Trump International Golf Links

[Ally Mcintosh]

Deleted - There just didn't seem to be a point.

Well said Duncan

[Niall C]

Both the TV programme and the Independant article are aimed at giving Salmond a kicking. Not really to do with Trump, he's just incidental to the real intent. All to do with next years independence vote.

Niall,

Is this the Panorama programme that showed on BBC1 tonight?.... Forgot to record it and we don't get iplayer over here unfortunately... Did anyone see it?

Ally

I believe last night was the programmes first airing. Having now watched it let me say that the producers tried very hard to give Trump a bigger kicking than Wee Eck however given Donald's less than spotless rep I doubt any extra mud will have stuck, although his son didn't come out of it as being too clever. Salmond didn't come out of it smelling of roses but I doubt there was any lasting damage.

Niall

[Niall C]

Mark, that's a hypothetical argument, the fact is that 200 jobs have been created and now he's building another 18 hole course which will create more jobs.

Patrick

At this rate he'll need to build another 60 courses to produce the number of jobs he said he would. The interesting thing watching last night's programme was that it was using old footage and at one point he was saying 7,000 jobs and then 6,000 jobs. It just sounded like he was throwing numbers out there willy nilly. You'd have thought that they would have done some due dilligence before granting consent.

Niall

[Mark_F]

Interesting slideshow in The Telegraph highlighting one of Trump's concerns going forward.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/propertymarket/10168770/Top-10-things-that-devalue-your-home.html?frame=2612910

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat you still don't understand it.

There was massive opposition to the scheme, Scotland isn't exactly short of golf courses,
I don't know about metro NYC nor do I care.

Mark, you still don't understand it.

The course has been built and is operational.

It's up and running.
Don't you think whining about it's creation is a waste of time ?

I cannot imagine a metro NYC senator taking up parliamentary time and lobbying to have all sorts of laws and regulations ignored or amended to put 200 jobs in a state forest.

Yikes, are you in for a surprise 
Haven't you heard about the bridges to nowhere in the U.S. ?

Elected officials were hook winked and seduced into approving the scheme.

I think you're being polite.
Elected officials don't get elected because they're naive, easily hood winked and seduced.
They're pretty shrewd characters, not the innocents that you portray.

Which politicians went the extra mile to ensure Streamsong was build.

Don't know the details or the local, regional or state politics, but I'd be surprised if politicians didn't help expedite the project.

How many world class courses are there within 100 miles of Streamsong?

There are a number of excellent courses within 100 miles of Streamsong.

He may have built a good or even great golf course but Scotland has loads of them, the difference is they live in harmony with nature and the locals.
Nonsense.
As Duncan pointed out, Trumps efforts are no different than the efforts of his predecessors.

They don't bully the small guy or build 20' high earth walls around their houses to remove an "eyesore".

That's got nothing to do with the quality of the golf course or the amount of jobs created.
Many a course berms or trees what they consider unsightly objects.
The homeowner had a choice.
He chose to remain.
PJ Clarke's in NYC did the same.

How do the 200 people employed by the project feel about the homeowner ?

If Mike Keiser were the developer the decibel level would be much lower.

But again, the course has been built and is operational and the second course is in the works.

How long will the whining continue ?

[Chris DeNigris]

Pat you still don't understand it. There was massive opposition to the scheme,

Mark,

Simply not true... A significant majority of the local population were enthusiastically for the "scheme". The minority opposition was mostly environmental groups.  Virtually all other groups (especially business and commerce) were all for the development. Including, as has been pointed out several times, a majority of the local council folk.

And all the economic studies were thoroughly and independently vetted- by multiple entities.

Sure, Donald is a bombastic bully and he and his team certainly have made a boatload of mis-steps and mistakes...but to continue to imply/state that he somehow hoodwinked the local population is totally disingenuous.

[Jim Nugent]

Pat you still don't understand it. There was massive opposition to the scheme,

Mark,

Simply not true... A significant majority of the local population were enthusiastically for the "scheme".

That is my memory of it too.  I remember debates here on GCA to the effect that even though the great masses of people wanted the project to move ahead, the council (?) rightly held the power to ignore their wishes and nix it all.   

Throughout the 19th century areas of links were appropriated for golf throughout the British Isles. Was adequate compensation ever paid to the sheep farmers displaced or was any thought whatsoever given to possible environmental consequences?

Of course not! The local bigwig and his acoloytes fancied a golf course on common land and so built one. They then built a fence around it to keep out the riff-raff.

From my understanding, this common ground had been set aside as untouchable because environmental groups lobbied government for that.  i.e. the exact situation you ascribe to local bigwigs and golf already existed there: (heavily) restricted use due to a special interest group getting in bed with government.   

[Jon Wiggett]

Pat you still don't understand it. There was massive opposition to the scheme,

Mark,

Simply not true... A significant majority of the local population were enthusiastically for the "scheme".

That is my memory of it too.  I remember debates here on GCA to the effect that even though the great masses of people wanted the project to move ahead, the council (?) rightly held the power to ignore their wishes and nix it all.   

Though many in the golfing world were positive for this project I am not sure it was a significant majority indeed the vast majority of the Aberdonians I spoke with were against it.

Throughout the 19th century areas of links were appropriated for golf throughout the British Isles. Was adequate compensation ever paid to the sheep farmers displaced or was any thought whatsoever given to possible environmental consequences?

Of course not! The local bigwig and his acoloytes fancied a golf course on common land and so built one. They then built a fence around it to keep out the riff-raff.

From my understanding, this common ground had been set aside as untouchable because environmental groups lobbied government for that.  i.e. the exact situation you ascribe to local bigwigs and golf already existed there: (heavily) restricted use due to a special interest group getting in bed with government.   

Depends what part of the country you are talking about. Many Scottish links were grazed (as some still are) and open to the local population to play

[Jim Nugent]

Jon, I think I did not explain my point well.  I was trying to say that before Trump got permission for his golf course, the dunes owed their 'protected' status to the same process Duncan described for so many golf courses.  A special interest group, in this case environmental, lobbied government to greatly limit how the dunes were used. 

[Sean_A]

I never saw a single poll which concluded "A significant majority of the local population were enthusiastically for the "scheme"."

I never saw any independent numbers detailing the economic impact Trump's project would have.  

The main area where Duncan veers left instead of right with his explanation, when the old boys built links the land wasn't protected. To me, this means all the difference in the world if conservation is important.  If one doesn't buy into conservation - fair enough.  I just wonder why we go through the motions and spend the money if expert opinion on the issue is to be ignored.  The government(s) want it both ways.    

To date, one can only conclude this project has been a one way affair with Trump making out like a bandit.  Mind you, he only took what was offered so again, I blame the Scottish government for this fiasco.  Trump is in business and conducted business in the fashion he is famous for - no hood winking there.  

I would say that to date and according to club pros at Cruden Bay and Royal Aberdeen, visitor fees are way up (40+%) over last year.  There was a fear that the traditional clubs would be swamped by Trump, but to date the opposite has been the case.  Golfers are coming for Trump and playing Cruden Bay and Aberdeen as add-ons.  I suspect Murcar too has experienced an upsurge of visitor money.  I also suspect Trump will drag prices up over the long haul and thus probably reduce the number of British visitors.  For instance, I liked Aberdeen a lot. I think the course is every bit the quality that Trump is, but I shant return.  The green fee has gone too high (through no fault of Trump) and I expect it will rise significantly as there is plenty of room between RA's £120 and Trump's £195.  

But as I say, the course is built so there is no point in wishing for Trump to fail.  Its better to make the best of the situation and learn from the mistakes made.  

Ciao

[Niall C]

Pat you still don't understand it. There was massive opposition to the scheme,

Mark,

Simply not true... A significant majority of the local population were enthusiastically for the "scheme". The minority opposition was mostly environmental groups.  Virtually all other groups (especially business and commerce) were all for the development. Including, as has been pointed out several times, a majority of the local council folk.

And all the economic studies were thoroughly and independently vetted- by multiple entities.

Sure, Donald is a bombastic bully and he and his team certainly have made a boatload of mis-steps and mistakes...but to continue to imply/state that he somehow hoodwinked the local population is totally disingenuous.

Chris

To use your own words, simply not true. There were many polls and petitions showing support for either side. To conclude that a definite majority supported the scheme, suggests bias on your part. I know how property development works as you may do, and I think it is fair to say that he conned a lot of the population who didn't realise his employment numbers were spurious. That's what the politicians and planners are for, they should be asking the appropriate questions but instead signed up for the fiction of 6,000 or 7,000 jobs depending on which Trump PR they were listening to at the time.

Niall

[Thomas Dai]

Sean has summed things up pretty nicely above but I would just like to add that I know many folk in that part of the world and not one of them was in favour of the development. Indeed several took a view that the golf course is merely the cheap candy/chocolate positioned near the supermarket door to entice folk into the store to buy other goods as the real money maker is the houses/hotel etc. It will be interesting to see how Alec Salmon's share of the vote is at the next election.

All the best.

[Chris DeNigris]

Pat you still don't understand it. There was massive opposition to the scheme,

Mark,

Simply not true... A significant majority of the local population were enthusiastically for the "scheme". The minority opposition was mostly environmental groups.  Virtually all other groups (especially business and commerce) were all for the development. Including, as has been pointed out several times, a majority of the local council folk.

And all the economic studies were thoroughly and independently vetted- by multiple entities.

Sure, Donald is a bombastic bully and he and his team certainly have made a boatload of mis-steps and mistakes...but to continue to imply/state that he somehow hoodwinked the local population is totally disingenuous.

Chris

To use your own words, simply not true. There were many polls and petitions showing support for either side. To conclude that a definite majority supported the scheme, suggests bias on your part. I know how property development works as you may do, and I think it is fair to say that he conned a lot of the population who didn't realise his employment numbers were spurious. That's what the politicians and planners are for, they should be asking the appropriate questions but instead signed up for the fiction of 6,000 or 7,000 jobs depending on which Trump PR they were listening to at the time.

Niall

Niall,

The only significant opposition to the scheme came from the environmental groups  and the "I hate Trump" crowd-which included the small number of locals that were personally inconvenienced by the actual development. The environmental opposition was perfectly understandable- they pretty much object to any kind of development. The local councils were significantly in favor of the project- especially those that weren't beholden to the enviros- and the various chambers of commerce (who represent real people) were enthusiastically behind it.

And the economic data was thoroughly validated at the time by multiple independent sources- irrespective of what Sean and you (and others) may believe, think you have seen or haven't seen or vaguely recollect.

Just because things haven't progressed as envisioned (there's been a bit of an economic issue since the scheme's inception  ) doesn't mean that the plan wasn't sound to begin with. Things happen and circumstances change the course of events.

There's a wonderful new golf course there now with another hopefully on the way. Possibly a significant new hotel and other residential development which will only mean good things for the local area. I realize it's hard for many to be objective about anything Trump but the facts shouldn't be completely obscured in favor of anyone's agenda.

[Sean_A]

Chris

Unfortunately, the facts are that Trump has to date failed to deliver anything close to his plan or the promised economic benefit. 

I know its small beer, but the thing which gets me the most about this deal is Trump's vindictive pettiness.  Milne doesn't want to sell his property.  The property is protected - regardless of the aesthetic merits it may or not possess.  I don't think the house is that bad at all.  Its not my first choice of design, but in the setting it looks fine.  For Trump to plant horrible trees in front of that property (to eliminate the best asset of the house - namely the views) indicates what the man is about.  Indeed, the trees are so bad that from the course the situation looks much worse than if it were just a house there.  Pathetic.  Personally, I don't think planning should allow this sort of behaviour because it simply doesn't make any planning sense for a site which is meant to be shifting dunes (no trees) and in front of a house which is meant to have a view of the sea - that is why it was built as a coast guard station.  Not only that, the fencing and trees are ugly.  What is Trump thinking with this sort of behaviour.  If the locals were smart they should put a huge billboard outside of Trump's turn-in asking golfers to make sure to pay attention to what Trump has done.  Any neighbour behaving like Trump has should be more than embarrassed and the politicians who supported Trump should now be on his ass to behave properly.

Ciao     

[Lou_Duran]

Just because things haven't progressed as envisioned (there's been a bit of an economic issue since the scheme's inception  ) doesn't mean that the plan wasn't sound to begin with. Things happen and circumstances change the course of events.

Oh but if only the Left would apply the same standards and rigor of proof to their forecasts and hypotheses!  Let's see, by now we should all be frozen or fried, starved or dying of obesity, wiped out by disease, drowned by rising seas, glowing in the dark, in possession of extra appendages, etc.  Instead, the population keeps on growing, life expectancy is increasing, vast numbers of people- billions- pulled out of subsistence poverty.  I don't mean to be sacrilegious, but maybe Mother Nature likes capitalism?  Golf most surely does!

I never saw a single poll which concluded "A significant majority of the local population were enthusiastically for the "scheme"."

I never saw any independent numbers detailing the economic impact Trump's project would have. 

We see what we want (google confirmation bias and selective perception).  I remember a number of articles showing large majorities supporting the project AND various analysis/forecasts of substantial positive economic impact.  Of course, the proof will be in the pudding.  My only wish in these types of matters is that we hold ALL our government officials and agenda-driven "public good" activists to the same standards as we want to hold the private sector.  We do tend to do a very thorough job of holding the politicos' feet to the fire when they're of the opposite party, but somehow hold our wrath and our tongue with birds of the same feather.   

[Chris DeNigris]

Chris

Unfortunately, the facts are that Trump has to date failed to deliver anything close to his plan or the promised economic benefit. 

I know its small beer, but the thing which gets me the most about this deal is Trump's vindictive pettiness.  Milne doesn't want to sell his property.  The property is protected - regardless of the aesthetic merits it may or not possess.  I don't think the house is that bad at all.  Its not my first choice of design, but in the setting it looks fine.  For Trump to plant horrible trees in front of that property (to eliminate the best asset of the house - namely the views) indicates what the man is about.  Indeed, the trees are so bad that from the course the situation looks much worse than if it were just a house there.  Pathetic.  Personally, I don't think planning should allow this sort of behaviour because it simply doesn't make any planning sense for a site which is meant to be shifting dunes (no trees) and in front of a house which is meant to have a view of the sea - that is why it was built as a coast guard station.  Not only that, the fencing and trees are ugly.  What is Trump thinking with this sort of behaviour.  If the locals were smart they should put a huge billboard outside of Trump's turn-in asking golfers to make sure to pay attention to what Trump has done.  Any neighbour behaving like Trump has should be more than embarrassed and the politicians who supported Trump should now be on his ass to behave properly.

Ciao     

Sean,

I agree- many of DT's tactics leave a lot to desired from a human civility perspective. While he's not the devil I think he plays poker with him/her regularly.

[Sean_A]

Just because things haven't progressed as envisioned (there's been a bit of an economic issue since the scheme's inception  ) doesn't mean that the plan wasn't sound to begin with. Things happen and circumstances change the course of events.

Oh but if only the Left would apply the same standards and rigor of proof to their forecasts and hypotheses!  Let's see, by now we should all be frozen or fried, starved or dying of obesity, wiped out by disease, drowned by rising seas, glowing in the dark, in possession of extra appendages, etc.  Instead, the population keeps on growing, life expectancy is increasing, vast numbers of people- billions- pulled out of subsistence poverty.  I don't mean to be sacrilegious, but maybe Mother Nature likes capitalism?  Golf most surely does!

I never saw a single poll which concluded "A significant majority of the local population were enthusiastically for the "scheme"."

I never saw any independent numbers detailing the economic impact Trump's project would have. 

We see what we want (google confirmation bias and selective perception).  I remember a number of articles showing large majorities supporting the project AND various analysis/forecasts of substantial positive economic impact.  Of course, the proof will be in the pudding.  My only wish in these types of matters is that we hold ALL our government officials and agenda-driven "public good" activists to the same standards as we want to hold the private sector.  We do tend to do a very thorough job of holding the politicos' feet to the fire when they're of the opposite party, but somehow hold our wrath and our tongue with birds of the same feather.   

Lou

You are always on about agendas.  I don't have any sort of agenda other than I hate tax money to be wasted.  Why in the heck spend money creating areas of no development only to drop them as soon as a development plan hits the table?  Somehow, pro Trumpers make sense of this because of jobs.  Okay, in desperate times we employ desperate measures.  So where are the promised jobs?  Its a reasonable question that any reasonable person could ask.  The thing is, why in the hell isn't the Scottish Government asking the question with some authority?  It sure exercised authority in pushing the deal through, I might add with no assurances that Trump will do what he claims.  I am asking for some degree of come back.  As it is now, Trump is calling all the shots - thats what is known as win-lose outcome. 

If you or Chris could forward links to independent economic assessments of the Trump plan and links to the polls which claim "A significant majority of the local population were enthusiastically for the "scheme" I would be much obliged.  As I said, I haven't come across anything of the sort.  The closest I have seen is a quickie study by a local academic whose numbers show the plan to be far fetched, but I didn't give it much heed because I suspected the guy was against the project.  I never found out where he stood on the issue.  So far as polls go, I couldn't find one which I would say is reputable. 

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

I’m not sure this is relevant but it might be worth noting that Trump got his permitting at around the same time some daft advisory committee was producing a report that said Aberdeen could do with 33% more housing, since which Stewart Milne and others have been running rampant building on the edge of the city.

Aberdeen does NOT need 33% more housing in some urban sprawl reminiscent of LA or all the things Dublin did wrong during the Celtic Tiger years. But that’s the way it is going

I’d be delighted if the housing element never gets built.

I think we could really do with a top-class hotel though.

[Jon Wiggett]

Niall,

The only significant opposition to the scheme came from the environmental groups  and the "I hate Trump" crowd-which included the small number of locals that were personally inconvenienced by the actual development.

Chris,

I can tell you from personal experience that I have not spoken to a single Aberdonian who was in favour (golfer or not) at best they were neither for or against. Most however were against because of the damage to the SSSI.

Jon

[Niall C]

"Niall,

The only significant opposition to the scheme came from the environmental groups  and the "I hate Trump" crowd-which included the small number of locals that were personally inconvenienced by the actual development. The environmental opposition was perfectly understandable- they pretty much object to any kind of development. The local councils were significantly in favor of the project- especially those that weren't beholden to the enviros- and the various chambers of commerce (who represent real people) were enthusiastically behind it.

And the economic data was thoroughly validated at the time by multiple independent sources- irrespective of what Sean and you (and others) may believe, think you have seen or haven't seen or vaguely recollect.

Just because things haven't progressed as envisioned (there's been a bit of an economic issue since the scheme's inception  Sad) doesn't mean that the plan wasn't sound to begin with. Things happen and circumstances change the course of events.

There's a wonderful new golf course there now with another hopefully on the way. Possibly a significant new hotel and other residential development which will only mean good things for the local area. I realize it's hard for many to be objective about anything Trump but the facts shouldn't be completely obscured in favor of anyone's agenda. "

Chris

To characterise opponents of this development the way you have displays a fair amount of ignorance of public feeling both for and against. I suspect you got most of your information from the Press and Journal and I also suspect you've barely been in this country over the last few years while all the shenanigans were going on. The issue here is not some brass necked chancer getting one over on the locals but the lack of good governance and the destruction of a valuable natural resource. A few hundred jobs, many of which are staffed by foreign workers, in no way compensates for that, and if you had ever been on site you would know that.

Niall  

 
  
 

[Chris DeNigris]

Niall,

My observations are based on the factual accounts of what occurred...as I've mentioned repeatedly. And have provided the references and source documentation. Not on biased, agenda driven press releases or vague recollections of what might have happened or might not have happened. Now, if you want to dispute the factual representation- by all means, have at it. We're only 27 pages in...I think you'd be the first to attempt it.

Maybe...Instead of labeling me ignorant, without anything factual to back it up...might I suggest you point out specifically where I'm wrong and substantiate it with actual documentation. Not just more anti-Trump innuendo.

[Mark Chaplin]

Duncan - In the 19th century golf was taken up by the gentry on THEIR land. Take Royal Cinque Ports, Royal St George's and Princes.......Lord Northbourne's estate. Royal Portcawl...church land. Royal Liverpool.....hunt club land.

[Niall C]

Chris

As I'm pointing out to you, your statement regarding the nature of the opposition isn't based on factual accounts, nor is your suggestion that a majority support the scheme based on any facts. 27 pages in and you haven't cottoned on to that. Suggest that maybe you come over and ask the locals, and people elsewhere in Scotland what they think and I guarantee you will get a wide divergence of answers which would leave you general characterisations and supposed factual statements looking pretty stupid.

Niall

[Jim Nugent]

I think we could really do with a top-class hotel though.

I don't know Aberdeen at all, but I always doubted Trump would build a top-class hotel in the middle of an economic downturn, especially in an area not noted for tourism.  The wind turbines seem like a smokescreen to let him back out of something I think he never intended in the first place. 

I never looked at the surveys in any detail, but I clearly remember reports that a big majority of locals supported the Trump project; and the small minority who didn't were some environmentalists and a local government council.  The gist of some arguments here on GCA back then was whether the council of a few people should impose their desires on the wishes of the masses. 

[Mark Chaplin]

Jim I wonder what the local/national support would have been if Trump had said there will be 200 jobs after 2 years?

The one thing that gets me about this whole project is Trump goes on about dedicating the project to his mother who loved Scotland so much. So why does he treat a small number of people so badly? The whole ethos of rural life in Scotland is living in harmony with the land, not adding trees and berms to screw the neighbours view.