Trump not being neighborly in Miami

[Will Lozier]

Trump is a chump.  To state that these residents are hanging laundry out their windows and that seeing such shouldn't happen at the "finest resort in the country"?!?!?    Two ridiculous statements in one!

Whether or not the noise complaints are valid - I agree that when you pay for a golf course view, you get with that (as an added bonus) golf course noise - the guy will say ANYTHING to get his way.  He is a mutation of Lance Armstrong (do or say ANYTHING that is true or a blatant lie), Macho Camacho (God-complex), and a 2-year-old child (thinks the world revolves around him and has constant bed-head).   

I am pretty sure Pat has a man-crush on the Donald.

[jeffwarne]

Trump is a chump.  To state that these residents are hanging laundry out their windows and that seeing such shouldn't happen at the "finest resort in the country"?!?!?    Two ridiculous statements in one!

Whether or not the noise complaints are valid - I agree that when you pay for a golf course view, you get with that (as an added bonus) golf course noise - the guy will say ANYTHING to get his way.  He is a mutation of Lance Armstrong (do or say ANYTHING that is true or a blatant lie), Macho Camacho (God-complex), and a 2-year-old child (thinks the world revolves around him and has constant bed-head).   

I am pretty sure Pat has a man-crush on the Donald.

El Trumpo has met his match in the manana economy.
It hasn't even begun.
We won't be looking at that hair long

[Bryan Izatt]

Pat,

Objection, hearsay. 

Objection. Argumentative.  I never claimed a source, other than the Miami Herald article, you did.

OK, I guess the initial Miami Herald story was wrong.  I was just reiterating what it said.  Clearly they should have contacted you for the truth before printing.

OK, the ones on NW 93rd that are interior to the resort and surrounded by 5 or 6 holes.  I guess you foozled that one in the previous post.   

So, the reporter got it wrong that they were fined for noise by-law infractions and that the City is seeking an injunction?  Maybe you should tell the reporter.

Just as an opinion, wouldn't it make more sense for Trump to get along with the City and the neigbourhood on such minor issues?  Or, is Trump too much like you - win at all costs?  Trample the opposition?

In Canada they're called by-laws.  Down in your territory they're called ordinances.  My bad.  So, does your municipality have a noise ordinance?  Does your club abide by it?  (Maybe not given your avoidance is answering.) 

Please keep us posted on this story.  I'd like to see if you win your bet with yourself.

Maybe Trump should hire this firm.  They could win the case (or avoid court) for him.   

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

What I don't understand about some of the morons who bash Trump, especially on this project, is that he's rescuing a course that would otherwise meet its demise.

And, this comes at a time when everyone is lamenting the loss of clubs due to financial difficulty, yet this guy comes in, spends $ 150,000,000 and is going to spend millions more, to make Doral a terrific facility in an area woefully lacking of good golf courses.

What's bad about that ?

What's hysterical about this particular situation and thread is that the din from huge jets, at maximum thrust in climb out, is so loud that you can't hear the maintenance equipment, and if you can, there's not much difference in decibles, between it and the constant roar of the jets.

What's even wilder, is that the course has been there since 1962, and that development has been there since 1992.  Are you and others telling us that they never mowed the greens until Trump bought the property ?

That they didn't know that they were moving into homes immediately adjacent to a well maintained golf course.

That Maintainance never occured since 1992 ?

If you read the city ordinance, Article V, Section 26-127/137 and specifically Section 26-127: (11), I tend to like Trump's case, especially in light of the fact that they've been maintaining the course since 1962

The complaint would seem to center on the hours of operation for "Commercial Landscaping Equipment" 7:30 am to 6:30 pm (weekdays), 9:00 am to 6:30 (Saturday), not permitted on Sunday.

I believe that Trump may successfully argue that his maintenance operations are not a "commercial"  venture, which would then leave the homeonwer with the sole defense of "excessively loud" noise.  The problem with that defense is that the decible level, when measured may be at the same level as the jets, or lower, and, the fact that the maintenance has been ongoing for 50 years, 30 of which were prior to Fairway Homes, and the last 20 years, when Fairway Homes existed.  So, why no complaints for the past 20 years, or, are the homeowners looking for a settlement whereby they are awarded membership.

Things aren't always as they seem.

I'm hoping to learn more next weekend

[Jim Sherma]

In general, I have to agree with Pat on this one. I have no knowledge or opinion on this specific case but I agree with the broader point made by Pat.

Trump is a wealthy and very talented developer that is investing in the game at a time when such investment is rather thin on the ground. Doral is a classic name that evidently needed the type of investment that Trump is supplying, whether or not an individual would spend the money in a similar way is besides the point. While I may not agree with his politics or style, he certainly is good for the game in total. Every industry has players that someone may like or dislike, but the health of any industry takes all kinds as long as there is vibrancy and renewal.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

I doubt that few, if any, object to Trump spending his money to improve Doral.

You have now expounded on how Trump should be able to win an adversarial legal battle over a noise ordinance.  Perhaps it would be better if you and he took the Carnegie course on how to win friends and influence people.  It seems to me that most adversarial situations are better solved in a collegial way rather than pounding the other side into submission legally or physically.  Seems Trump prefers the pounding method.  Perhaps, in that respect the two of you are birds of a feather.  IMHO. 

As to whether your legal arguments would win the day for Trump, we'll just have to wait and see, unless there is an amicable out-of-court settlement first.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

Thanks for the Ann Landers advice.

What "adversarial" situation/s were you referring to ?

With regard to Doral, if there's been no change in the maintenance schedule/hours, which is exactly what Trump's people have stated, why would you consider Trump to be the "adversary" ?  Why is he the bad guy in this situation ?  What has he done differently from the previous owners ? ?

The very title of this thread suggests that Trump is at fault, why is that ?

You chose to categorize the legal remedy as "pounding the other side into submission", in an attempt to demonize both Trump and myself, but the legal remedy is the vehicle that the constitution provides when two parties can't agree, even when one of the parties is a government entity or Trump.

The "Donald" has been known to be litigious.  
But, It costs a lot of money to litigate, hence I doubt it's done without ample consideration and as a last resort.
Me, I've never sued anybody in my life.

As to "winning friends",  I've got an abundance of friends, many are old friends, friends for 30, 40 and 50 years.
And, I have a number of new friends, friends acquired in the last year or two, some from this very site.
At this point, if I want more friends, I'll get some more dogs.

As to influencing people, that's a major part of my business and since I'm in business 50 years, I must know how to influence people fairly well, when I want to.

But, I'm not on this site to win friends and influence people.
Ran pays me to start interesting threads, with incentives based on the number of replies.
TEPaul was paid for the number of his replies, so we had different objectives, but together combined to fuel debate and interst in the site.

I don't suffer fools well and rather than cajole a moronic miscreant back to sanity and relevance I prefer a more direct and abrupt approach.

So while I appreciate your concern and your new role as the Ann Landers of this site, I'll just continue with my wayward ways and let the content, rather than the method of delivery, determine the quality of my replies.   That's reasonable, isn't it ?

Now, back to this thread.

Facts

Doral.   1962
Homes. 1992

Prospective purchasers of those homes were keenly aware of the juxtaposition of the golf course to their home prior to electing to purchase the home.  The seller had legal obligations regarding disclosure of material facts concerning the home.
Doral has been maintained as a busy golf course for 50 years.
The homes have been in existence for no more than 20 years.
The nearby, huge, extremely busy, incredibly noisy Miami International Airport is just a few blocks to the southeast.
If, as Trump maintains*, there's been no change in the maintenance schedule/hours, whose position is the more legitimate position ?
and do you really feel that there aren't other motives at the core of this alleged "noise" issue ?

How can you NOT SIDE WITH TRUMP based on the facts*. ?  ?  ?

* same hours of operation

[Paul Gray]

Pat,

Despite your almost sociopathic inability to distinguish between acceptable and achievable and your apparent status as the #1 Trump Arse Wipe I still can't but help leaning your way on this one. 

Your points about prior failure to enforce restrictions are, as ever, gibberish, but the salient point, it seems to me, is that the properties were purchased with full knowledge that reasonable golf course maintenance would be an ongoing factor. I stand to be corrected by others on this point but, based upon the information posted here, I find it difficult to draw any other conclusion.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Despite your almost sociopathic inability to distinguish between acceptable and achievable and your apparent status as the #1 Trump Arse Wipe I still can't but help leaning your way on this one. 

Paul,

Everyone, including you, is entitled to my opinion

Your points about prior failure to enforce restrictions are, as ever, gibberish,

"Gibberish" ?  ?  ?
Your lack of knowledge on this issue is startling,
But, take heart, you're not alone, other morons have contended the same thing 

Presently, the city of Houston is being sued in Federal Court on this very same issue, the selective enforcement of a valid city ordinance.
The case will probably be heard by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and may well find it's way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The case is "Perry vs City of Houston". Look it up.
What's interesting and coincidental with the Trump case is that a homeowners association is also involved.

One of the side benefits of participating on GCA.com is that you find out how little, people actually know


but the salient point, it seems to me, is that the properties were purchased with full knowledge that reasonable golf course maintenance would be an ongoing factor. I stand to be corrected by others on this point but, based upon the information posted here, I find it difficult to draw any other conclusion.

Paul, what's comical about this case is that the end of the runway for Miami International Airport is just a few blocks away, and the international flights commence takeoff at 6:05 am and fly right over that area at maximum thrust during climb out.
The noise from those huge jets is beyond considerable.

I suspect other issues are in play.

[Paul Gray]

Pat,

Despite your almost sociopathic inability to distinguish between acceptable and achievable and your apparent status as the #1 Trump Arse Wipe I still can't but help leaning your way on this one. 

Paul,

Everyone, including you, is entitled to my opinion

Your points about prior failure to enforce restrictions are, as ever, gibberish,

"Gibberish" ?  ?  ?
Your lack of knowledge on this issue is startling,
But, take heart, you're not alone, other morons have contended the same thing 

Presently, the city of Houston is being sued in Federal Court on this very same issue, the selective enforcement of a valid city ordinance.
The case will probably be heard by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and may well find it's way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The case is "Perry vs City of Houston". Look it up.

I refer you, by extension, to my previous point re your sociopathic tendancies.   

What's interesting and coincidental with the Trump case is that a homeowners association is also involved.


One of the side benefits of participating on GCA.com is that you find out how little, people actually know


but the salient point, it seems to me, is that the properties were purchased with full knowledge that reasonable golf course maintenance would be an ongoing factor. I stand to be corrected by others on this point but, based upon the information posted here, I find it difficult to draw any other conclusion.

Paul, what's comical about this case is that the end of the runway for Miami International Airport is just a few blocks away, and the international flights commence takeoff at 6:05 am and fly right over that area at maximum thrust during climb out.
The noise from those huge jets is beyond considerable.

I suspect other issues are in play.

Unfortunately, we'll have to agree to AGREE. 

[Mark Steffey]

One of the side benefits of participating on GCA.com is that you find out how little, people actually know

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

 

[Steve Burrows]

I recall a similar noise situation from nearly 10 years ago at Riviera Country Club.  Though they have been mowing grass since 1927, homeowners living at the edge of the canyon wall began to complain much more about the intensity of the morning noise, which was also in violation of noise ordinances that were/are on the books in the City of Santa Monica (and which seemingly had not been enforced previously).  One homeowner above the 13th green objected to the noise so much that, to prove their point, they protested by blowing an air horn while players were putting during the annual PGA Tour stop, and these actions despite a variance to the local ordinance that the club maintains during the week of the tournament allowing them to make noise in preparation of the event.

To my knowledge, however, rather than standing their ground and telling homeowners that the club was there first (that they have been mowing grass for over 80 years), it is my understanding that the club acted in good faith to solve the problem, working with the the local homeowners - actually listening to their concerns - and began using the nearly silent E-Plex mowers to cut fairways early in the morning, which is also in keeping with the spirit and letter of the ordinances in the City of Santa Monica.  Perhaps this Trump scenario should be approached similarly to avoid all this apparent bad blood, or even for Trump himself to display a measure of good faith and/or provide people with a reason to not have such a negative view of him (though this hardly seems a concern of his).

[Patrick_Mucci]

One of the side benefits of participating on GCA.com is that you find out how little, people actually know

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.


Mark,

Then obviously you should have remained silent and only been thought a fool 
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve Burrows,

How do you know that Trump didn't take that approach ?

Why are you and everyone else so quick to blame him without knowing all the facts ?

Riviera sits in a bowl in a relatively quite neighborhood, the homes at Doral sit a few blocks from the end of a runway to a huge international airport where takeoff s and landing's bring the jets right over the area starting at 6:05 am, and the noise from those jets is deafening.
Clearly a dissimilar situation.

Were you aware that when Sebonack was being built, that local homeowners, some of whom had recently built their homes, who objected to Sebonack being built, and as a condition of settling their objections, wanted free memberships ?

As I said, I suspect that other issues may be in play

[Ben Sims]

And, those aren't small jets, they're Boeing 767-300's, Boeing 757's, Boeing 747's, Airbus 330-200's, Airbus 340-600's, and, they're at maximum thrust as they initiate their climb out..............  and he's complaining about greens mowers ?  ?  ?

More than likely they're not at maximum thrust.  Most passenger jets are relatively lightweight even with pax and Jet A as compared to their maximum gross weight.  They are using noise abatement procedures and I'm 99% sure they--like us--are using de-rated takeoff thrust.  It preserves engine life.

Not that that information impacts this thread.  Trump is absolutely entitled to do what he did. And probably should have.  I just like pointing out when you're wrong.  

[Mark Steffey]

One of the side benefits of participating on GCA.com is that you find out how little, people actually know

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.


Mark,

Then obviously you should have remained silent and only been thought a fool 
 

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

And, those aren't small jets, they're Boeing 767-300's, Boeing 757's, Boeing 747's, Airbus 330-200's, Airbus 340-600's, and, they're at maximum thrust as they initiate their climb out..............  and he's complaining about greens mowers ?  ?  ?

More than likely they're not at maximum thrust.  Most passenger jets are relatively lightweight even with pax and Jet A as compared to their maximum gross weight.

Ben, these are amongst the largest passenger jets in the world, forgeting for a second the A380, which is ungodly large.
These jets are loaded with passengers, baggage/cargo and plenty of fuel for 6+, 8+ and 10+ hour flights.

Fairway Homes at Doral is a runway length away from the Western end of two Miami's 8/26 runways.

They are using noise abatement procedures

I'm pretty sure that there aren't any noise abatement patterns at Miami since the Everglades is just off the tip of the Western end of the two 8R/26L runways and 9/27.  And, even if they were, they're not that far into the climb corridor to alter their takeoff pattern.
Their best bet, is straight ahead, over the Everglades

There's probably is a noise abatement pattern on 12/30 which is used much less, with most departing flights taking off to the Southeast, away from Doral

Here are some decible stats

Boeing 737 or DC-9 aircraft at one nautical mile (6080 ft) before landing (97 dB); power mower (96 dB);
Boeing 707 or DC-8 aircraft at one nautical mile (6080 ft) before landing (106 dB);

Now those are landing noise levels, takeoff noise levels are higher and the distance from the climb corridor/glide path is less than a mile.


and I'm 99% sure they--like us--are using de-rated takeoff thrust.  
It preserves engine life.

Not that that information impacts this thread.  

Trump is absolutely entitled to do what he did. And probably should have.  I just like pointing out when you're wrong.  

I can see why you like pointing out if I'm wrong, it happens so rarely that just the thought of it must bring a tear of joy to your eye
But, in this case, you may be disappointed.

[Gary Slatter]

Mucci 2, Trump 1, Homeowners -3, CGA 0

I've spent 3 weeks at Doral 6 different winters.   The noise of the jets, when the wind is Westerly, is really loud, and they are less than 700 feet above the White when landing, a bit higher and louder on take off.   The noise of the homeowners (mostly renters) was often bad.
Trump's rescue of Al and Dorothy's dream is outstanding, the Blue could be spectacular, the others marginal but warmer than Long Island in the winter.  The White should be rebuilt as the range and school area.:-)

[Ben Sims]

And, those aren't small jets, they're Boeing 767-300's, Boeing 757's, Boeing 747's, Airbus 330-200's, Airbus 340-600's, and, they're at maximum thrust as they initiate their climb out..............  and he's complaining about greens mowers ?  ?  ?

More than likely they're not at maximum thrust.  Most passenger jets are relatively lightweight even with pax and Jet A as compared to their maximum gross weight.

Ben, these are amongst the largest passenger jets in the world, forgeting for a second the A380, which is ungodly large.
These jets are loaded with passengers, baggage/cargo and plenty of fuel for 6+, 8+ and 10+ hour flights.

Fairway Homes at Doral is a runway length away from the Western end of two Miami's 8/26 runways.

They are using noise abatement procedures

I'm pretty sure that there aren't any noise abatement patterns at Miami since the Everglades is just off the tip of the Western end of the two 8R/26L runways and 9/27.  And, even if they were, they're not that far into the climb corridor to alter their takeoff pattern.
Their best bet, is straight ahead, over the Everglades

There's probably is a noise abatement pattern on 12/30 which is used much less, with most departing flights taking off to the Southeast, away from Doral

Here are some decible stats

Boeing 737 or DC-9 aircraft at one nautical mile (6080 ft) before landing (97 dB); power mower (96 dB);
Boeing 707 or DC-8 aircraft at one nautical mile (6080 ft) before landing (106 dB);

Now those are landing noise levels, takeoff noise levels are higher and the distance from the climb corridor/glide path is less than a mile.


and I'm 99% sure they--like us--are using de-rated takeoff thrust.  
It preserves engine life.

Not that that information impacts this thread.  

Trump is absolutely entitled to do what he did. And probably should have.  I just like pointing out when you're wrong.  

I can see why you like pointing out if I'm wrong, it happens so rarely that just the thought of it must bring a tear of joy to your eye
But, in this case, you at may be disappointed.

Patrick,

Stick with managing capital and securities, golf architecture, and a few other subjects.   

Just because an aircraft is large has absolutely nothing to do with what level of power that an engine is outputting to achieve Vrotate.  Further, yes, these are large aircraft, but relative to their maximum gross weight, most passenger airlines are not near that number.  Hence they use derated takeoff thrust rather than max.

Going on, noise abatement procedures are often as stringent for wetland and other wildlife sensitive areas as for residential areas.  That KMIA is close to the 'Glades means nothing. 

Lastly, noise abatement procedures generally have most to do with the rate of climb, acceleration altitude, and when a jet deconfigures.  Not the shape or position of the "climb corridor" as you call it. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Stick with managing capital and securities, golf architecture, and a few other subjects.   

Just because an aircraft is large has absolutely nothing to do with what level of power that an engine is outputting to achieve Vrotate.

So you wouldn't use full power for a Piper Cub ?

Further, yes, these are large aircraft, but relative to their maximum gross weight, most passenger airlines are not near that number. 
Hence they use derated takeoff thrust rather than max.

If they're using derated takeoff thrust, it's not far behind max thrust in hot, thin air at maximum passenger/cargo/fuel capacity for international flights.

Going on, noise abatement procedures are often as stringent for wetland and other wildlife sensitive areas as for residential areas. 
That KMIA is close to the 'Glades means nothing. 

It sure does.
Last I looked, the surrounding residents held more votes and influence than the alligators, birds and racoons.

I've been watching jets take off and land from that airport since 1962, right up until last March. 
What's your experience with the flight patterns and noise levels at KMIA ?

As a pilot you know that more power is needed in hotter, thinner air.
And, Miami gets plenty of that

Lastly, noise abatement procedures generally have most to do with the rate of climb, acceleration altitude, and when a jet deconfigures. 
Not the shape or position of the "climb corridor" as you call it. 

Noise abatement procedures are primarily a function of political and safety factors and mostly involve horizontal movement of the equipment..
The patterns established are primarily population oriented, ie, out of EWR, on 4L/22R or 4R/22L when taking off to the south, all aircraft bank left, then bank right.  Heading north, all aircraft bank right, then left, to avoid the population centers of Elizabeth (south) and Newark (north)

Unlike Newark, aircraft approaching and taking off from Miami, take a direct path along the alignment of runways 12/30 and 8/26 and that flight path is perpendicular to the Fairway Homes at Doral just west of the end of those runways, leaving little, if any room to adjust altitude and/or bank

[Don_Mahaffey]

The air is thin in Miami beach? Shit, learn something new everyday on GCA.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The air is thin in Miami beach? Shit, learn something new everyday on GCA.

Don,

KMIA isn't in Miami Beach.

Cold air = dense

Hot air =  thin

[Don_Mahaffey]

That some dense air on Mt Everest then, huh?
I fly out of Houston all the time, and work on the gulf coast where it is very hot in the summer. I've never thought of describing the air as thin.
Bringing this back to golf, the ball flies farther in thin air, no? Yet, when I play golf in the summer heat in my hometown, La Quinta, CA I'm a club or two longer then I am here on the gulf coast during the summer. Guess the humidity just weakens me. When its hot at KMIA, is it humid as well? What that has to do with thrust, I really have no idea. But hot and humid don't make the air feel thin, to me at least.

[Sean_A]

Why does it matter why the city has enforced an ordinance?  

It matters because is they failed to enforce the ordinance, I don't believe that they can enforce the ordinance on a selective basis.

And no, no right of enforcement is not negated due to lack of enforcement.  

I'm not so sure about that.

Perhaps the city didn't know the ordinance was being violated.  

That's improbable to impossible.

My guess is that nobody (or not enough people) complained previously.  I am sure after getting some complaints the situation was checked out by city officials.  Isn't that usually how the system works?  A public body reacting to complaints from the public?  Or do you think cities have the cash to daily/weekly/monthly carry out spot checks for every city ordinance/regulation etc?  While it isn't a perfect system, enforcement of ordinances/regulations and laws often relies upon citizens to report problems.  Many don't because they don't want to be negatively labelled as some have on this thread.  

Sean,

I'll guarantee you that people complained previously, but, the golf course was there first, starting in 1962, the homes were built starting in 1992..

you're so unfamiliar with the area that you don't understand that it's almost impossible to hear anything over the noise of the jets taking off and landing.  Hence, the complaints about equipment are a joke.

It will be tough to prove selective enforcement.  I would think moreso because of the airport.  Authorities often turn a blind eye to ordinances.  One, because they are often unenforceable with any degree of consistency and two, because it is often not expedient to pursue enforcement.  But the more complaints that roll in, the harder it is to justify the above two even with an airport nearby - persistent offenders are often treated with less regard in terms of turning a blind eye.  

It is immaterial if the course was there before the houses. Prior knowledge of a problem doesn't negate one's right to pursue enforcement.  Noise pollution would not be an exception.  That said, I can see a judge (assuming a dumbass case like this ever went so far) ruling against the club, but not imposing much of a penalty.  While airports are horrendously noisy, they are a bit special compared to a golf club.  Needless to say, I think the club should works something out - it would be best for them in the long run - especially if they are in breach of an ordinance.

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

It will be tough to prove selective enforcement.  I would think moreso because of the airport.  Authorities often turn a blind eye to ordinances.  One, because they are often unenforceable with any degree of consistency and two, because it is often not expedient to pursue enforcement.  But the more complaints that roll in, the harder it is to justify the above two even with an airport nearby - persistent offenders are often treated with less regard in terms of turning a blind eye.  

At this point, with the municipality issueing the citation, the number of subsequent complaints are irrelevant.

It is immaterial if the course was there before the houses.
Prior knowledge of a problem doesn't negate one's right to pursue enforcement.  

That's not what the courts have historically decided with golf courses in the U.S., although, the mood is shifting.

Noise pollution would not be an exception.

It's a pre-existing condition and would apply as an condition that existed prior to purchase.  

That said, I can see a judge (assuming a dumbass case like this ever went so far) ruling against the club, but not imposing much of a penalty.  
While airports are horrendously noisy, they are a bit special compared to a golf club.  Needless to say, I think the club should works something out - it would be best for them in the long run - especially if they are in breach of an ordinance.

You're missing the point, the club is the defendent and the complainant is not the homeowners, but, the municipality

Ciao