[David_Tepper]

Tom Doak -

Thank you for confirming my recollections from my reading of Dream Golf a couple of years ago. In addition to hiring Mr. McKee, I recall reading that Mr. Keiser hired a local fellow, who knew the property very well, to act as onsite caretaker of the property during the permitting and development process. I am sure this helped put a "friendly local face" on the project.

Pat Mucci -

Here are your words as written on page 4:

"I'm less interested in what people in America have to say about this, less interested in what people in the UK have to say about this, less interested in what people in Scotland have to say about this, and MORE interested in what the local and surrounding townspeople have to say about this.

I'd rather have my local schoolboard decide the curriculum than some bureaucrat in Trenton or Washington DC.
Likewise, one would think that the locals should be in charge of their fate and the ones making the decisions that directly affect
their lives with respect to the Trump project."

Are you not saying that you would prefer to see planning matters handled are the local level? I cannot derive any other meaning from what you have written. I would remind you again that the local authorities voted against approving the Trump project. Their decision was reversed by "higher authorities." Do you not realize you are supporting a government action which goes against what you believe is the best way to govern?

DT


  

[Patrick_Mucci]

David Tepper,

Would you cite for me where my statement, which you quoted, is in conflict with any prior post I made ?

I think you have drawn another erroneous conclusions.

As to the "local authorities" you referenced, who voted against the project, I'd be curious to see how local they were.

I didn't support any higher government action.
I asked questions about the project and actions.
And in particular addressed the issue of profitability and the local economy
 I also cited examples of misguided anti-development interests since there was an air of blanket anti-development sentiment on this thread.

I think you're trying to fabricate a position for me.
I think my typed words, taken in their entirety, state my position, clearly.

One should not rely on your misguided attempt to create a false position on my behalf

So please go back and read ALL of my replies and cite for me where I endorsed the higher government's decision

[Sean_A]

SeanA- my earlier remarks and "allegations" regarding opinion polls and the Chair of the not-so-final sub-committee were based on fairly extensive readings of earlier material and links provided on this site, articles in the financial press (e.g. WSJ, LFT), and popular media (e.g. NYT, DMNs, GD, GW).  I also had the good fortune of befriending two very well-educated ladies who are lifelong residents of Aberdeen, and who had close, personal knowledge of the events from the outset.  In daily conversations over the course of a week, I think they helped me to develop a good understanding of the various points of view (one had a son working in the North Sea oil industry) prevailing in the area.  I stand by what I said earlier.
  

Lou

If you stand by your earlier comments provide the evidence.  Otherwise folks may think you are passing on idle gossip.  Once again, regarding opinion polls - is this how you want planning policy decided in your neighbourhood?  

Jobs?  This is just what I am trying to discover, but I am not interested in taking Trump's numbers at face value.  I would like an independent source to offer a report of the economic impact of the development.  This is something the government should have done and published.   

BTW - the only reason the Subcomm decision wasn't final was because the government called in the application before the decision letter was sent.  Its a sketchy area of planning as to when is the final moment the government can call in an application and this was the only time it ever did so after a decision was made.  Sure, depending on what side of the isle one stands on it is either sneaky politics subverting local decision-making or brilliant use of technicalities to subvert local decision-making.  Either way the government completely ballsed up this entire episode.

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

JonW- I understand that the final approval came about in an unusual process.  I haven't seen the specific site, but I have seen sand dunes in many places.  Personally, I have only "marveled" at them when ribbons of fairways and greens contrasted with their stark, wild nature.  What scientific merit they possess or whether they qualify as a "natural spectacle" are aesthetic judgements, highly subjective, and open for debate (I did have a great time with my kids sliding down the slopes in the Monahan Sandhills of west Texas).  I do find it perplexing that some people place greater value on a relatively ephemeral striucture of blowing sand (or in the U.S. a small snake, mouse, toad, tiny plant) than on people having work.  One may scoff at another expensive golf resort and the relatively low-paying work of the hospitality industry, but, I think, the potential opportunities provided by the development are far superior than relegating more generations to the dole.  It may not be either/or, but jobs sure seem to be scarce.  Maybe I am wrong.
    

Yes Lou, I am afraid you are really very wrong. Build anywhere regardless of the environmental costs as long as it creates jobs. I guess there is no point in even discussing the pro & cons with that sort of outlook.

[Chris Kane]

I have read that Aberdeen already has full employment - if this is the case, where does this leave the argument around alleged economic benefit (ie job creation)? Is it really worth destroying environmentally significant landforms so that Trump can ship in hundreds of eastern European workers at £6.08 an hour?

[Sean_A]

I have read that Aberdeen already has full employment - if this is the case, where does this leave the argument around alleged economic benefit (ie job creation)? Is it really worth destroying environmentally significant landforms so that Trump can ship in hundreds of eastern European workers at £6.08 an hour?

Chris

The Brits are great at this.  Just consider the university system.  Its another complete balls up by the government - only this time Westminster can take the blame.  Why we need so many university places at the now stupidly inflated price of £9000 per year so foreigners can grab spots is beyond me.  With the latest tripling of the fees to £9000 to take effect in September (no, that isn't a misprint) it is for sure less Brits will attend thus leaving even more spaces available for foreigners.  The kicker is that the Chinese aren't stupid.  Their kids are enrolled in engineering and science programs at a time when this is what we need Brits to be enrolling in.  So here we are, subsidizing Chinese students so they can take their skills back home to make products that Brits will borrow money (from the Chinese of course) to buy.  How messed up is that?  Ain't globalism a bitch. 

Ciao

[David_Tepper]

Pat M. -

When you take the time to read the report from Scottish Heritage on the SSSI site, I will take the time to wade thru all your prior posts.
In the meantime, is it correct to presume you support the decision of the local planning authorities to deny permission for the Trump project?

DT   


 

[Lou_Duran]

Sean- I've told you where I got my information and how I've reached my conclusions.  Call it "gossip" if you want.  Anyone can search the web and find my basis.  I suspect that if your "rules of evidence", whatever they might be, were evenly applied, little that you say would qualify as more than the label of "gossip" you seek to underemine me with.  As to whether I would want opinion polls to determine planning policy, I'd hope they would be considered.  Being a proponent of private property rights, I am not big on "planning policy" in the first place, specially if it is rigid and not malleable to hard, politically uncorrupted cost/benefit analyis and changing demographic and economic conditions.  I have no issue with requiring rigorous, independent (of both Trump and "environmentalist" factions) review and analysis of the claims used to justify the use of public lands.  These would include not only the quantification of the benefits of direct jobs and economic impact, but also the costs of the environmental benefits which are supposedly being sacrificed.  In other words, put everything on the table.  As to "the brilliant use of technicalities", that seems to be the art of governing in a polarized world.  I suspect that one is less offended when it's done on behalf of something one supports.

Jon- tell me how you get from what you highlighted to "regardless of the environmental cost".  Erecting strawmen/putting words in people's mouth does not elevate your position nor promote discussion.  Yours, not mine, appears to be the rigid outlook you're seeking to project to me.  Quantify your environmental costs and perhaps a positive dialogue is possible.

Chris Kane- here I thought people of the Left loved humanity regardless where they're from, or is xenophobia ok if you swing from that side of the ball.  BTW, you may wish to Google "North Sea oil depletion".  As to unemployment in Scotland, try this link- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-16175642
 

[Jon Wiggett]

Lou,

I can only surmise by your posts on this thread that you do not understand all the relevant facts.

It is a FACT that the site was of Specific Scientific Interest as decided by a group of Experts in this field and backed up by rapports/studies (past and on going). This definition was further backed up by the local politicians who carry out the will of the local electorate. It was further confirmed when the application to build through this site was refused at the local level. I believe this to be enough for me as a lowly golf course developer to accept the validity of the sites SSSI status.

I would be more in agreement with you about building a course through them had there have been not alternative but this is not the case.
It would have been no problem routing a world class course that would have left the shifting dunes intact. By building through the dunes it destroys their very nature. There is no guarantee that the course will be world class though the pictures do look promising.

Yes Lou, there are times when nature should be left untouched even if it means the loss of potential jobs however in this case it was possible to have both. You seem to be pushing the line that Jobs should always have priority over the site which I do not agree with. I wonder if you would be so supportive of a plan to construct a shopping mall on say Pine Valley or the battle ground at Gettysburg if it meant a few extra jobs? Where do you draw the line?

Is it really your opinion that despite an equally good alternative it was right to destroy the SSSI?

Jon

[Sean_A]

Sean- I've told you where I got my information and how I've reached my conclusions.  Call it "gossip" if you want.  Anyone can search the web and find my basis.  I suspect that if your "rules of evidence", whatever they might be, were evenly applied, little that you say would qualify as more than the label of "gossip" you seek to underemine me with.  As to whether I would want opinion polls to determine planning policy, I'd hope they would be considered.  Being a proponent of private property rights, I am not big on "planning policy" in the first place, specially if it is rigid and not malleable to hard, politically uncorrupted cost/benefit analyis and changing demographic and economic conditions.  I have no issue with requiring rigorous, independent (of both Trump and "environmentalist" factions) review and analysis of the claims used to justify the use of public lands.  These would include not only the quantification of the benefits of direct jobs and economic impact, but also the costs of the environmental benefits which are supposedly being sacrificed.  In other words, put everything on the table.  As to "the brilliant use of technicalities", that seems to be the art of governing in a polarized world.  I suspect that one is less offended when it's done on behalf of something one supports.

Jon- tell me how you get from what you highlighted to "regardless of the environmental cost".  Erecting strawmen/putting words in people's mouth does not elevate your position nor promote discussion.  Yours, not mine, appears to be the rigid outlook you're seeking to project to me.  Quantify your environmental costs and perhaps a positive dialogue is possible.

Chris Kane- here I thought people of the Left loved humanity regardless where they're from, or is xenophobia ok if you swing from that side of the ball.  BTW, you may wish to Google "North Sea oil depletion".  As to unemployment in Scotland, try this link- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-16175642
 

Lou

Your stance doesn't add up.  I can't see how you went from:

"...fairly extensive readings of earlier material and links provided on this site, articles in the financial press (e.g. WSJ, LFT), and popular media (e.g. NYT, DMNs, GD, GW).  I also had the good fortune of befriending two very well-educated ladies who are lifelong residents of Aberdeen, and who had close, personal knowledge of the events from the outset."

To

"...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....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."

I expect you wouldn't be so keen on polls if your application took twice as long to be decided because the planning authority conducted an opinion poll on the proposal before making a decision.

Ciao

[Niall C]

You can tell that the Trump links is a different beast from the ancient Scottish links simply from the photos of how much earth and sand was shipped in to build it.

In general, the old guys steered away from the largest dunes because so much landscaping is needed to build golf holes (think Ballybunion New vs Old).

Paul

Spot on.

You're the Colt expert. No doubt you will recall what happened to Colt's redesign of Montrose and how the finally gave up trying to tame nature after Colt had designed and built new holes in amongst the dunes, and reverted back to the original land. I really don't think they could have built a course at Balmedie in the old days and it remains to be seen whether or not nature will fight back.

When Patrick asks whats the difference between this site and Prestwick/Troon etc which is a fair question, its kind of gets to the nub of the matter. What is the difference ? If you've seen the site and read the SNH report its glaringly obvious the difference compared to the traditional links land that the early links courses were being built on. For instance this site is a million miles from the Machrihanish Dunes site where you would expect the course to readily revert back to nature if left unattended.

Patrick

You've asked the question what the locals think. Can I suggest that you log onto the Press and Journal website and click on local news. There's generally a couple of stories on the development at any point in time and there you get a fair cross section of comment.

Niall

[Scott Whitley]

The other aspect of this saga, apart from the environmental question, is the shocking, outrageous treatment of the six local families who live on or near the site.  That is well explored in the film as well.

[Lou_Duran]

Sean, Jon, and Niall- you all raise interesting issues which I wish I could address in the detail they deserve.  For whatever reason, my REPLY block or space hits its limit in about two paragraphs, and I don't type well enough to not see what I'm writing.  Likewise, I haven't been able to get the PREVIEW function to work.  So, I'll try to respond piecemeal, over time.

Niall- did you or Paul consider the construction capabilities when Colt was working?  I am more acquainted with MacKenzie and he was a proponent of using labor saving machinery, and was not shy in helping Mother Nature as needed.  You may also recall that "connector holes" and awkward or quirky design features were common (and accepted) because of the inability to overcome various site problems.

Sean- I don't understand your math.  Are you saying that the local decision was not made by narrowest of majorities and that the local folks were actually against the project in superior numbers?  Maybe my reading comprehension or my hearing are not what they used to be.  Opinion polls are daily and ongoing.  Many politicos design and frame their policies based on polls and focus groups.  The science appears to be much better than that used to forecast weather and long-term climatic conditions. (Bottom of REPLY block).

Jon- I am sure I don't understand all the relevant facts, but I may not be as quick to cloak opinions and prefences with that higher status.  I confess to a bias toward growth and the dignity of work.  I very much enjoy interacting with Nature, but I do not see the environment as an entity separate from human experience.  Is it a fact that the SSI was "destroyed"?  Apparently Trump didn't believe the alternative was as equally good, or maybe you believe that he enjoys antagonizing people and spending money for their own sake.  

[Chris Kane]

Chris Kane- here I thought people of the Left loved humanity regardless where they're from, or is xenophobia ok if you swing from that side of the ball.

Lou, its very disappointing that you've resorted to this sort of offensive bulls***. Ironically, accusing anyone they disagree with of racism/xenophobia, and triviialising that most serious charge in the process, is a core tactic of the Left (of which I'm not certainly not a part, as anyone who's ever met me will tell you). I'm not sure you will have the class to apologise.

BTW, you may wish to Google "North Sea oil depletion". As to unemployment in Scotland, try this link- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-16175642

I am aware of this, its a serious issue for Aberdeen over the next thirty years. But are projects like this, which provide mostly minimum wage jobs (£6.08 an hour), the way forward for a very prosperous city?

This isn't about unemployment in Scotland, its about unemployment in Aberdeen. It doesn't necessarily follow that creating jobs in Aberdeen will reduce Scottish unemployment (its pretty pathetic, I know). These are not desirable jobs, which is why so many of them are filled by foreign (EU) workers. There will clearly be some economic benefit to Aberdeen from this (in the short, medium and long term), but the environmental cost associated with this is high. Its fine saying that x number of jobs will be created, but there needs to be some serious analysis (and public debate) about what those jobs will be and who will take them. Unfortunately, the false assumption being made (encouraged by Trump) is that Aberdeen will reap all the benefit of this. I can't see that happening.

[Chris DeNigris]

Chris Kane-

Are you an economist?

When you say you "read" that Aberdeen has "full employment"...where exactly did you read that?  Please cite a specific source if you can. Given the economic conditions everywhere I'm a little skeptical of that claim.

You say the "environmental cost will be high"....what exactly do you mean? What is the cost? That question has been asked here repeatedly and apparently it must be a toughie because no one has yet to answer.  Until you can answer that with some really good facts, it's hard to conduct any substantive cost/benefit analysis.

 BTW, xenophobia has nothing to do with racism.

[Sean_A]

Sean, Jon, and Niall- you all raise interesting issues which I wish I could address in the detail they deserve.  For whatever reason, my REPLY block or space hits its limit in about two paragraphs, and I don't type well enough to not see what I'm writing.  Likewise, I haven't been able to get the PREVIEW function to work.  So, I'll try to respond piecemeal, over time.

Niall- did you or Paul consider the construction capabilities when Colt was working?  I am more acquainted with MacKenzie and he was a proponent of using labor saving machinery, and was not shy in helping Mother Nature as needed.  You may also recall that "connector holes" and awkward or quirky design features were common (and accepted) because of the inability to overcome various site problems.

Sean- I don't understand your math.  Are you saying that the local decision was not made by narrowest of majorities and that the local folks were actually against the project in superior numbers?  Maybe my reading comprehension or my hearing are not what they used to be.  Opinion polls are daily and ongoing.  Many politicos design and frame their policies based on polls and focus groups.  The science appears to be much better than that used to forecast weather and long-term climatic conditions. (Bottom of REPLY block).

Jon- I am sure I don't understand all the relevant facts, but I may not be as quick to cloak opinions and prefences with that higher status.  I confess to a bias toward growth and the dignity of work.  I very much enjoy interacting with Nature, but I do not see the environment as an entity separate from human experience.  Is it a fact that the SSI was "destroyed"?  Apparently Trump didn't believe the alternative was as equally good, or maybe you believe that he enjoys antagonizing people and spending money for their own sake.  

Lou

You conveniently didn't address the allegation aspect of your quote and its clear you have no intention to do so.  Thats fine, I am happy to let you back out with face.   

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

Lou,

I have that problem sporadically but have yet to find out the reason. To answer your points. It is a SSSI not a SSI (there is a difference). The site was destroyed. Having seen the site on several occasions I know it would have been possible without touching the dunes. With Donald it was all about ego though I suspect that this will be his down fall in Scotland in the end. As for his enjoying antagonising people maybe you should go and talk to some of the people living by his new course though be sure to take protection with you if you start going on about how justified and positive the TRUMP project is 

As Sean did, I noticed you failed to address points put to you

Jon

[Chris Kane]

Are you an economist?

No.

When you say you "read" that Aberdeen has "full employment"...where exactly did you read that?  Please cite a specific source if you can. Given the economic conditions everywhere I'm a little skeptical of that claim.

I don't have a specific source which I'd be prepared to rely upon, which is why I made it clear that my argument was premised on that claim being true. From a quick Google search, here are two (I make no claim about how reliable they are):
http://www.parliamentarybrief.com/2011/07/britain-needs-aberdeen#all
http://committees.aberdeencity.gov.uk/mgConvert2PDF.aspx?ID=2758

You say the "environmental cost will be high"....what exactly do you mean? What is the cost? That question has been asked here repeatedly and apparently it must be a toughie because no one has yet to answer.  Until you can answer that with some really good facts, it's hard to conduct any substantive cost/benefit analysis.

I'm not prepared to get involved in that pissing contest. I agree that its hard to conduct any substantive cost/benefit analysis, both for the reason you cite and because the economic case has not been properly made out.

I'm not necessarily against the project, but it appears to me that there wasn't a proper decision informed by proper analysis on both the environmental and actual economic impacts on the Aberdeen area.

BTW, xenophobia has nothing to do with racism.

I disagree. They are intrinsically linked in the context Lou referenced them  - the standard issue vile smear usually used by people who have run out of arguments. He should be better than that.

[David_Tepper]

"You say the "environmental cost will be high"....what exactly do you mean? What is the cost? That question has been asked here repeatedly and apparently it must be a toughie because no one has yet to answer."

Chris D. -

I am not sure there is a rational way to value a rare and/or unique feature of nature. Can one really do a cost/benefit analysis to establish the value of the Grand Canyon?

Not everything in life can be reduced to facts & figures. Even if a a cost/benefit analysis can be done based on current data, future projections more often than not prove to be flawed, because human behavior & values do change over time.
    
Societies evolve over time and establish institutions, processes and procedures to collectively make value judgements that often times cannot be reduced to numbers on a page. The problem is that features of nature that have evolved over thousands of years cannot be replaced or recreated once they have been destroyed.    

DT    

  

[Chris Kane]

David, that is true, but good public policy demands some form of cost-benefit analysis - you have to make a judgment about whether economic benefit justifies the environmental impact.

[David_Tepper]

Chris K. -

I do not disagree with what you are saying.

However, I do think that:

1) there are some features of nature that are virtually priceless and defy rational cost/benefit analysis (and I am not saying that the wild dunes north of Aberdeen are necessarily one of those feature).

2) even the best cost/benefits analysis is really a "best guess," as no one really knows or can accurately predict how the price of an asset or commodity will change over time or how changes in technology can radically change human behavior.

Suppose a community had said 10 or 15 years ago that the cost/benefit analysis showed that granting Eastman Kodak (or Digital Equipment or Polaroid) substantial tax-breaks and development subsidies to build a plant in their community could generate a "meaningful" financial benefit to the community. Could anyone really have known back then that digital photography would pretty much drive Kodak out of business? Facts and figure on a page can change very quickly. The Grand Canyon cannot.

DT                

[Jon Wiggett]

David, that is true, but good public policy demands some form of cost-benefit analysis - you have to make a judgment about whether economic benefit justifies the environmental impact.

Chris,

you can not look at everything from a purely economical view point. If you did then Central Park in New York should be built on so why has it not been?

Jon

[Chris Kane]

David, that is true, but good public policy demands some form of cost-benefit analysis - you have to make a judgment about whether economic benefit justifies the environmental impact.

you can not look at everything from a purely economical view point. If you did then Central Park in New York should be built on so why has it not been?

I'm not looking at everything 'from a purely economical view point'. CBA is not just about economics - we do it informally all the time without realising it. If you think that Central Park shouldn't be built on, you've probably determined that the cost (social and environmental) exceeds the benefit.

[Jon Wiggett]

David, that is true, but good public policy demands some form of cost-benefit analysis - you have to make a judgment about whether economic benefit justifies the environmental impact.

you can not look at everything from a purely economical view point. If you did then Central Park in New York should be built on so why has it not been?

I'm not looking at everything 'from a purely economical view point'. CBA is not just about economics - we do it informally all the time without realising it. If you think that Central Park shouldn't be built on, you've probably determined that the cost (social and environmental) exceeds the benefit.

I never said Central Park shouldn't be built on. Infact I am just negociating a deal with Donald Trump to construct the worlds greatest shifting sand dune system there

[Chris DeNigris]

David T- No one is saying that you can reduce everything to figures...facts maybe, but figures, not so much. Although in the digital age that's getting closer and closer

But if not quantitative, how about some meanigful qualitative analysis of the impact of what's happening to the shifting sand sheets of Menie? What's the impact to the folks in Aberdeen (and the greater scientific community if you'd like) if these particular mounds/sheets of sand are disturbed, altered...or even removed in certain cases...Are there not plenty more of these shifting sand dune formations throughout the rest of the Foveran SSSI (in the Foveran and Drum Links at the very least)...that would still be available for seemingly endless shifting sand sheet amusement and enjoyment? Not to mention future sand sheet wind erosion measurement by scores of earth scientists? And as your oft-quoted report indicates, at several other dunsey places throughout Scotland and the UK?

Surely that type of qualitative impact analysis could be provided.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()