[Bob_Huntley]

See:

http://tinyurl.com/33ug2v


Bob

[PThomas]

is this an example of the Golden Rule:  "those who have the gold, rule"

[SPDB]

I am very curious of the location of the land in Northern Ireland on which they've secured an option. Thoughts?  

[Adam Clayman]

Bob, What's your nose smell on this one?

Check this out.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?xml=/sport/2007/12/06/sgscot106.xml

[Jason McNamara]

Over on one of the other Trump threads, I noted one of the enviros indicated in two separate interviews that is all about the housing and the scale thereof - the golf is -not- the issue, at least for his group.

[Mike Sweeney]

I do find this an interesting debate. On the other thread Mark Ferguson and others argued that Trump Scotland would only bring in low paying jobs. With Alfie sitting in Scotland and many press articles saying the jobs are needed, it did seem like this was a focus on Donnie Trump rather than the project at hand.

Now I read this from local Aberdeen employer David H Kelly, Director, Aberdeen Computer Services Ltd, 24 Balnagask Road, Aberdeen.

________________________________

"The decision by the Scottish Government to call in the Trump Organisation's planning request is a sound one. I am an "economic migrant" to the north-east of Scotland of some 30 years' standing. During that time I have had the privilege of starting a hi-tech business and being that first employer for some local graduates at the start of careers that has not required them to leave the area to find fulfilling 21st-century work.

Selling our most precious non-renewable asset to anyone so that it can be sold back to us as a housing estate in exchange for a couple of golf courses and some jobs in catering is not economic development.

I despair at the lack of ambition shown by supporters of this scheme, whom I accept are in the majority. Here we are in Europe's oil and gas capital - and apparently we want jobs washing dishes. The next generation deserves better - or they will leave.

The cancellation of the Peterhead powerstation CO2 re-injection project earlier this year was a tragedy. This was exactly the sort of project required for economic development of the area. We must not confuse property development with economic development.

With only 1.8% unemployment in the area, we are in a unique position to hold out for the very best in sustainable development and long-term, high-technology jobs. This proposed development fails in every count. I expect the Scottish Government to take the long-term economic view over the short-term property development "profits" and cancel this mistake."

_______________________________

So now it appears to be some an internal country debate between oil rich Aberdeen vs. all of Scotland because:

"unemployment in Aberdeen is low, consistently under 2%. In fact, a recent survey showed that Aberdeen is the most prosperous city in Britain outside of the South East of England. Traditional industries such as fishing and farming still do well but the city’s buoyant economy and low unemployment are largely due to the oil and gas industry. Aberdeen is known as the ‘Oil Capital of Europe’."

_____________________________

The view of "American Muscle" seems a misguided attempt by the press to villify Trump. Just yesterday, I attended a breakfast with Digby Lord Jones, UK Minister of Trade and Investment, coincidentally moderated by a friend of Philip Gawith. His views of the UK economy from an online Q&A are:

"The UK is one of the most open economies in the world. We welcome foreign investment for the jobs, wealth and prosperity it creates. We must shape our own response to globalisation. We believe in breaking down trade and investment barriers, a message we need to take to the world. Increased trade creates jobs and wealth and can be a powerful force for development. It brings access to cheaper goods and can increase prosperity across the world. But in other parts of the world we've seen protectionist influences. Countries have a simple choice: to retreat behind national borders and hope that we can keep the tide of globalisation at bay, or have the confidence in our ability to face it head on and make globalisation a force for good for all our people. We are the most successful major economy in Europe, and the most open, not a coincidence."

_____________________________________

So my revised view is that the Aberdeen council blew this from a PR perspective. They had the ability to negotiate Trump down to more reasonable terms of less houses and smaller scale, but they publicly rejected the plan in a 7-6 close vote rather than negotiate behind closed doors and away from the Scottish Government  which left them vulnerable to:

1. Trump's PR machine
2. The rest of Scotland where unemployment is higher.

More to come I would guess.

[Sean_A]

I do find this an interesting debate. On the other thread Mark Ferguson and others argued that Trump Scotland would only bring in low paying jobs. With Alfie sitting in Scotland and many press articles saying the jobs are needed, it did seem like this was a focus on Donnie Trump rather than the project at hand.

Now I read this from local Aberdeen employer David H Kelly, Director, Aberdeen Computer Services Ltd, 24 Balnagask Road, Aberdeen.

________________________________

"The decision by the Scottish Government to call in the Trump Organisation's planning request is a sound one. I am an "economic migrant" to the north-east of Scotland of some 30 years' standing. During that time I have had the privilege of starting a hi-tech business and being that first employer for some local graduates at the start of careers that has not required them to leave the area to find fulfilling 21st-century work.

Selling our most precious non-renewable asset to anyone so that it can be sold back to us as a housing estate in exchange for a couple of golf courses and some jobs in catering is not economic development.

I despair at the lack of ambition shown by supporters of this scheme, whom I accept are in the majority. Here we are in Europe's oil and gas capital - and apparently we want jobs washing dishes. The next generation deserves better - or they will leave.

The cancellation of the Peterhead powerstation CO2 re-injection project earlier this year was a tragedy. This was exactly the sort of project required for economic development of the area. We must not confuse property development with economic development.

With only 1.8% unemployment in the area, we are in a unique position to hold out for the very best in sustainable development and long-term, high-technology jobs. This proposed development fails in every count. I expect the Scottish Government to take the long-term economic view over the short-term property development "profits" and cancel this mistake."

_______________________________

So now it appears to be some an internal country debate between oil rich Aberdeen vs. all of Scotland because:

"unemployment in Aberdeen is low, consistently under 2%. In fact, a recent survey showed that Aberdeen is the most prosperous city in Britain outside of the South East of England. Traditional industries such as fishing and farming still do well but the city’s buoyant economy and low unemployment are largely due to the oil and gas industry. Aberdeen is known as the ‘Oil Capital of Europe’."

_____________________________

The view of "American Muscle" seems a misguided attempt by the press to villify Trump. Just yesterday, I attended a breakfast with Digby Lord Jones, UK Minister of Trade and Investment, coincidentally moderated by a friend of Philip Gawith. His views of the UK economy from an online Q&A are:

"The UK is one of the most open economies in the world. We welcome foreign investment for the jobs, wealth and prosperity it creates. We must shape our own response to globalisation. We believe in breaking down trade and investment barriers, a message we need to take to the world. Increased trade creates jobs and wealth and can be a powerful force for development. It brings access to cheaper goods and can increase prosperity across the world. But in other parts of the world we've seen protectionist influences. Countries have a simple choice: to retreat behind national borders and hope that we can keep the tide of globalisation at bay, or have the confidence in our ability to face it head on and make globalisation a force for good for all our people. We are the most successful major economy in Europe, and the most open, not a coincidence."

_____________________________________

So my revised view is that the Aberdeen council blew this from a PR perspective. They had the ability to negotiate Trump down to more reasonable terms of less houses and smaller scale, but they publicly rejected the plan in a 7-6 close vote rather than negotiate behind closed doors and away from the Scottish Government  which left them vulnerable to:

1. Trump's PR machine
2. The rest of Scotland where unemployment is higher.

More to come I would guess.

Mike

You are failing to understand the role of a planning committee for a council.  They have no powers of negotiation.  The chairman of the committee cannot enter into negotiations with the Trump organization.  It is up to Trump to submit plans which are accurate, legal & supportable.  The Council receive applications and make decisions based on the information provided, what the applicant intends to do and how those intentions playout so far as planning regulations/recommendations are concerned.  

Trump would have had local planning consultants I am sure.  If he didn't, it was a huge mistake.  If the local planning consultants didn't mention that a scaled down application would have a much greater chance of success then that was a huge mistake.  Without any inside knowledge, I would wager a modest sum that planning consultants did warn Trump that his vision was an uphill battle and not likely to be approved without serious amendments.  This should and probably was obvious to Trump as well, but he more than likely thought he could turn up the PR machine in a winner take all game.    

I think one of the main perceptual problems in this case is that we have a huge multi-international playing international business games with a modest size council who can't likewise play those games.  This is one of the consequences of localizing power.  

Regardless of the council decision (and it was a council decision as the planning comm represents the Council) I am greatly in favour of local decision-making and it would be a huge transgression on local politics if the central government stepped in and over-ruled the decision.

Ciao

[Rich Goodale]

Mike

I don't know Mr. Kelly nor even know of him, but he seems to have "gone native" in his 30 years in Scotland.  Again it is the "zero-sum game" fallacy that rears its ugly head, and is endemic in the Scottish mentality.  Either the Northeast of Scotland has a CO2 reinjection project or it has The Donald.  Did he ever think that maybe that the two are very separate issues and that there is no reason to think that they can't have both?  In fact, if they are linked, they are linked positively--a big project in Peterhead would enhance the feasibility of Trump's plans and vice versa, because they would both be regenerating a very desolate part of Scotland.  Once you cross the River Don, the road to the north contains nothing of interst but a few excellent but undervisited golf courses (Royal Aberdeen, Murcar, Cruden Bay, Peterhead and Fraserburgh).  Anybody who thinks that the Donald's project would not positively affect the communities (and golf courses) along this barren strip just does not know the area well.

Kelly's diatribe also demonstrates the strong underlying prejudice in the Scottish polity against jobs that do not involve making "things."  Ships, cigarettes, jute, pieces of steel, lumps of coal, oil rigs, etc.--that is what Scotland does well, they say.  Well, this is (or at least was) true, but how much jute can be sold in the global markets of today?  Somehow, service jobs--and particularly tourism jobs--are seen to be unclean and undignified.  Well, somebody ought to be looking in the mirror, for as I read his website, Mr. Kelly is in fact in the service industry (training) and if you look at the wealth which has been made in Scotland over the past 25 years, it has been mostly in the service industries (banking, sportswear retailing, tire stores, oil field services, real estate, computer games, etc.).

I'm no fan of Trump, but if he wants to throw a few $billion of mostly other people's money into building a golf resort in an area which has no obvious other value than to a few students of various species of lichen, I say, be our guest!  He may succeed or he may fail, but at least he is doing something.  I salute Alex Salmond and the SNP for their pragmatism in recognising this important fact, (even though politically they often still espouse socialism of the Albanian ilk).  If you wait for the current generation of Scots to do something with this land, you will wait forever.  If you let The donald have a go, at least something might just happen, maybe even an awakening of the entrepreneurial spirit that the Scots used to have but have tragically lost for several generations.

End of rant.

Rich

[Mike Sweeney]

1. You are failing to understand the role of a planning committee for a council.  They have no powers of negotiation.  The chairman of the committee cannot enter into negotiations with the Trump organization.  

2. This should and probably was obvious to Trump as well, but he more than likely thought he could turn up the PR machine in a winner take all game.    

Sean,

I agree with most of what you said, especially #2, above. It is my belief that Trump was negotiating with the committee through outside intermediaries, as this is the way of the world in New York, Scotland, London but maybe not Italy.   Clearly Trump did not suddenly play a Martin Hawtree course and suddenly decide to throw Jim Fazio out. Has Trump ever played a Hawtree course, has he ever met him? It was a negotiation point prior to the meeting.

Going into the meeting, Trump knew it was either close or that he would lose, and in either case I agree that he was willing to play it out from there through a PR campaign and take his chances. There is no way that he was "surprised".

Richard,

On the 22nd in Disneyworld (another bastion of American capitalism run amuck!) if you will please describe a "jute", I will be happy to return the favor by describing and finding "Hidden Mickeys".

[Rich Goodale]

I look forward to that, Mike.  As a hint, you should know that the three pillars of the Dundee economy were:  Jute, Jam and Journalism.

Rich

PS--I'm not sure if I really want to find any hidden Mickey's.....

[Alfie]

Mr Goodale,

Your post was not just a RANT...........

it was an excellent RANT.

My take on this from the outset has been the value to the northeast & Highlands in terms of Tourism & Golf (as well as to Scotland as a whole). As far as planning & conservation authorities are concerned, well, there are plenty of people here who have had their fill of them !
Their function to society has gone from being commendable to that of petty and obstructive, IMO !

In Mr Ford, hero of the hour for some, I see an opportunist environmentalist who has seized his little moment of fame, for which he might yet regret his actions ?
I think most on here will be conscientiously aware of the environment (anywhere) but I'm afraid I just don't see the Site of Special Scientific Interest at Menie being all that special. Plant two (debatably) good courses on the site, then we're getting closer to special.

Pity about the houses though.


Alfie.

[tlavin]

In some ways, the personal and political battles that Trump is facing in Scotland are reminiscent of those that Mike Keiser reportedly faced in Oregon.  Keiser had to deal with environmentalists, land-use experts and local economists.  He had to deal with a pesky landowner or two who figured out what Keiser was up to and they tried to "extort" some money from him.  By all accounts, Keiser was quiet, diligent and ethical with all of the regulatory folks.  By his own account, he got lucky when the landowner (a lawyer) who was getting greedy got sued by his clients and wound up in bankruptcy court, which paved the way for Keiser to get the last chunk of prized real estate.

The Donald, on the other hand, is by no means quiet and unassuming.  My guess is that he'll keep bludgeoning his way to get this project completed.  It certainly seems that this part of Scotland could use the economic development, just as the Oregon coast needed the strikingly successful Bandon Dunes resort.

Like Bandon, the Scottish project could benefit the environment and the community.  Unlike Bandon, the Trump project will surely have some ghastly looking buildings, but maybe he'll hire the right gca and get the golf courses right.  I wouldn't count him out.

[Lou_Duran]

"Selling our most precious non-renewable asset to anyone so that it can be sold back to us as a housing estate in exchange for a couple of golf courses and some jobs in catering is not economic development."  David H. Kelly

I was under the impression that the site was privately-owned, with Trump already holding title to the majority of the 1,400 acres.  This notion of communal ownership of others' private property rights that Mr. Kelly offers as gospel would not be surprising coming from a socialist or an enviromental activist.  That he is an entreprenuer, business owner, and employer is perplexing and outright scary.  Is every zoning and permitting decision in Scotland subject to "economic development" criteria?  I wonder if Mr. Kelly had to justify his business dreams in the context of community economic development

This is pure conjecture on my part, but perhaps Kelly is a NIMBY- he has his; it is not so important that others have opportunities in a relatively open marketplace to pursue similar attractive lifestyles in the area.  (CA is full of these, inclding a fair representation in the development community.)

One other point: Aberdeenshire is well-off economically today due in a good part to the energy sector.  Petroleum, a dirty word to most socialists and environmental acitivists, is a depleting asset and the North Sea fields have been depleting rapidly for a number of years.  One would think that diversifying the economy might have some urgency among the local political leaders.

Or perhaps the Trump deal does "suck" relative to other imminent alternatives for the site.  Is Trump asking for tax subsidies or abatements as a condition of going forward?  It is just hard to believe that given the vast amounts of undeveloped land in north Scotland, a $2 Billion infusion of capital to create some truly upscale assets with the retention of control by Scottish authorities (vis-a-vis zoning, permitting, taxes, labor regulations, etc.), is a turkey for the area.

Though it would set a bad precedent, perhaps the politicos should allow the community to vote the application up or down.  ...., but what do the common folk know, right?        

[George Pazin]

In Mr Ford, hero of the hour for some, I see an opportunist environmentalist who has seized his little moment of fame, for which he might yet regret his actions ?

Alfie, you should know that folks like Mr. Ford never regret their actions, as they are not the ones paying the price.

OPM Disease - it's an epidemic of global proportions.

[Sean_A]

"Selling our most precious non-renewable asset to anyone so that it can be sold back to us as a housing estate in exchange for a couple of golf courses and some jobs in catering is not economic development."  David H. Kelly

I was under the impression that the site was privately-owned, with Trump already holding title to the majority of the 1,400 acres.  This notion of communal ownership of others' private property rights that Mr. Kelly offers as gospel would not be surprising coming from a socialist or an enviromental activist.  That he is an entreprenuer, business owner, and employer is perplexing and outright scary.  Is every zoning and permitting decision in Scotland subject to "economic development" criteria?  I wonder if Mr. Kelly had to justify his business dreams in the context of community economic development

This is pure conjecture on my part, but perhaps Kelly is a NIMBY- he has his; it is not so important that others have opportunities in a relatively open marketplace to pursue similar attractive lifestyles in the area.  (CA is full of these, inclding a fair representation in the development community.)

One other point: Aberdeenshire is well-off economically today due in a good part to the energy sector.  Petroleum, a dirty word to most socialists and environmental acitivists, is a depleting asset and the North Sea fields have been depleting rapidly for a number of years.  One would think that diversifying the economy might have some urgency among the local political leaders.

Or perhaps the Trump deal does "suck" relative to other imminent alternatives for the site.  Is Trump asking for tax subsidies or abatements as a condition of going forward?  It is just hard to believe that given the vast amounts of undeveloped land in north Scotland, a $2 Billion infusion of capital to create some truly upscale assets with the retention of control by Scottish authorities (vis-a-vis zoning, permitting, taxes, labor regulations, etc.), is a turkey for the area.

Though it would set a bad precedent, perhaps the politicos should allow the community to vote the application up or down.  ...., but what do the common folk know, right?        

Lou

You are placing American "grow at all costs-land is plentiful" values on a country where land is in short supply.  I am afraid on an island this small and crowded - I do have a right to expect government to keep development in green belt/scientific interest/historical interest/national parks type areas to a minimum.  IMO, the UK should be creating more of these land preservation areas, not trading them for housing estates in areas which don't need that type or quantity of housing.  It may be a pinko attitude, but thats the reality of the UK.  Its overcrowded and just about every aspect of the infrastructure is stretched to the maximum.  IMO, when it comes to the UK, more is not better.  

Ciao

[Marty Bonnar]

As I see it, we 'Native Scotinians' will receive a BILLION dollars for some useless, insect-infested land, which we didn't care about anyway. Better than 24 bucks and a bunch of beads.
One day, the land will be among the most valuable on the planet.
History CAN be interesting. Funny how balance always reasserts.
Think I may begin smoking Stuyvesants again...

 
F.

[George Pazin]

Sean, Lou can of course correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he's necessarily saying more is better, simply that those with a vested interest should be the ones to decide.

[jeffwarne]

Sean,
Besides it's Trump we're talking about.
Three cheers for the planning commission.
Nice to see somebody didn't sell out to that overbearing sleazeball.

and I'm defending $850,000 memberships on the other page
 ain't inconsistency great

[Sean_A]

Sean, Lou can of course correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think he's necessarily saying more is better, simply that those with a vested interest should be the ones to decide.

George

Well then, whats the beef?  A representative local body made a decision.  It may be right, it may be wrong - there is no way to know, but the locals did decide.  

FBD

Do ya think if they build it that the Scots south of the border will be enticed to move back north?  That would be a cool acid test:  Would a Scot buy into the development?

Jeff

I really don't care who's deal it is.  The concept has been around long enough.  The goal is to sell homes - a lot of homes.  Take away the golf aspect because maybe it works, maybe it doesn't.  Now we are left with the homes.  Would a housing development this size on that site get approval?  If the answer is yes, then there is no harm in chucking a hotel and some golf.  If the answer is no, then why is it better with the golf aspect?  A few more courses ain't gonna make much difference in terms of impacting the economy for any length of time.  But that insect infested land is gone forever.  

Ciao

[Marty Bonnar]

Arbs,
they'll be the freakin only ones able to afford it!

Having said that, the talk of 'million pound homes' is a major red herring (how apposite the north sea fish catch analogy is!).

My average bonnie wee 3-bed hoose in bonnie wee fife-shire is probably worth about 250k now and is nowt special. A million quid home is probably about a bed-sit in your nape of the neck...property prices should NEVER be allowed to influence the valuation of a project...

ABERDEEN is the most over-heated property market in the northern UK. Once the oil goes, people will leave in droves from those cold, herring-lashed, god-forsaken, boy-racer infested, rather nicely be-duned shores. (Unless there are OTHER ATTRACTIONS!!!!!!!)

Make hay while the sun shines, my son...

F.

[Doug Siebert]

I think the issue is that the local government is being overruled.  I would think that if Lou Duran is a true conservative he'd hate the idea of a national government being able to overrule a local one, even if it supports development, this time.

Though I guess these days in the US the neocons that have taken over the republican party have totally abandoned all the true conservative principles they used to stand for, and are now for just as big of a government as the democrats are, with the only difference being that the money is wasted in different bottomless pits.

[Tony Ristola]

Richard and Lou... bang on.

I think the issue is that the local government is being overruled.  I would think that if Lou Duran is a true conservative he'd hate the idea of a national government being able to overrule a local one, even if it supports development, this time.

Though I guess these days in the US the neocons that have taken over the republican party have totally abandoned all the true conservative principles they used to stand for, and are now for just as big of a government as the democrats are, with the only difference being that the money is wasted in different bottomless pits.

Doug: A conservative recoils at the thought of other people controlling one's private property.

PS. Yes, some "republicans" have veered. Conservatives? Conservatives stand for conservative principles. In short, low taxes, and a government of limited powers; strong where they should be strong, weak where they should be weak. If someone doesn't hold to these principles they are conservatives as much as a chronic slicer can be called a hooker. They may be under the "R" banner, but I wouldn't call them conservative.

[Lou_Duran]

Sean,

There are only two values I sought to articulate on this thread, that of a job and of the "bundle of rights" underlying the ownership of real property.  Ironically, these are derived from English law and economic thinking, and have served us very well since our founding.

As to the "grow at all costs" value you attribute to me, that's simply silly and beneath you.  First of all, Scotland is hardly a country where land is in short supply.  For example, England has a density which is over five times greater than Scotland's.  And despite the vast deserts, marshes, and forests making up some 40% of U.S. land mass, it is only half as dense as Scotland.  Considering that Scotland is the only country in the UK losing population, I dare guess that overcrowding is probably not a top 10 concern.

George,

Please feel free to interject your interpretation of what I am trying to say.  You are right.  I do believe that those who have the greatest LEGITIMATE vested interest should decide.  I believe that property owners have the most riding, though externalities and other LEGITIMATE costs to the community have to be accounted for.

While I don't have much sympathy for Trump- he knew what he was getting into when he bought the land, as a general principle, I think that if a community's interest is to have undeveloped, "open" land, then it should take title to it and compensate the private owners appropriately.  Given the "Other People's Money" mentality you alluded to earlier and the level of taxes that would have to be levied even on those large segments of society who currently pay none, it will never happen.  Instead, we abandon critical, founding principles for folly and expediency.

Doug,

I don't think the federal government's intervention had taken place when I posted.  You are right that my libertarian principles are challenged when higher levels of government involve themselves in matters of individual or local consequences.  While I haven't given this part of the story (federal intervention) much thought, I think the issues involved are more than just of an individual or local nature.   It seems like a relatively small minority, some local and some not, are adamant about squashing a project which seems to have substantial local support.  The development's scale and national impact may be significant to justify a second look at a higher level.  I have no real problem with the federal government in the U.S. overriding states' rights on issues of civil rights back in the 1960s.  Are you now a states' rights proponent, or just on this particular matter?

BTW, what makes you think that this is a "bottomless" pit?  And what if it was?   It is Trump's and his investors' money at stake.  Assuming that it doesnt't work, those hard, upscale assets including two potentially world-class golf courses would fall back to the creditors or perhaps to the local tax authorities.  Those multi-billion pound homes for the "rich" may be converted to "affordable housing" and the links opened to all of us working blokes-  what a real social utopia with the added "social justice" of being built with not only "Somebody Else's Money", but that coming from a group led by the prototypical self-promoting "Ugly American" capitalist pig.

While it may be messy and not so republican (with a small r), why not let it go to a plebiscite?        

[Sean_A]

Lou  

Jobs are always important, but so is balancing development with regional needs and environmental concerns.  Quite frankly, if the government was that concerned about employment they would have put in protective measures for such key industries as ship building, automotive manufacturing and just manufacturing in general, but hindsight is 20-20.  We will buy our crap from China cheap now, but one day it won't be cheap and Britain will have little choice who they buy from.

It makes sense to create development in areas that need development and can hopefully utilize existing infrastructure - especially billion pound projects.  If there is gonna be a dirty little trade, then at least it should be a benefit to those who are most needy.  Aberdeen falls far short of most needy.  

Scotland is an odd place.  When it suits them, they are a separate country.  When it doesn't suit them, they are not a separate country.  Believe me, from my perspective (and a large percentage of the English), I would be more than happy to let them be independent.  Then I could save on paying for Scottish politicians in London (this is a real piss take) and any further money that is sucked up from the south into their coffers.  As it stands now, no, I wouldn't treat Scotland any different so far as planning regulations go because for all intents and purposes the UK is one country so it should have planning regulations which make sense for the country as a whole.  

So far as regulations of what can and can't be done with private property - as I said, its a small country with a load of people.  Despite many cockups along the way (I am thinking particularly of Travellers), most district & borough councils get right and I must say that especially England is a model of sensible development given the realities.  This does mean that some personal properties rights are lost, but its the balance between individual and community rights that is the most important aspect.  IMO, not many countries do it better than the UK.

Ciao

[Marty Bonnar]

Just wanted to interject with the comment that as the UK is now 'home' to about 500,000 Eastern European (and newly EC resident) migrants, most if not all of the service jobs in the land are now being filled by grateful employees seemingly doing a damn good job in those posts that our indigenous population consider too lowly for their consideration (work-shy illegitimates - I'll leave it at that)

(Just my opinion).

F.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()