[David_Tepper]

It is also interesting to note that Mark Parsinen has built/developed 2 seaside courses in Scotland over the past dozen years or so without all the drama and controversy Mr. Trump has generated. Not only has MP built two courses, those two courses were recently judged to be the two best "modern" courses in GB&I. It can be done!   

[Lou_Duran]

It's amazing that with a head as swelled as his is he still manages to fit it up his own arse.

Come on now, Lou's head isn't that swelled.

Oh, come on David.  I thought you took yourself to be too smart to be trading insults.  I get you.  I even feel for you, though, I must say, the warm regards I once had for you have cooled.  It was mucher better when we were ignoring each other. 

[Lou_Duran]

Simply put, all sand dunes move in their early stages (as they form). They then stabilise naturally. It is the extent of the shifting sands at Balmedie and because of that the speed of their movement that separates them from a normal dune system and made them so valuable.

Ally-might you please expand on how the "speed of their movement" .... "made them so valuable".  Is the relatively rareness feature of a mostly inert material enough to warrant great value imputed to it?  Are the aesthetics superior?  Do the good folks of Scotland get to interact with it in materially different ways than with other slower, or even stationary dune systems?  What are the scientific benefits in protecting the natural movement?



ON ANOTHER MATTER- CAN ANYONE TELL ME HOW TO OVERCOME BUMPING INTO THE BOTTOM OF THE REPLY BOX, WHICH PREVENTS ME FROM SEEING WHAT I AM TYPING?  ALSO, IS THERE SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE "PREVIEW" FUNCTION?  THANKS. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

Lou,

I guess each individual has to judge for themselves whether they consider a substantial sand dune system that is constantly shifting to be of environmental importance or not. I’m not sure if this was the primary reason the site was designated SSSI or whether vegetation and wildlife had a lot to do with it as well.

You ask what value it has. Well I suppose like all things scientific, without examples to study, you don’t learn. With all nature it is good to keep examples of things that are rare and I suspect this is as good an example of seral succession in a dune system as you might get. Other than that I don’t know. Aesthetically it was a very pleasing tract of land pre-construction. I’m not sure if that has really changed.

You’ll note that generally speaking, I wasn’t against the building of the golf course. I was however against the size and crass nature of the whole development.

[Paul_Turner]

SSSI designation seems to have become toothless in the UK.  We have this Trump course and then there's the high speed train link the HS2 which will plough through 10 SSSI's.

The countryside always gets shafted by city politicians in the UK.

[Garland Bayley]

...
Patrick

Earlier in the thread Tom D questioned the comparison of Balmedie to the Amazon rainforest. Perhaps that was hyperbole but please believe this isn't an ordinary piece of linksland. I suppose the nearest analogy I can think of would be if Trump had got planning to build his course in one of your National Parks and insisted that he needed to knock down a couple hundred of your biggest and oldest trees because that was the best land for the course. Yes the course might provide economic benefit to some but would you really need it that much ? Basically it comes down the cost of something and the value of something. What they have destroyed is priceless IMO.

Niall

Niall,

I think your best analogy would be the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area. I'm pretty confident no one (not even Donald Trump) will be able to build a course there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Dunes_National_Recreation_Area

[Garland Bayley]

I'm 100% with TDs sentiments on this one.

I'm having a hard time seeing how dunesy links land would be that unique that it would be unfit to build on...especially in the UK of all places?  Take a look at Google Maps and follow the coast line up and down and the entire place is littered with golf courses.  St. Andrews of all places is right on a prime piece of land right next to the ocean and they put what 6 courses there?  I don't get it.

Its not like they wanted to build it in a place like Yellowstone, or Yosemite, or Arches National Park which are all one of a kind places with nowhere else like it on earth.

Kalen,

You make the point for the opposition very well. If all the natural area is "littered" (an excellent choice of words), how will you be able to observe natural areas? If places like Yellowstone, Yosemite, or Arches National Parks were "littered" it would be a great shame. It is bad enough that all our highways and byways are "littered" by careless people.

[Kalen Braley]

Garland,

It would seen you didn't read what I wrote.  I am indeed in favor of keeping truely unique areas like Yellowstone, Yosemite hands off to any and all commercial development. And I recognize that these agencies/organizations are very much needed to keep the population and growth in check.

But it seems to me the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, especially in a place like California where if you so-as-much fart on a camping trip they launch a full out environmental commission to determine its impact and potentially close it down to the public.  Haven forbid if people are really that fascinated with "moving dunes" then by all means go to Africa where a 3rd of the continent is covered in one and go explore it to your hearts content.

The problem with these groups is if you give em an inch, they take a mile instead of just using reasonable management processes that weigh out the pros and cons and go from there.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

It would seen you didn't read what I wrote.  I am indeed in favor of keeping truely unique areas like Yellowstone, Yosemite hands off to any and all commercial development. And I recognize that these agencies/organizations are very much needed to keep the population and growth in check.

...

I read what you wrote. Perhaps you haven't been reading the thread where it has been stated how "truely(sic) unique" this area is/was.
Further, I don't believe you understand the gist of what I wrote. If you take a unique feature like sand dunes and litter them all with golf courses, then you have done a disservice. If you take a unique area like one our western parks and literally litter them, then you have done a disservice. I at no point intended to imply you were not in favor of keeping the parks off limits to development.

[Chris DeNigris]

Garland- I think you have a real liberal use of the word litter.

[Jon Wiggett]

I guess I'm just not that understanding/impressed with the significance of the shiftiness of the dunes in question. In my handful of trips to the UK I've only gotten to experience what I assumed to be the firmly rooted, statiionary type dunes..and those are indeed amazing. Unless they were very subtly shifting and I completely missed it. I probably wouldn't have encountered too many of these amazing dunes if there had not been a unique and wonderful golf course built on it. Most of these fabulous courses were built a long time ago...and thankfully the limitations that are currently in place in most areas were not then or we would have significantly less to talk about here.

Just what are the tangible ramifications of affecting the shiftiness of these dunes by developing something in and around them? Are we putting some snails or special weeds in potential grave danger? What exactly happens in 10, 50 or 100 years? Or are we concerned with what might possibly happen in 2550?

For those that passionately defend the sanctity of the land here...how many times have you visited these dunes and walked amongst them? I'm assuming by the stong feelings of attachment that most have established a meaningful relationship with the property and that's what's resulting in such fierce defence. I wouldn't want to think that there might be some ulterior motives at play.

So Sean- are you the one that's been appointed to say when there's been enough golf courses built? I don't envy you, that's a tough job.

Maybe I'm just insensitive.

Chris,

I guess you are just missing the point entirely. No one here has said that golf courses should not be built in/on sand dunes. However, this does not mean that there should be no dunes that are worthy of being left untouched by developement. The few acres of shifting dunes that were destroyed by this developement were very rare and once destroyed it is not known if they could be reinstated. What makes it worse is it would have been more than possible to build a great course avoiding these dunes.

Jon

[Garland Bayley]

Garland- I think you have a real liberal use of the word litter.

No more liberal than Kalen's use of fart. 

[Niall C]

And, as Tom Doak stated, with a sufficiently large site, why couldn't a golf course be accomodated ?

Patrick:

Don't forget, though, that nutty Scottish government green-lighted him to build TWO 18-hole courses there.

I'm just speculating on this, but I would guess that Mr. Trump only planned two courses so that he could later compromise with the government, and still get permission to build the one that he wanted.  But the government botched the process so thoroughly that they just approved the two without asking him to compromise ... at which point, he couldn't go back and say he didn't really need to be in the dunes quite as much as they are!

So, today he is threatening NOT TO BUILD his second course and mega-hotel unless the government denies permits for a new wind farm that might compromise the view from his new course!

Patrick/Tom

This site is completely different from the likes of Troon and Prestwick. Both those sites I believe were typical links that while sand based they were/are largely populated by grasses whereas Balmedie was a shifting sand dune system. I say "was" because that has all been lost as the sands have been turfed over. Hard to be a shifting sand system when all the sand has been stabilised ! I suggest you follow the links David posted as my explanation is feeble in comparison to the technical explanation.

The only other thing I would add is that not all the links were part of the SSSI and part of the shifting sand system and I believe that none of the second course is within this land even though it is to be on links land. As for the need to use the SSSI land, Mike Wood did a routing for one of the environmental agencies that showed the main course could be laid out without the need to use the SSSI land.

The issue is not about building a course on links land its about building a course on such a sensitive and rare habitat. I'm not an environmentalist but there simply was no excuse for this particular site to be trashed.

Niall

edit ; since posting the above, I've noted others have made the point more eloquently and succinctly than I did above. The only other thing I would add is that I have worked inthe property industry for the last 25 years and briefly thought about getting into the golf design business so clearly I'm no hardline tree hugger but this trashing of such a fantastic and near unique site should be embarrassing for all in the property and golf industries IMO. 

[Paul_Turner]

You can tell that the Trump links is a different beast from the ancient Scottish links simply from the photos of how much earth and sand was shipped in to build it.

In general, the old guys steered away from the largest dunes because so much landscaping is needed to build golf holes (think Ballybunion New vs Old).

[Chris DeNigris]

Jon- I haven't "missed" any of the points in this discussion. I just don't necessarily agree with those points.

Some have asked what the impacts and ramifications of the destruction of these valuable shifting sand dunes actually are. While there has been a lot of general environmental pontification about the dangers of disrupting this fragile part of the ecosystem, no one has offered any real details on what's acutally been lost or damaged and what the short or long term effects will be. Vague generalizations about how it's such a shame to perpetrate such a vile crime against the environment is not really a good argument, it's more like a political position.

To think that economic analysis could be manipulative, faulty and self serving but that scientific analysis is somehow not subject to the same possible bias...is a bit self serving in its own right.

[Chris DeNigris]

Oh, and Jon- I'm not sure that Greg Norman would agree that it was possible to build a great links course without touching the dunes.

[David_Tepper]

"Some have asked what the impacts and ramifications of the destruction of these valuable shifting sand dunes actually are. While there has been a lot of general environmental pontification about the dangers of disrupting this fragile part of the ecosystem, no one has offered any real details on what's acutally been lost or damaged and what the short or long term effects will be."

Chris D. -

Have you read the report (which twice has been linked elsewhere in this thread) from Scottish Heritage regarding the characteristics of this site? It will answer the question you are asking.

DT

[Chris DeNigris]

David- I did read the lengthy report...and while it certainly provides a lot of juicy info on what  sand dunes and shifting sand sheets are...and gobs and gobs of scintillating info on how wind actually causes changes to these impressive sand formations...and also how nice it would be to now classify the Menie Links as a Geological Conservation Review (GCR) site- somehow previously overlooked (oops)..in light of this startling new revelation....hmmmm.

Yes, all that's there, but nothing about the answers to the questions I alluded to earlier. Perhaps I missed it, what page in the report should I take another look at? Or maybe you didn't read the report either..

Sciientists like to study stuff. Earth scientists like to study earthy things. The Scottish National Heritage commissioned this report so that Earth Scientists could have more stuff to study. It's not hard to connect those dots.

What's the impact to humanity if these dunes are altered by development..

If you can answer that great, but please don't direct me to another biased 60 page scientific report.

[David_Tepper]

"What's the impact to humanity if these dunes are altered by development."

Chris D. -

What's the impact to humanity if they aren't?

DT

[Chris DeNigris]

David- I asked you first

[Jon Wiggett]

Chris,

what has been lost is a feature of the natural landscape that is very, very rare. The impact to humanity is that future generations in the area will not have the opportunity to marvel at what was a natural spectacle.


Chris, when did Greg Norman look at Balmedie? come to that when have you?

Jon

[Lou_Duran]

SeanA- my earlier remarks and "allegations" regarding opinion polls and the Chair of the not-so-final sub-committee were based on fairly extensive readings of earlier material and links provided on this site, articles in the financial press (e.g. WSJ, LFT), and popular media (e.g. NYT, DMNs, GD, GW).  I also had the good fortune of befriending two very well-educated ladies who are lifelong residents of Aberdeen, and who had close, personal knowledge of the events from the outset.  In daily conversations over the course of a week, I think they helped me to develop a good understanding of the various points of view (one had a son working in the North Sea oil industry) prevailing in the area.  I stand by what I said earlier.

JonW- I understand that the final approval came about in an unusual process.  I haven't seen the specific site, but I have seen sand dunes in many places.  Personally, I have only "marveled" at them when ribbons of fairways and greens contrasted with their stark, wild nature.  What scientific merit they possess or whether they qualify as a "natural spectacle" are aesthetic judgements, highly subjective, and open for debate (I did have a great time with my kids sliding down the slopes in the Monahan Sandhills of west Texas).  I do find it perplexing that some people place greater value on a relatively ephemeral striucture of blowing sand (or in the U.S. a small snake, mouse, toad, tiny plant) than on people having work.  One may scoff at another expensive golf resort and the relatively low-paying work of the hospitality industry, but, I think, the potential opportunities provided by the development are far superior than relegating more generations to the dole.  It may not be either/or, but jobs sure seem to be scarce.  Maybe I am wrong.
     

[Patrick_Mucci]

"MORE interested in what the local and surrounding townspeople have to say about this."

Pat M. -

Have you read "Dream Golf," the book about the making of Bandon Dunes?

Yes, I read it when it first came out

The book reveals the very lengthy and gradual process Mike Keiser went thru to gain community support and regulatory approval for the Bandon project.

Are you sure about the regulatory approval being local ?
Are you sure that it was a lengthy and gradual process to gain community support ?

Your comments regarding decisions being made at the local level are ironic, especially given that the duly elected and appointed officials of the Aberdeen area, following the established regulations and procedures, decided that the Trump project was not in the best interest of the region. In this case, the decision of the locals was overridden by they national government, which is exactly the outcome you disapprove of!   
I think you need to reread my posts as you appear to be misguided in your conclusions.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

I wasn't around for the permitting process at Bandon Dunes, but what I've been told about it is pretty much along the lines of what David Tepper implied.  Mike Keiser's partner, Howard McKee, spearheaded the permitting process, because he was well known as a friend to the environmental groups in Oregon and had helped to write the state's zoning legislation.  David Kidd's father, Jimmy, came over from Scotland to speak to the locals, and was very influential.

But they also had a great stroke of luck, in that the dunes were colonized and indeed over-run by gorse, which is an invasive species not native to Oregon.  Their case was that the construction of the golf course(s) would remove hundreds of acres of gorse [which constituted a severe brush fire hazard], and return the site to native grasses -- fescues!  Between that argument and the environmental groups' respect for Howard McKee, the permits went through with minimal objection.

Without the gorse, I don't know if they would have been able to get permits at all.  Certainly, if the site were 100 miles south and the California Coastal Commission were involved, it would have been an automatic "No", even with the gorse argument.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom,

Let me dig out my copy of "Dream Golf" and reread the passages about the initial phases.

My recollection was that it went relatively smoothly and relatively fast, with local support, not objections.
But a reread will clarify the issue.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()