and myself) under Section 14 of the Criminal Procedures Scotland Act, 1995.  This gives police the right to detain someone who the police has reasonable grounds  to believe has committed a crime that could lead to imprisonment. We of course believe that there were no such reasonable grounds, and the criminal charges were eventually thrown out.

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Donald Trump "Golf Film" Debuts in Chicago on Friday
« Reply #71 on: January 23, 2012, 05:11:44 PM »
This is a response from someone who doesn't understand the planning process in Scotland.  I have said it before, how was was the Planning Subcommittee (which was empowered to make decisions on behalf of the Council - a VERY common practice - contrary to the notion that polls decide planning applications) meant to vote?  Was it meant to vote against SSSI protection?  I know if I was in that situation I would be very hesitant to do so.  Furthermore, I would request independent research into the economic impact of the project.  This is far too big a deal to trust Trump's numbers.  How was the Chair of the Subcomm meant to vote with his casting vote, contrary to his original vote?  You cast a serious alligation against the Chair of the Subcomm, and with very little evidence.    

Sean- is it you or me "who doesn't understand the planning process in Scotland"?  Are you suggesting because a vested interest designates an area "SSI" that its judgement is irrevocable?  These decisions are much more political than scientific, involving judgements and values that hardly flow or follow hard, irrefutable data.  I don't recall how the subcommittee is formed, but as this case shows, it is not the final authority.  And what allegation am I casting?  That the head cast his vote knowing that the folks he represented disagreed with his position in great numbers?  As I recall, it was the citizenry and his superiors making these claims.

Marty Bonnar

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Donald Trump "Golf Film" Debuts in Chicago on Friday
« Reply #72 on: January 23, 2012, 05:17:54 PM »
For anyone interested, SSSI's are designated by Scottish Natural Heritage. For more info, read here:

http://www.snh.gov.uk/

Speaking from a viewpoint of ignorance, is no way to go through life timmy, tommy, johnny.

you're welcome...

F.
The White River runs dark through the heart of the Town,
Washed the people coal-black from the hole in the ground.

Lou_Duran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Donald Trump "Golf Film" Debuts in Chicago on Friday
« Reply #73 on: January 23, 2012, 05:31:09 PM »
How did I miss this?  I'll take "the Donald", but please Dr. Moriarty, not "the Rosie".  Her manner and world view much much more closely resemble yours.  Hugs & Kisses, the Lou.

You see what I mean Barney?  People like Lou cut the world in two based on little more than knee jerk reactions to their own superficial mischaracterizations and presumptions about the politics of the parties involved.  Don't be a Lou. Surely we can all form opinions about this proposed development and about the likes of Trump, Rosie, and even Lou without letting our respective political dogmas be our only guide.

Sorry David, I know that you're a pro at building strawmen and minimizing others with absurd attributions, but "people like Lou" are a bit more multi-dimensional in our thinking.  I know, from your POV, my perspectives are little more than political dogma triggering knee-jerk reactions.  Yours, on the other hand, are formed through an arduous, thoughtful, and complete examination of the facts, leading you to fully reasoned, learned conclusions.  And yeah, I know, because Wilson missed his boat, CBM designed Merion.   ::)
« Last Edit: January 23, 2012, 05:34:58 PM by Lou_Duran »

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Donald Trump "Golf Film" Debuts in Chicago on Friday
« Reply #74 on: January 23, 2012, 05:49:01 PM »
This is a response from someone who doesn't understand the planning process in Scotland.  I have said it before, how was was the Planning Subcommittee (which was empowered to make decisions on behalf of the Council - a VERY common practice - contrary to the notion that polls decide planning applications) meant to vote?  Was it meant to vote against SSSI protection?  I know if I was in that situation I would be very hesitant to do so.  Furthermore, I would request independent research into the economic impact of the project.  This is far too big a deal to trust Trump's numbers.  How was the Chair of the Subcomm meant to vote with his casting vote, contrary to his original vote?  You cast a serious alligation against the Chair of the Subcomm, and with very little evidence.    

Sean- is it you or me "who doesn't understand the planning process in Scotland"?  Are you suggesting because a vested interest designates an area "SSI" that its judgement is irrevocable?  These decisions are much more political than scientific, involving judgements and values that hardly flow or follow hard, irrefutable data.  I don't recall how the subcommittee is formed, but as this case shows, it is not the final authority.  And what allegation am I casting?  That the head cast his vote knowing that the folks he represented disagreed with his position in great numbers?  As I recall, it was the citizenry and his superiors making these claims.


Lou

You wrote: "...the national authorities intervening only when it was clear that the public interest as demonstrated by the project’s wide support was being frustrated by an individual intent on substituting his personal preferences for that of his constituents."

Can you back up this allegation and explain your logic?  You have accused someone of putting his personal interests ahead of his constituency in an important vote.  I would contend, and many others would as well, that the Chair was looking after the interests of his constituents.  Because a poll may state (and I have yet to see these polls) an alternative preference of a constituency it doesn't necessarily follow that the representative is not voting with the best interests of the constituency in  mind.    

Curious that is, having a poll (presumably - I have not seen any results of a credible poll conducted on the matter) decide planning applications.  Is this what you are really advocating?  You may as well advocate for anarchy.   You may also find it wild that in most cases a planning officer makes decisions on behalf of the Council - its called delegated powers.  

Of course designating SSSIs is political as much as scientific.  Some governmental arm must make the decision to protect land, therefore politics is involved.  But if we are to belittle everything which springs from politics there won't be much celebrate my friend.  In one form or another, politics rules this world.

My beef is how could the land on one day be deemed important enough to go through the hassle of SSSI designation, yet the next day is worth trading for a yet undisclosed positive economic impact.  I think at the very least an independent assessment of the economic impact of the development should have been carried out by the government and some sort of guarantees about what will be built (a minimum investment of monies to be held in escrow) before it over-ruled itself.  Yes, I think it should be this difficult to over-ride SSSIs.  

As for data, I will take the word of scientific experts (and mine as I saw the site and without knowing it was protected thought it very unusual in the UK) over yours that the land in question has scientific merit - enough so to be protected - at the very least from such a luxury  development that is so dependent on a thriving economy to actually deliver on its promises.  

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back