[Patrick_Mucci]

Has anyone stayed at the Lodge at Pebble Beach or the Inn at Spanish Bay ?

If you were about to invest millions to build those facilities and the government announced that they were going to build a wind farm just offshore, would you proceed to spend millions and build a hotel ?

Pat

Is this meant to be supportive of Trump? 

You do know that the turbines in question were proposed before Trump ever came up with his scheme - yes?

Formally or informally ?

There is a vast difference !

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

What about the shipping lanes, should they be closed ?

Ships at sea are mere blips on the horizon and rather attractive, not the eyesore created by wind farms.
Shipping lanes are also farther out to sea, unless you're sailing on the Costa Concordia

What about the odd sight of an oil rig, would that cause a few more rooms to be left unlet ?

Absolutely

Would it effect the investment value ?

Sure

Would about a dozen "windmills" several miles off shore stop anyone buying a house along that coast.

It would affect the price of those houses

If you think the answer to any of those questions is yes, then you've no concept of either the local residential market, the hotel market or the factors driving the UK property investment market IMHO.

So it's your opinion that views have no impact on price and salability
Then why do waterfront properties sell for more than inland properties ?

Of course, things may be different in California but this thread is about Balmedie and Trumps investment there.

That's what I thought, but isn't Trump courting international customers ?

When I travel, I'd prefer a room with superior views, but maybe that's just me.

Where is Tom Huckaby when you need him ?

Niall

[Sean_A]

Has anyone stayed at the Lodge at Pebble Beach or the Inn at Spanish Bay ?

If you were about to invest millions to build those facilities and the government announced that they were going to build a wind farm just offshore, would you proceed to spend millions and build a hotel ?

Pat

Is this meant to be supportive of Trump? 

You do know that the turbines in question were proposed before Trump ever came up with his scheme - yes?

Formally or informally ?

There is a vast difference !

Ciao

Pat

I don't know, but I assume informally, as in the proposal has been around for a while.  I think Trump made enquiries about the proposal years ago.  He claims to have been told by a previous administration that the plan would never go ahead.  Trump took a gamble knowing there were a lot factors and factions against him and his plan and it may come to pass that his plan may not pay off to the degree it hoped.  Thats life in business especially when trying to push through a highly controversial development. 

Jon

Blame the Scottish government for the destruction of the SSSI site - they were the stewards of the site and gave the go ahead for its destruction. 

Ciao   

[Mark Pearce]

Just so that I am entirely clear, here.  Patrick Mucci, the leading proponent of the proposal that the merit of a golf course should be judged purely on the course and that no account should be taken of the surroundings, is agreeing with Trump that his course north of Aberdeen will be ruined by the siting of some wind turbines a distance offshore?

I'm assuming that Pat has no desire to play Prestwick (horrid airport), TOC (monstrous hotel), RSG (Pfizer factory, decrepit old Prince's clubhouse now the horrid chimneys have gone), Seaton Carew (ghost ships, Teesside chemical plants), Silloth (grain warehouse), Hoylake (housing), Crail (coastguard station), Troon (airport, again and caravan site) or many other similar British courses.

If Trump was advised that these planned turbines would not get approval then he really needs better advisers.  Perhaps he should blame them, rather thanthe Scottish government,

[Ben Stephens]

Just so that I am entirely clear, here.  Patrick Mucci, the leading proponent of the proposal that the merit of a golf course should be judged purely on the course and that no account should be taken of the surroundings, is agreeing with Trump that his course north of Aberdeen will be ruined by the siting of some wind turbines a distance offshore?

I'm assuming that Pat has no desire to play Prestwick (horrid airport), TOC (monstrous hotel), RSG (Pfizer factory, decrepit old Prince's clubhouse now the horrid chimneys have gone), Seaton Carew (ghost ships, Teesside chemical plants), Silloth (grain warehouse), Hoylake (housing), Crail (coastguard station), Troon (airport, again and caravan site) or many other similar British courses.

If Trump was advised that these planned turbines would not get approval then he really needs better advisers.  Perhaps he should blame them, rather thanthe Scottish government,

Mark,

Hasn't the Old Princes clubhouse been renovated and turned into a hotel? You have forgotten Seascale which borders the biggest coastal montrosy in the UK!

Cheers
Ben

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon

Blame the Scottish government for the destruction of the SSSI site - they were the stewards of the site and gave the go ahead for its destruction. 

Ciao   

Sean,

yes, the Scottish government is certainly partly to blame by overriding the decision of the local council but you can hardly believe that Donald Trump is entirely blameless in this matter. I have to say that as a developer I would not want this offshore from my golf course but as a golfer I couldn't give a stuff. Guess it depends on your priorities. I would say that if this single factor were to make a game changing difference to the Trump project then the project would not have had much chance even without it. This wont make a jot of difference to this projects success and Donald Trump knows it. He is just trying it on and who knows, he might succeed.

Jon

[Niall C]

What about the shipping lanes, should they be closed ?

Ships at sea are mere blips on the horizon and rather attractive, not the eyesore created by wind farms.
Shipping lanes are also farther out to sea, unless you're sailing on the Costa Concordia

What about the odd sight of an oil rig, would that cause a few more rooms to be left unlet ?

Absolutely

Would it effect the investment value ?

Sure

Would about a dozen "windmills" several miles off shore stop anyone buying a house along that coast.

It would affect the price of those houses

If you think the answer to any of those questions is yes, then you've no concept of either the local residential market, the hotel market or the factors driving the UK property investment market IMHO.

So it's your opinion that views have no impact on price and salability
Then why do waterfront properties sell for more than inland properties ?

Of course, things may be different in California but this thread is about Balmedie and Trumps investment there.

That's what I thought, but isn't Trump courting international customers ?

When I travel, I'd prefer a room with superior views, but maybe that's just me.

Where is Tom Huckaby when you need him ?

Niall

Patrick

Thanks for confirming you know f**k all about the UK property market.

Niall

[Patrick_Mucci]

Just so that I am entirely clear, here.  Patrick Mucci, the leading proponent of the proposal that the merit of a golf course should be judged purely on the course and that no account should be taken of the surroundings, is agreeing with Trump that his course north of Aberdeen will be ruined by the siting of some wind turbines a distance offshore?

Mark,

As usual you're wrong AGAIN.

I did NOT reference the golf course.

We were talking about the HOTEL and HOMES.

Try reading with some semblance of comprehension before making stupid statements.

I'm assuming that Pat has no desire to play Prestwick (horrid airport), TOC (monstrous hotel), RSG (Pfizer factory, decrepit old Prince's clubhouse now the horrid chimneys have gone), Seaton Carew (ghost ships, Teesside chemical plants), Silloth (grain warehouse), Hoylake (housing), Crail (coastguard station), Troon (airport, again and caravan site) or many other similar British courses.

That's your problem, you're ASSUMING and you're wrong......... again

If Trump was advised that these planned turbines would not get approval then he really needs better advisers.  Perhaps he should blame them, rather thanthe Scottish government,

Maybe it was representatives of the Scottish Government that advised him, and not "advisors" as you claim.

Sean,

You "assume" ?

Trump's not prone to "gambling" at those numbers, and,
You wouldn't gamble on hearsay

Trump is very bright and not prone to rely on rumors or hearsay when making significant business investments

[Niall C]

One other thing while I remember. When Trump was still trying to get his planning permission, I'm fairly sure he stated in the press that he would still go ahead with his development even if the wind turbines went ahead also. If I could ber bothered I would try and track that down but I really don't think it makes any difference. Donald has been saying whatever to get his way. Don't have a problem with that. I do ahve a problem with no one in authority calling him out on it. As Sean stated above, it was the politicians who gave him the go ahead.

Niall

[Patrick_Mucci]

Niall,

What's your professional experience in the hotel and home development business ?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Patrick

Still trying to figure out what business you are in - it can't be golf or design, can it, no, not from what you have said over the years, but I could be mistaken. 

I have done my share with Hotels including Harrods and having seen what Niall has posted both on site and IM to me over the years, I feel he has a good grasp on what he discusses.

Now that has cleared the air and we all support our own, what is the point of your comment - are you saying you know about developing projects in God's country, for the atheist that’s Scotland, not the young pretender Yorkshire which is just a county anyway.

Whatever your answer I will say this to you and mean it "Lang may yer lum reek!" 

Melvyn

[Niall C]

Patrick

Nearly 30 years experience in the property business as a Chartered Surveyor, working in various property sectors, including but not necessarily exclusively in the resi and leisure sectors at various times. That includes a stint as development director for one of Aberdeens more successful property development companies.

As the Donald would say "I am the evidence".

But lets look at this logically, if Donalds conjecture is right, that the siting of these "windmills" would negatively effect the value of his proposed development then it stands to reason that it would also effect the value of existing property lucky enough to have a view of the north sea and the area where these wind turbines would be sited. I suspect that would be a fair chunk of Aberdeen. How likely is that ? Given your previous answers I better answer that for you. No chance at all. Anyone with a view of the North Sea already has a view of a steady stream of commercial shipping some of which services the oil industry. Not much of it pretty.

Are you seriously suggesting therefore that a dozen wind turbines, miles out at sea would suddenly make a difference ? Come on, you can't be serious as McEnroe might say. As someone who works in the property industry, I appreciate and applaud your efforts to counter the sometimes lazy characterisation of Trump and property development in general but I'm sure that even from thousands of miles away you must know that Donalds rant against windmills is just bluster.

Niall

[John Kavanaugh]

Niall,

I live with a view of the Ohio River.  Barge traffic and other commercial vehicles enhance the beauty of the river because they come and go with the dreams and work of their inhabitants.  I often kid with my wife about swimming out to a passing barge and taking on the life of a river boat captain.  Ships at sea may even be more romantic and have long been a subject of fascination.  To compare these to sleek sanitary stationary windmills is pure folly.  

Who knows, I could be wrong and the same argument was made against the classic windmills of Holland.  I suppose now they may enhance the property values of surrounding land.  Why don't you guys ever make that argument?

[Kalen Braley]

JK,

You seem to be awful squeamish about ruining a natural landscape when you're fortune has been made by building roads that do exactly that.

[Sean_A]

Just so that I am entirely clear, here.  Patrick Mucci, the leading proponent of the proposal that the merit of a golf course should be judged purely on the course and that no account should be taken of the surroundings, is agreeing with Trump that his course north of Aberdeen will be ruined by the siting of some wind turbines a distance offshore?

Mark,

As usual you're wrong AGAIN.

I did NOT reference the golf course.

We were talking about the HOTEL and HOMES.

Try reading with some semblance of comprehension before making stupid statements.

I'm assuming that Pat has no desire to play Prestwick (horrid airport), TOC (monstrous hotel), RSG (Pfizer factory, decrepit old Prince's clubhouse now the horrid chimneys have gone), Seaton Carew (ghost ships, Teesside chemical plants), Silloth (grain warehouse), Hoylake (housing), Crail (coastguard station), Troon (airport, again and caravan site) or many other similar British courses.

That's your problem, you're ASSUMING and you're wrong......... again

If Trump was advised that these planned turbines would not get approval then he really needs better advisers.  Perhaps he should blame them, rather thanthe Scottish government,

Maybe it was representatives of the Scottish Government that advised him, and not "advisors" as you claim.

Sean,

You "assume" ?

Trump's not prone to "gambling" at those numbers, and,
You wouldn't gamble on hearsay

Trump is very bright and not prone to rely on rumors or hearsay when making significant business investments

Pat

I say assume because I don't quite know how anyone in this matter could know something formally until a planning proposal is submitted.  I think the proposal in question was submitted last summer, yet Trump references discussions which took place years ago. 

Every development is a gamble as nobody can know what will happen in politics or with the economy.  

I don't know that Trump relied on rumours or hearsay, but I also don't have any evidence the current Scottish government is on record as being against the turbine development. What we have is Trump's word that he was told by somebody in the previous administration the development would never go ahead.  Trump of all folks should know any assurances (especially those off the record) of previous administrations concerning developments die when that administration dies.  Policies change with ever changing economic and constituent pressures.  

Ciao  

[John Kavanaugh]

JK,

You seem to be awful squeamish about ruining a natural landscape when you're fortune has been made by building roads that do exactly that.

That is one reason I love river commerce.  Rivers are little more than natural roads that have been managed by man for their best use.

[DMoriarty]

Here is The Daily Show's rendering of what Trump plans to build in Scotland . . .

[George Pazin]

Tough read. The dream is always for win win. Sometimes the reality seems like lose lose. Here's hoping it's somewhere in between.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Niall,

Why on earth would anyone put just 12 wind turbines in one location at sea ?

That's hardly effective in terms of developing energy.
Most wind farms I've seen have multiples of 12 turbines.

Now I have to ask, who's trying to game whom ?

I think most view ships passing as attractive sights versus large stationary structures which most view as eyesores.

Sean,

You don't gamble with certain aspects of a development, especially one of that magnitude and in that environment and you get your ducks in order prior to signing on the dotted line.

I know one thing, government shouldn't lie or misrepresent the facts when questioned by potential developers.

Either Trump's lying, the government is lying or they're both lying.
They can't both be telling the truth.

And why on earth would the government only site 12 turbines ?

Something's wrong

[William_G]

Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump Trump (meow TV ad)

The name alone leads me to think of something not great but wanting to be GREAT.

Obviously there is more at stake than just one development for Mr. Trump, a dangerous precedent could be set.

Don't mess with Trump, the world is his.

Agree with Ben that this a tough read with random attempts at color and quotes that are excessive IMHO.

Thanks

[Sean_A]

Niall,

Why on earth would anyone put just 12 wind turbines in one location at sea ?

That's hardly effective in terms of developing energy.
Most wind farms I've seen have multiples of 12 turbines.

Now I have to ask, who's trying to game whom ?

I think most view ships passing as attractive sights versus large stationary structures which most view as eyesores.

Sean,

You don't gamble with certain aspects of a development, especially one of that magnitude and in that environment and you get your ducks in order prior to signing on the dotted line.

I know one thing, government shouldn't lie or misrepresent the facts when questioned by potential developers.

Either Trump's lying, the government is lying or they're both lying.
They can't both be telling the truth.

And why on earth would the government only site 12 turbines ?

Something's wrong

Pat

Well, as no application was submitted until last summer and the government is not on record as being against the proposal, yes, it would seem Trump took a risk with this matter.  Although, the risk is really only about how much the turbines may effect his development.  Surely he couldn't have thought private discussions (no matter what was said) with ministers was as good as an assurance that the turbine development would not go ahead - at best that can be called foolish unless Trump "sweetened" the deal in some manner. If I had to place a bet I would say while Trump would rather not have a turbine development off-shore, he doesn't believe the impact on his plans will be great, otherwise Trump would have held off on his development until the turbine development was settled.  Trump is in a perfect situation to blame the government for not going ahead with his plans rather than the economy - it is in a win-win scenario. 

Either way, Trump doesn't have to spend money he likely doesn't want to at this stage.  The signs of this sort of major back down from his original grandiose claims have been there.  Practically every time one read about this development it was worth less and less until finally Trump is now down to only a golf course.  Trump is a very clever guy who now has a golf course built where he would never have been allowed to do so without all the other whistles and bells.  From day one I thought the Scottish government was in over their heads dealing with Trump.  They never checked Trump's economic impact claims.  They never got a contract signed requiring Trump to complete his development in stages by certain dates or face stiff penalties.  They never created an escrow account to re-create what was destroyed should Trump fail.  The bottom line is the Scottish government was the worst possible steward of a very unusual piece of land.  They traded something of value for verbal promises.  Lets hope that next time the government keeps their nose out of planning which is rightfully the domain of a local planning authority.  Surely, it couldn't turn out any worse.

Ciao 

[Martin Toal]

Of course, one consideration may have been that with Trump in the area, the supply of wind is considerably increased.

[Niall C]

Niall,

I live with a view of the Ohio River.  Barge traffic and other commercial vehicles enhance the beauty of the river because they come and go with the dreams and work of their inhabitants.  I often kid with my wife about swimming out to a passing barge and taking on the life of a river boat captain.  Ships at sea may even be more romantic and have long been a subject of fascination.  To compare these to sleek sanitary stationary windmills is pure folly.  

Who knows, I could be wrong and the same argument was made against the classic windmills of Holland.  I suppose now they may enhance the property values of surrounding land.  Why don't you guys ever make that argument?

John

I don't need to make that argument. My point was that the siting of these wind turbines, miles out at sea would have no effect on property values on the coast. In other words, Trumps argument is nonsense. Personally, I'm kind of neutral on the look of them but dubious that they will prove to be a cost effective and efficient means of providing power in the future. The good thing about them is that they can be relatively easily removed without leaving much of an impact.

Patrick

Why only 12, no idea but thats hardly relevant to the question in hand. As we've seen on this website, some like the look of them, some don't, but in the context of looking at property values on the coast they are completely irrelevant.

Sean

I think you are correct that the Scottish Government, in calling in the planning application, didn't examine the economic case to any great degree. At least if they did, I've not seen anything published to substantiate some of the ludicrous figures that were being banded about. I could well be wrong on that front, in that they might have done it but the papers haven't picked it up. Certainly, I've not gone looking for it.

With regards to having a contract with Trump, the planning permission is effectively that contract. Its not unusual for the planning permission to give conditions one of which could easily have been that the course wasn't allowed to open until the hotel and a certain amount of houses were built. I assume those conditions were in the planning permission in which case there will be a lot of red faces in certain places if Trump ultimately doesn't go ahead with the hotel/resi element of the scheme.

Niall

[Rich Goodale]

Niall

My reading of the news is that the planned turbines are not going to be "miles out to sea" but rather one mile.  That's four golf holes of moderate length (by today's standards) away from the shore.  As the turbines are going to be in excess of 600 feet high they will dominate the visuals from the property out towards the sea, and not in a particularly attractive way.  As I understand it, Trump claims that Salmond "promised" him that any turbines would be located at least ten miles out to sea, and the whole kerfuffle is based on the breaking of that promise.  I don't remember seeing Salmond reply (yet) to Trump's accusations, which if they are true, could be very damaging to Alex and the SNP.

As for the projected economic impacts, there is no way that the golf course could provide anything more than a sop to the Aberdeen economy.  The important thing, from both Trump's and Salmond's point of view was the real estate compenent.  For one thing, the area has no world class hotel, despite having large numbers of high spending businesspeople visiting the city regularly.  For another thing, the area north of Aberdeen city is deprived and lacks adequate transportation.  Completed as planned Trump's development could help re-vitalize the area from the Don to Peterhead (much of which, incidentally, falls within Salmond's parliamentary constituency).

In the long run. the Donald could walk away from the project in an instance, if he so wished (and he would so wish if there were no chance to profitably build his hotel and the adjacent residential real estate).  He'd leave behind an extremely good golf course (I've walked the property, and it is at least as good as any of the best courses built in Scotland (or even coastal Oregon....) over the past 10-15 years) that could exist, but not lavishly.  Overall and IMHO, Trump doesn't need the project for the potential money to be made, but more for the street cred that it might bring to him in the twilight of his career.    He can write off the relatively small number of millions of dollars he has spent so far, with only losing a small bit of face.  Compared to some of his earlier career finanical disasters, this one is small beer.  If he's smart (and I tend to agree with Pat that he is) he'll know that it is Salmond who really needs the project and will be left swaying in the wind if it all goes down the swanee, as it very much seems it might.  Regardless, it will be interesting!

[Bryan Izatt]

Seems the brouhaha has even attracted the attention of one of our local Toronto papers - the Globe and Mail.  The following article from their London correspondent was in today's paper.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/arts/elizabeth-renzetti/will-climate-change-trump-tourism-in-scotland/article2416526/

It provides some broader context to the story including the following:

"But it appears the wind is blowing in favour of turbines. At a conference on clean energy in London this week, British Prime Minister David Cameron announced a 20-country deal to co-operate on offshore wind generation and carbon capture. It would be “a second renewable energy revolution in the North Sea,” he said, and would be a step towards Mr. Cameron's goal of increasing wind power by almost tenfold, to 18 gigawatts, by 2020. Mr. Trump had better hold onto his hat (and hair.) ".


Vis-a-vis the impact of wind farms on tourism, I guess that Denmark and Copenhagen missed the point.  They have both land and ocean-based wind farms.  Tourism looked just fine to me last time I was there.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()