Trump International Golf Links

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jon,

That's your convoluted conclusion.

My experience at clubs, limited to 50+ years, has proved my statement to be accurate.

Who attends and speaks at annual club meetings ?
Those satisfied with everything or those who have complaints ?

It's human nature.

Those satisfied have other, more important things to do.
Those dissatisfied want a forum to vent.

[Paul Gray]

Patrick,

I suspect, inevitably I suppose, that we are heading towards an impasse.

I've never claimed to speak for anyone but myself. I found the behaviour of Trump and his not so merry brigade to be morally reproachable and aired my views accordingly. I'm not quite sure how you conclude that expressing such views in a perfectly rational and reasoned manner equates to whining.

I don't like what's happened and I won't be visiting. The most radical thing I've ever done in relation to this has been to ask others to take a long, hard look at themselves before planning a trip. I'm not about to apologise for that.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul,

I never annointed Trump as a choir boy.

As to whining, if you've read the abundance of threads and numerous posts related to this project and others that Trump is involved with, you couldn't help but notice the whining.  It's almost a constant drone.  I understand that he's a polarizing figure, disliked by many, but, one should extract or at the least, detach his personality from the project.

From what I've heard, from people who have played the golf course, it's a wonderful golf course that will get better with time and fine tuning.  One that will attract tourists and benefit the community financially.

From what's now being stated, the "hotel" phase will soon be underway.

To me, that means that it will become a golf destination, which in turn means employment in the construction and operation's phases.
Is that bad for the local residents ?

A recent court case in Connecticut essentially ruled that municipalities could condemn (eminent domain) properties, for better use, even when that better use was private development.

At first, I strenuously objected to the ruling.
But, when contemplating how downtrodden cities will revitalize themselves, it seemed that this was a reasonable solution, provided that the process wasn't tainted by money and/or politics, which I realize is almost impossible.  Still, one must look to the benefits for the majority even if a minority will not fare as well.  It would seem that the community as a whole will benefit, while some adjacent homeowners feel that they won't benefit.  I couldn't quantify, in terms of money, what that dissatisfaction would be worth.

There was opposition to this project before a spade was in the ground, from divergent groups, but, politics make strange bedfellows and many disenters seized any issue to add to their own, so were the homeowner's complaints a rallying point or a very real issue for anyone other than the homeowner ?  I don't know the answer.

Like any project, those in closest proximity usual object the most, and with valid reasons, they don't want their environment to change, irrespective of what others think.  That's why I referenced PJ Clarke's, a famous dispute not unlike the one at Trump Scotland.

I've stated, time and time again, that I don't know ALL of the facts, and I dare say that neither do most, if not all of the contributors to this thread.

As to what Trump did or didn't do, factually, again, I don't know.
As to what he says, and what he "tweets", and I can't believe that he personally "tweets", talk is cheap and egos are fragile.

It may be that his behavior was attrocious.  It may be that he ramrodded this project through to fruition, but, again, I ask you, in the global scheme of things, is this golf course, is this project going to improve the economy in the area ?
Will this golf course be one that the locals and all of Scotland feel is a terrific golf course ?

[Jon Wiggett]

Jon,

That's your convoluted conclusion.

My experience at clubs, limited to 50+ years, has proved my statement to be accurate.

Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Still, one must look to the benefits for the majority even if a minority will not fare as well.

Totally out of context and all, but you're sounding positively socialist.  Think of this as applied to taxation and social policy.   

_________________________


Re the hotel part of the grand project, what the heck are they going to do with a 450 room luxury hotel in the winter?  Or, even the summer?  How many rooms do you need to fill up one or even two courses for a day, assuming some of the rounds are local or day trippers?  I suppose the equestrian stuff and spas might attract some too, when they're built, but 450 rooms seems like a lot.

[Paul Gray]

Patrick,

Your points are fair and well made, but I can't see that we're going to fundamentally agree here.

I have no objection in principle to 'eminent domain' by either the private or public sectors, but I don't agree with its threatened use in this case. The homes in question never needed to be a problem to the development of the course. The fundamental reason Trump wanted them moved was because he regarded them as 'eyesores.' Such arrogance and, dare I say it without it being misinterpreted, lack of class, repulses me. It's solely a personal judgement for all of us but I can't see me happily playing a course where so much effort had been made to remove the natural landscape and, make no mistake, a crofter's cottage or two is far more a part of the landscape in that part of the world than any large building Trump could dream up.

As we're both aware, no poll has been carried out. However, it does seem to me and, like you, I'm really just trying to sniff the air here, the local community is broadly against the project. And surely it's for them to decide what they want, rather than be told it's for their own good. And besides, I hope you'd agree that the wishes of those most directly affected should carry more weight than the wishes of others. If, hypothetically, I lived near you and was offered, along with many others, money and jewels from a third party to turn a blind eye to your house being bulldozed, would you really shake my hand and say "fair enough, it was for the greater good."? Presumably not, and you'd be right not to, because you're feelings should have been afforded far greater weight than mine.  

To broaden the point slightly, there's been much conjecture about the potential benefits to the Scottish economy as a whole. Truth is none of us really knows but it seems a reasonable assertion that much of the money taken at Trump will be money which would have been spent regardless at another Scottish venue. Someone might put Trump on their list of courses to play on a golf holiday but, in a great many cases, it will be instead of another venue, rather than as well as. So Trump in itself is hardly likely to be of any great significance to the national coffers in Scotland, given that there are one or two hundred other worthwhile courses anyway. Nonetheless, let's assume for now that tourism is greatly increased, at what point do we brush everything else under the carpet for the sake of short/mid term financial gain. I raise this point without even beginning on the environmental issues concerned because, frankly, I'm an economist by design and not an expert on nature.  

As for the tweets, sadly I honestly believe Trump and Alan Sugar were both personally responsible for that rather childish spat.

Btw, I was completely unaware of the P.J. Clarke's case. A brief search online led me to more advertising than anything else. I presume it was small business vs big business?

[Brian_Ewen]

http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-news/top-stories/boycott-donald-trump-course-urges-top-golf-writer-bill-elliott-1-2684818

Boycott Donald Trump course, urges top golf writer Bill Elliott
Published on Tuesday 11 December 2012

A LEADING figure in the golf world, who edits one of the sport’s top magazines with a readership around 500,000, is calling for a boycott of Donald Trump’s Scottish course.

Bill Elliott – editor-at-large of Golf Monthly – has vowed never to set foot on the course after watching the documentary You’ve Been Trumped, broadcast by the BBC in October.

And the influential chairman of the Association of Golf Writers urges the publication’s readers to do the same, saying: “I suggest you join me.”

The move was criticised last night by the Trump Organisation, which accused Mr Elliott of a “lack of editorial integrity” and claimed his position was “based upon a second-hand source that is a gross distortion of the truth”.

Mr Elliott said the Trump Organisation’s “nastiness” over a row with neighbouring residents on the Menie Estate had shocked him.

He wrote: “By all accounts, this is a seriously brilliant links. Opened in the summer, the plaudits for it have been almost overwhelmingly in their positivity. Despite this, I’ll never play it. Why? Because I watched, along with almost a million others, the documentary You’ve Been Trumped on television.

“Even allowing for the fact that it was a one-sided film, it was impossible not to be shocked by the tactics used to try to intimidate a few local residents who refused to sell their homes. This intimidation apparently goes on.”

George Sorial, executive vice-president for the Trump Organisation, said: “Bill Elliot does not know what he is talking about and his comments demonstrate a complete lack of editorial integrity because he never visited our course or inquired about the issues.

“His entire position is based upon a second-hand source that is a gross distortion of the truth. The global golf community has embraced our course and bookings continue to soar.

“If Mr Elliot took the time to investigate the facts the way a professional writer should, he would be very embarrassed.”

You’ve Been Trumped, was broadcast by the BBC on 21 October. About 300 complaints were received by Grampian Police over the arrests of two film-makers working on the documentary about Mr Trump’s golf development.

The piece showed film-makers Anthony Baxter and Richard Phinney being arrested by officers on the Menie estate in Aberdeenshire.

The force has acknowledged that the arrests could have been better handled. The arrests were part of an investigation into an ­alleged breach of the peace.

Mr Baxter said that he and Mr Phinney had been doing their jobs as journalists.

Aberdeenshire farmer Michael Forbes, who featured in the documentary and rose to prominence as a result of his battle against Mr Trump’s project, recently scooped the Top Scot prize at the Glenfiddich Spirt of Scotland ceremony.

Mr Trump once described Mr Forbes’s property, which borders the tycoon’s land, as a “slum”.

The award prompted Mr Trump to launch a furious tirade against the whisky distillery, claiming its Top Scot award was a “publicity stunt” and an “embarrassment” to Scotland.

He subsequently announced a ban on William Grant & Son whiskies at Trump properties.

Design work for a second golf course close to the Trump International Links is now under way. In October, Mr Trump said that plans for an adjoining luxury hotel would go ahead.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Still, one must look to the benefits for the majority even if a minority will not fare as well.

Totally out of context and all, but you're sounding positively socialist.  Think of this as applied to taxation and social policy.   

Bryan,

Initially I had a sentence referencing our tax policy, but eliminated it to stay on topic.

_________________________


Re the hotel part of the grand project, what the heck are they going to do with a 450 room luxury hotel in the winter? 

You'll have to ask the "Donald".
But, construction and servicing of that hotel will produce a lot of jobs

Or, even the summer? 


Have you ever seen the hotel at Turnberry ?  Glen Eagles ?

How many rooms do you need to fill up one or even two courses for a day, assuming some of the rounds are local or day trippers? 
I don't know, but, I think the Japanese, when they bought the hotel at Turnberry, spent another $ 60,000,000 on a spa and related activities

I suppose the equestrian stuff and spas might attract some too, when they're built, but 450 rooms seems like a lot.

Perhaps they have the "convention" trade in mind, along with "Major" golf events.

But, why would you care if the hotel has 450, 250 or 150 rooms ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Your points are fair and well made, but I can't see that we're going to fundamentally agree here.

I have no objection in principle to 'eminent domain' by either the private or public sectors, but I don't agree with its threatened use in this case. The homes in question never needed to be a problem to the development of the course. The fundamental reason Trump wanted them moved was because he regarded them as 'eyesores.'

From his perspective, as a developer of a world class golf course, hotel and residences, he might be right.

Such arrogance and, dare I say it without it being misinterpreted, lack of class, repulses me. It's solely a personal judgement for all of us but I can't see me happily playing a course where so much effort had been made to remove the natural landscape and, make no mistake, a crofter's cottage or two is far more a part of the landscape in that part of the world than any large building Trump could dream up.

I don't disagree with you that it's solely a personal judgement, but, it's his judgement and he's the developer.

As we're both aware, no poll has been carried out. However, it does seem to me and, like you, I'm really just trying to sniff the air here, the local community is broadly against the project.

Paul, I would think that it might be premature to make that judgement.
Let's wait until the project is fully operational and then let's see what the local community thinks.

Nobody wants a factory in their backyard, but, when 500 or 1,000 local people gain employment, views tend to change.

And surely it's for them to decide what they want, rather than be told it's for their own good. And besides, I hope you'd agree that the wishes of those most directly affected should carry more weight than the wishes of others.


I understand and agree that the wishes of those most directly affected have to be weighted.
But, then I think of those most directly affected at Chernobyl, the "first responders'.
They knew that they were doomed, but, they sacrificed their lives for the good of others.
While the analogy may seem extreme/severe, sometimes you have to take a step back and take a more global view of a situation.
Let's say that my house was worth $ 250,000 and that Trump offered me $ 100,000.
Obviously, he wouldn't make an aquisition.
On the other hand, if he offered me $ 500,000 I couldn't complain that he was being ruthless in his negotiations


If, hypothetically, I lived near you and was offered, along with many others, money and jewels from a third party to turn a blind eye to your house being bulldozed, would you really shake my hand and say "fair enough, it was for the greater good."?

Wouldn't the answer to that question depend upon "fair market value" and how much more than fair market value I was paid for my house.
I'm reminded of the scene from "Heaven Can Wait" where the owner of the L.A. Rams is sullen and depressed when talking to an associate after he's sold the franchise.  He says words to the effect, "that SOB stole if from me."  And the other guy says, "how'd he do that".  And the former owner says, "I asked him for X Gazzillion dollars and he paid it to me"

So, one has to ask, did the homeowner receive fair market value and then some ?
If so, I have a hard time being sympathetic, even though I understand "sentimental value" in addition to FMV.
If he received less than FMV, then that's a wrong that should be righted or never allowed to have happened in the first place.

Presumably not, and you'd be right not to, because you're feelings should have been afforded far greater weight than mine.  
But, take it a step further.  Let's say that my house is being bulldozed for a proton beam therapy facility, where none exists for a thousand miles around.  Then what.  Again, I'm not equating a golf resort with a cancer research/treatment facility, but, I think you can see that it's not such a simple black and white situation.

To broaden the point slightly, there's been much conjecture about the potential benefits to the Scottish economy as a whole. Truth is none of us really knows but it seems a reasonable assertion that much of the money taken at Trump will be money which would have been spent regardless at another Scottish venue.

I don't agree with that.
The guy has a history of producing and running great facilities. Ones that attract outsiders.
And, you're confining yourself to money pouring into the local economy once the project is built, not all the money inurring to the local community during construction, which is significant.

Someone might put Trump on their list of courses to play on a golf holiday but, in a great many cases, it will be instead of another venue, rather than as well as.

That's not the vibe I'm getting from those along the East Coast, from Florida to Boston.

So Trump in itself is hardly likely to be of any great significance to the national coffers in Scotland, given that there are one or two hundred other worthwhile courses anyway.

We disagree.
Have you ever been to a Trump golf course, hotel or highrise residence ?

Nonetheless, let's assume for now that tourism is greatly increased, at what point do we brush everything else under the carpet for the sake of short/mid term financial gain.

Again, your predisposition has overstated the issue.
It's NOT "everything else", it's a singular issue, "Eminent Domain"

I raise this point without even beginning on the environmental issues concerned because, frankly, I'm an economist by design and not an expert on nature.

I can't speak to the environment issues either, but, have the courses at St Andrews harmed the environment ?
Have any of the links courses, existing for centuries, harmed the environment ?
You can't have it both ways, you can't promote links golf on one hand, and ignore the environmental impact, if there is one, and then, jump all over poor defenseless Donald, for environmental issues, understanding what some claim is a unique aspect of the environment in that area.  

As for the tweets, sadly I honestly believe Trump and Alan Sugar were both personally responsible for that rather childish spat.
Sometimes adults behave like children ........ without knowing it.

Btw, I was completely unaware of the P.J. Clarke's case. A brief search online led me to more advertising than anything else. I presume it was small business vs big business?

It was a great little bar/restaurant, famous for its food/patrons/atmosphere.
It's right on the corner of 3rd Ave and E 55th, where they wanted to build a huge skyscraper, but, they wouldn't sell out, completely, so, they built the huge skyscraper around the bar/restaurant.  Although I think they might have sold the top two of the four stories of the building.
It's still there and I occassionally stop in for a bite when I visit MSKCC. on 53rd st.

We seem to expect squeaky clean perfection from everybody else, but, not from ourselves.

I hope the project enjoys success, although, with the economy, I think it will take alot of time.

[Mark Chaplin]

I think Trump banning Grant whisky products, shows along with his tweets, what a childish manner he can take on at times.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Still, one must look to the benefits for the majority even if a minority will not fare as well.

Totally out of context and all, but you're sounding positively socialist.  Think of this as applied to taxation and social policy.   

Bryan,

Initially I had a sentence referencing our tax policy, but eliminated it to stay on topic.

_________________________


Re the hotel part of the grand project, what the heck are they going to do with a 450 room luxury hotel in the winter? 

You'll have to ask the "Donald".
But, construction and servicing of that hotel will produce a lot of jobs

No doubt some good, others not so good.

Or, even the summer? 


Have you ever seen the hotel at Turnberry ?  Glen Eagles ?

Yes, if you mean this quaint little 207 room hotel.  Actually stayed there before the Japanese reno.  A little creaky at the time and, less than half the size of Trump's proposed hotel.



How many rooms do you need to fill up one or even two courses for a day, assuming some of the rounds are local or day trippers? 
I don't know, but, I think the Japanese, when they bought the hotel at Turnberry, spent another $ 60,000,000 on a spa and related activities

I suppose the equestrian stuff and spas might attract some too, when they're built, but 450 rooms seems like a lot.

Perhaps they have the "convention" trade in mind, along with "Major" golf events.

I guess they could end up cannibalizing from the existing convention centre and hotels a few miles south of Menie in north Aberdeen.

But, why would you care if the hotel has 450, 250 or 150 rooms ?

I don't "care".  But I am curious how it will fit in and whether it will turn out to be financially successful.  It just sounds like a lot of rooms to me, but then I'm not a business tycoon like Trump.

[Paul Gray]

Patrick,

Crofter's cottages might quite reasonably be seen as eyesores? Really Patrick?

I fear the predicted impasse has indeed been reached and I will at least rest easy thinking that I might in some small way have given you some food for thought.

The one thing I will pick you up on is your apparent assertion that some kind of negative juxtaposition inevitably will exist between golf and nature. I can assure you that many links and heathland courses over here are responsible for preserving natural habitats which would otherwise have vanished long ago, the locations of native heather being a prime example. I can't honestly comment on Scotland per se, although Castle Stuart stands out as a new development where all parties are more than satisfied, but English Nature frequently work WITH golf clubs to ensure our golfing lands remain environmentally sound. I'm not quite sure where you were off to with your suggestion that 'you can't have it both ways.' You can, it's called working with nature. By doing so there's nothing to ignore. Again, I refer you to Castle Stuart.

OK, one more point, you do realise Trump wouldn't have rested until P.J. Clarke's was rubble, right?

Happy hunting.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Crofter's cottages might quite reasonably be seen as eyesores? Really Patrick?

Paul,

It's not what you or I might see as eyesores, it's what Trump perceives as eyesores.
He's the developer and in the ultimate, responsible for the product produced.

I fear the predicted impasse has indeed been reached and I will at least rest easy thinking that I might in some small way have given you some food for thought.

I completely understand your position, and I hope you understand mine, a portion of which is that neither of our opinions matter, Trump will and has done what he wanted to do in order to produce the product he envisioned

The one thing I will pick you up on is your apparent assertion that some kind of negative juxtaposition inevitably will exist between golf and nature.

I can assure you that many links and heathland courses over here are responsible for preserving natural habitats which would otherwise have vanished long ago, the locations of native heather being a prime example.

I'm not so sure that preservation and environmental issues aren't a more recent concern.
I doubt such efforts existed in the 1700's, 1800's and early part of the 1900's.

I can't honestly comment on Scotland per se, although Castle Stuart stands out as a new development where all parties are more than satisfied, but English Nature frequently work WITH golf clubs to ensure our golfing lands remain environmentally sound.

Were the circumstances, the fact base identical at Castle Stuart and Trump ?
I don't know the answer, but, I suspect that they weren't.

I'm not quite sure where you were off to with your suggestion that 'you can't have it both ways.'

Some of the anti-Trump issues were focused on the linksland and the damage/disruption that a golf course would cause.
Does it cause that damage/disruption only at sites where Trump is involved ?

You can, it's called working with nature. By doing so there's nothing to ignore. Again, I refer you to Castle Stuart.

Did TOC work with nature ?  Prestwick ?  Turnberry, Troon ?
C'mon.

OK, one more point, you do realise Trump wouldn't have rested until P.J. Clarke's was rubble, right?

I think I'm more familiar with PJ Clarke's holdout and Trump than you and I'd disagree.
Trump might have offered him more, but, if the owner wouldn't sell, you'd have the same situation you have today.

Happy hunting.


I don't hunt, I think it's cruel to animals

[Ben Sims]

Patrick,

I've read almost all of your posts on Trump, his motives, and what the potential impact will be for all of his nastiness.  I could only muster one thought.  Don't ever, ever get involved with counterinsurgency and trying to win a people, you would suck at it.  Which reminds me, I am SOOO glad Trump isn't anywhere near Iraq or Afghanistan. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I've read almost all of your posts on Trump, his motives, and what the potential impact will be for all of his nastiness. 
I could only muster one thought.  Don't ever, ever get involved with counterinsurgency and trying to win a people, you would suck at it.  


Ben, I'm not trying to win the hearts and minds of those participating on this thread.
As to your assessment of my capabilities, you don't have the slightest clue when it comes to my ability to persuade.
Suffice it to say that when I had to convince a membership to renovate/redesign a golf course and spend millions to do so, the vote was about 80 % in favor of the project.

Which reminds me, I am SOOO glad Trump isn't anywhere near Iraq or Afghanistan. 

Trump is very bright, and very results oriented.
I doubt he would have taken more than eleven (11) years to achieve his objective in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Your problem is that you know nothing about Trump, his intelligence, his work ethic and his drive, choosing instead to demean his abilities because you're not enamored with his personality.

[William_G]

free replay at 30000

I look forward to playing the International and watching the movie, it's golf for heaven's sake.

[Ben Sims]

Patrick,

I've read almost all of your posts on Trump, his motives, and what the potential impact will be for all of his nastiness. 
I could only muster one thought.  Don't ever, ever get involved with counterinsurgency and trying to win a people, you would suck at it.  


Ben, I'm not trying to win the hearts and minds of those participating on this thread.
As to your assessment of my capabilities, you don't have the slightest clue when it comes to my ability to persuade.
Suffice it to say that when I had to convince a membership to renovate/redesign a golf course and spend millions to do so, the vote was about 80 % in favor of the project.

Which reminds me, I am SOOO glad Trump isn't anywhere near Iraq or Afghanistan. 

Trump is very bright, and very results oriented.
I doubt he would have taken more than eleven (11) years to achieve his objective in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Your problem is that you know nothing about Trump, his intelligence, his work ethic and his drive, choosing instead to demean his abilities because you're not enamored with his personality.

Patrick,

There's no need to be defensive.  My post is in no way indicative of you or Donald Trump's ability to produce "results."  It is only my perception that neither you or him care "how you play the game," as long as you win.  A lot of people I know have met you and would say that I'm wrong about that perception.  But that's what your posts and Trump's tactics indicate.  And trust me, in a local level insurgency, it matters more how you accomplish the mission rather than actually accomplishing the mission.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I've read almost all of your posts on Trump, his motives, and what the potential impact will be for all of his nastiness. 

I could only muster one thought. 
Don't ever, ever get involved with counterinsurgency and trying to win a people, you would suck at it.  

Patrick,

There's no need to be defensive.  

Let me see if I understand something.
You tell me that I "would suck at it"
And I offer reasons why I wouldn't and you label me as being "defensive"
Should I not defend myself against a bogus allegation ?

My post is in no way indicative of you or Donald Trump's ability to produce "results."  
 
Of course it is, you just told me that my ability to produce favorable results would "suck"


It is only my perception that neither you or him care "how you play the game," as long as you win.  

Then your abilities to perceive are sorely lacking.

A lot of people I know have met you and would say that I'm wrong about that perception.  

Count me as being in their camp.


But that's what your posts and Trump's tactics indicate.  

No, that's what your flawed ability to perceive leads you to believe

And trust me, in a local level insurgency, it matters more how you accomplish the mission rather than actually accomplishing the mission.  
The flaw in your statement is that you've qualified your method for accomplishing the mission as being successful, when in fact your method may have failed.

Hey, it's always better to win an issue with a 99-1 vote rather than a 66-33 or 51-49 vote.

The question is, will your method pass the test of time once you withdraw.

Trump's very intelligent and pragmatic.  I have no doubt that if he were a military commander with authority that he'd make prudent decisions.

I don't think another developer could have brought this project to fruition, others may feel differently.

You just don't like his persona

[Ben Sims]

Patrick,

You're right.  I probably shouldn't have said there was no need for defensiveness.  I was just using a Trump tactic of unfounded allegation to get my point across. 

Still, it seems that the perception of Trump and his tactics aren't all that mis-perceived.  At least by a very vocal and large group of people in Scotland.  Perception--wrong or right--is reality.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ben,

I don't know what's fact and what's fiction on ALL of the issues and I suspect that I'm not alone.

But, if you start defending him, I might start attacking him 

[Ben Sims]

Ben,

I don't know what's fact and what's fiction on ALL of the issues and I suspect that I'm not alone.

But, if you start defending him, I might start attacking him 

Sweet!  I've got a new weapon for the the Mucci, non sequitur. 

[Paul Gray]

I will leave this topic alone soon, or so I keep promising myself!

Just two points, really, just two:

1) The historic fact that courses have preserved nature is something of a happy accident. That fact, however, does nothing to diminish our responsibilities going forward. We live, or some of us at least, in a more enlightened age environmentally and can therefore not use the past as a defence for our future actions.

2) Ben nailed something when he referred to Trump only being concerned with winning and not caring about how the game was played. Your generally disposition seems to me to be to praise the success of such an approach and point out that he's the developer and can ultimately do what he wants. This kind of imperialism (the fact that we British governed a third of the globe with a similarly arrogant mentality hasn't gone without note) is nothing to be proud of. Trawling the planet and basically saying "hey, I'm here, this is how I do things, deal with it" is no way to behave in a supposedly civilised society. It doesn't matter whether its Donald Trump, me, you or anyone else doing it. To give a far smaller scale example, the British masses still have an ugly habit of adopting this attitude when abroad (something of a throwback to the days of empire) and it equally stinks.

Btw, as I strongly suspect you realise, the 'happy hunting' reference was not meant literally.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I will leave this topic alone soon, or so I keep promising myself!

Just two points, really, just two:

1) The historic fact that courses have preserved nature is something of a happy accident.

Or, it just might be that golf courses don't inherently harm nature and not just a random consequence of good fortune.

That fact, however, does nothing to diminish our responsibilities going forward.
We live, or some of us at least, in a more enlightened age environmentally and can therefore not use the past as a defence for our future actions.
So how has Trump not put forth the effort to "preserve nature" in the design and building of his golf course.

2) Ben nailed something when he referred to Trump only being concerned with winning and not caring about how the game was played.

First, Ben doesn't have a clue when it comes to Trump and his "only" concerns.

Your generally disposition seems to me to be to praise the success of such an approach and point out that he's the developer and can ultimately do what he wants.

That's your interpretation.
The circumstances are simple.
Trump wanted to build a world class golf course.
He determined the site, obtained the approvals and had the course designed and built.
He accomplished his goal.
From HIS perspective do you think he wanted to spend millions of his money and have the project terminated due to an unforseen impediment ?
Do you think he said or considered the following:
Let's see, I think I'll spend 40, 50 or 80 million and just walk away if there's the slightest problem.
For better or worse, he hasn't been successful because he accepted the other guys position.

This kind of imperialism (the fact that we British governed a third of the globe with a similarly arrogant mentality hasn't gone without note) is nothing to be proud of.

So if anyone's feelings are hurt, if anyone gets the short end of the stick, any and all development should stop ?

Trawling the planet and basically saying "hey, I'm here, this is how I do things, deal with it" is no way to behave in a supposedly civilised society.

Did Trump break any laws ?
Did he conform to the permitting process ?
Did he build to code ?
Did he conform to Scottish rules and regulations ?

It doesn't matter whether its Donald Trump, me, you or anyone else doing it.
To give a far smaller scale example, the British masses still have an ugly habit of adopting this attitude when abroad (something of a throwback to the days of empire) and it equally stinks.

I don't agree with that.
It was the British spirit that helped civilize the world.


Btw, as I strongly suspect you realise, the 'happy hunting' reference was not meant literally.

Your suspicions are correct.
I knew what you meant, I was just kidding you.

[Jon Wiggett]

Patrick,

I am afraid to say that this post of yours shows how little you really seem to take on board of others opinions and the facts of this matter.

I will leave this topic alone soon, or so I keep promising myself!

Just two points, really, just two:

1) The historic fact that courses have preserved nature is something of a happy accident.

Or, it just might be that golf courses don't inherently harm nature and not just a random consequence of good fortune.

That fact, however, does nothing to diminish our responsibilities going forward.
We live, or some of us at least, in a more enlightened age environmentally and can therefore not use the past as a defence for our future actions.
So how has Trump not put forth the effort to "preserve nature" in the design and building of his golf course.

Are you serious with this question? Even if you believe the work carried out was justified to fain having no knowledge of the damage is really quite laughable

2) Ben nailed something when he referred to Trump only being concerned with winning and not caring about how the game was played.

First, Ben doesn't have a clue when it comes to Trump and his "only" concerns.

But didn't you say the same thing?

Your generally disposition seems to me to be to praise the success of such an approach and point out that he's the developer and can ultimately do what he wants.

That's your interpretation.
The circumstances are simple.
Trump wanted to build a world class golf course.
He determined the site, obtained the approvals and had the course designed and built.
He accomplished his goal.
From HIS perspective do you think he wanted to spend millions of his money and have the project terminated due to an unforeseen impediment ?
Do you think he said or considered the following:
Let's see, I think I'll spend 40, 50 or 80 million and just walk away if there's the slightest problem.
For better or worse, he hasn't been successful because he accepted the other guys position.

This kind of imperialism (the fact that we British governed a third of the globe with a similarly arrogant mentality hasn't gone without note) is nothing to be proud of.

So if anyone's feelings are hurt, if anyone gets the short end of the stick, any and all development should stop ?

Trawling the planet and basically saying "hey, I'm here, this is how I do things, deal with it" is no way to behave in a supposedly civilised society.

Did Trump break any laws ?
Did he conform to the permitting process ? No
Did he build to code ?No
Did he conform to Scottish rules and regulations ?No

It doesn't matter whether its Donald Trump, me, you or anyone else doing it.
To give a far smaller scale example, the British masses still have an ugly habit of adopting this attitude when abroad (something of a throwback to the days of empire) and it equally stinks.

I don't agree with that.
It was the British spirit that helped civilize the world.


Btw, as I strongly suspect you realise, the 'happy hunting' reference was not meant literally.

Your suspicions are correct.
I knew what you meant, I was just kidding you.

[Paul Gray]

Patrick,

We'd need membership at the same golf club and an enormous amount of time in the 19th to move this on any further and, frankly, I wouldn't wish us upon the rest of the members! Now that gets me thinking; maybe I could seek membership at Trump International and bore people out of visiting, or at least revisiting! Actually, unless I had any great desire to ambush people from behind sand dunes, why bother with membership? I could just set myself up in the clubhouse with a massive hip flask of a certain banned Scottish whisky, claim squatters rights and preach from there. Maybe Donald could get a Compulsory Purchase Order on me.

Famous last words, and not words I can absolutely promise to stick to, but I'm out. Nonetheless Patrick, it's been fun.