North East Scotland- Dunes or Golf?
Dec 1st, 2007, 02:13 AM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
North East Scotland- Dunes or Golf?
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?...;id=1875962007
I'd be really interested in your views. This one is close to me heart and home.
I'd be really interested in your views. This one is close to me heart and home.
Dec 1st, 2007, 02:47 AM
#2
If the Cape Cod National Seashore had not been created, the entire ocean side of Cape Cod would be developed with similar projects to the one Aberdeen rejected. I can not say that would have been a better outcome than the miles of dunes that have been preserved.
When you say this is close to your heart and home, do you mean literally? Would the Trump development have been on your doorstep?
When you say this is close to your heart and home, do you mean literally? Would the Trump development have been on your doorstep?
Dec 1st, 2007, 03:13 AM
#3
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a person who married a Scot and who loves Scotland, I was really annoyed at Trump's attitude that he was bringing prosperity and civilisation to a backward region. My husband was making very rude comments to the radio last night.
Trump said earlier how wonderful it was to find such a beautiful unspoilt place.
So having found it, he wants to spoil it.
Trump said earlier how wonderful it was to find such a beautiful unspoilt place.
So having found it, he wants to spoil it.
Dec 1st, 2007, 03:17 AM
#4
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sheila, that's cheating.
Scotland's record in creating jobs since devolution has been dreadful. NE Scotland may well face a particular threat with the possible wind-down of North Sea oil (though with oil at $100 a barrel, presumably all sorts of tiny abandoned wells get viable all over again) and the EU's continuing destruction of Scotland's fishing industry. And Scotland's hardly short of bleak beaches and their hinterland.
So the interesting question is what do you think? Golf-based gated communities are my idea of hell - and I suspect yours too. But there's a plausible (or possibly specious) argument that they're a real potential generator of jobs in an area that may well be desperate for them in ten years' time.
Do any of Scotland's parties have a non-absurd policy for getting Scots back to work that doesn't include tourism? Which inevitably means things like Trump is proposing.
Other parts of Britain can ban heavyweight new building and still attract growing investment. I doubr NE Scotland has that luxury.
Scotland's record in creating jobs since devolution has been dreadful. NE Scotland may well face a particular threat with the possible wind-down of North Sea oil (though with oil at $100 a barrel, presumably all sorts of tiny abandoned wells get viable all over again) and the EU's continuing destruction of Scotland's fishing industry. And Scotland's hardly short of bleak beaches and their hinterland.
So the interesting question is what do you think? Golf-based gated communities are my idea of hell - and I suspect yours too. But there's a plausible (or possibly specious) argument that they're a real potential generator of jobs in an area that may well be desperate for them in ten years' time.
Do any of Scotland's parties have a non-absurd policy for getting Scots back to work that doesn't include tourism? Which inevitably means things like Trump is proposing.
Other parts of Britain can ban heavyweight new building and still attract growing investment. I doubr NE Scotland has that luxury.
Dec 1st, 2007, 04:09 AM
#5
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AS some of you know I used to be a councillor and this was my ward. I can say, with hand on heart, I am SO pleased I did not have to vote.
And you're bing unfair, Michael, I REALLY do want to know what people think. I was looking at the comments on the Scotsman page and noting that most of those in favour are from overseas.
The guy who chaired the committee, Martin Ford, is a very good friend of mine, and no numptie- he has a Cambridge PhD. Whatever else he is, he is a man of great principle, and it really pisses me off to see him attacked the way he has been.
The site covers about a third of an SSSI (A site of special scientific interest- the highest UK designtion of conservation land- there are European ones which are more important). It also covers two SINSs (Sites of Interest to Natural Science- a lower designation)
What would I have done? I don't know. I really don't
And you're bing unfair, Michael, I REALLY do want to know what people think. I was looking at the comments on the Scotsman page and noting that most of those in favour are from overseas.
The guy who chaired the committee, Martin Ford, is a very good friend of mine, and no numptie- he has a Cambridge PhD. Whatever else he is, he is a man of great principle, and it really pisses me off to see him attacked the way he has been.
The site covers about a third of an SSSI (A site of special scientific interest- the highest UK designtion of conservation land- there are European ones which are more important). It also covers two SINSs (Sites of Interest to Natural Science- a lower designation)
What would I have done? I don't know. I really don't
Dec 1st, 2007, 04:37 AM
#6
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,060
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Voted against.
For a start, the project was far too big and unsuitable.
Secondly, he was adamant against building inland and leaving the dunes alone.
Thirdly, Trump has a dismal reputation even in his own country.
I wouldn't trust him an inch.
For a start, the project was far too big and unsuitable.
Secondly, he was adamant against building inland and leaving the dunes alone.
Thirdly, Trump has a dismal reputation even in his own country.
I wouldn't trust him an inch.
Dec 1st, 2007, 04:49 AM
#7
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But Britain's awash with SSSIs and all the rest, and it really must be possible to devise golf complexes that actually improve SSSI management: whatever the plan's weaknesses, it's not an aluminium smelter we're talking about here, and really smart local authorities just get ruthless with developers about conservation issues, while still getting the investment.
I'm with you on the unpleasant vilification of the councillors, who from 400 miles away seem to have behaved generally as well as they could on a decision where they were going to get hammered either way. But there's just as much bigoted anti-Trump ranting on the Scotsman website - though he and his associates really do seem to have an uncanny knack of phrasing things in the most tactless way imaginable.
Strip out the ad hominem arguments on both sides. Does anyone have a serious strategy for full employment in NE Scotland that doesn't include building more tourist infrastructure and exploiting the area's golf associations?
If I were a councillor (and the more I see of their lives, the more determined I am not to be one) and were as thickskinned as a rhino, I'd vote against the project because of Trump: fairly or unfairly, his involvement is damaging the project's prospects. Then, were it possible, I'd try attracting some other, less damaging, investor to do essentially the same thing in a more sensitive (both to the environment and to voters' feelings) project that really would create Aberdeenshire jobs for Aberdeenshire people.
Because that, of course, is the other Trump weakness. Isn't he actually just creating a mecca for a couple of thousand Lithuanian chambermaids, and a few Spanish building contractors? Fine in a job-rich area like London: but is it right for Aberdeen?
I'm with you on the unpleasant vilification of the councillors, who from 400 miles away seem to have behaved generally as well as they could on a decision where they were going to get hammered either way. But there's just as much bigoted anti-Trump ranting on the Scotsman website - though he and his associates really do seem to have an uncanny knack of phrasing things in the most tactless way imaginable.
Strip out the ad hominem arguments on both sides. Does anyone have a serious strategy for full employment in NE Scotland that doesn't include building more tourist infrastructure and exploiting the area's golf associations?
If I were a councillor (and the more I see of their lives, the more determined I am not to be one) and were as thickskinned as a rhino, I'd vote against the project because of Trump: fairly or unfairly, his involvement is damaging the project's prospects. Then, were it possible, I'd try attracting some other, less damaging, investor to do essentially the same thing in a more sensitive (both to the environment and to voters' feelings) project that really would create Aberdeenshire jobs for Aberdeenshire people.
Because that, of course, is the other Trump weakness. Isn't he actually just creating a mecca for a couple of thousand Lithuanian chambermaids, and a few Spanish building contractors? Fine in a job-rich area like London: but is it right for Aberdeen?
Trending Topics
Dec 1st, 2007, 08:46 AM
#8
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 493
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a Yank who loves Scotland and the game of golf, permit me to put in my tuppence. Scotland has triumphed again! She will flourish and grow long after the Donald has passed from the scene. And we who visit her shores will enjoy the uniqueness of the people and the natural beauty of the land.
Make no mistake--Trump is about making money, plain and simple. That and seeing his name blaring in the headlines. His proclaimed interest in Scotland and golf falls way behind the millions he envisions.
Take a look at a similar development--the Scottish National Golf Centre at Drumoig, just north of St. Andrews. Proposed in 1995 as a golfing center for all the UK, it would provide the latest in instruction, accomodations, and housing. Opened in 1999, it went into receivership in 2003. Lesson learned?
Bully for new golf courses. The Castle Course of St. Andrews, opening in 2008, and the new Machrihanish links, soon following, are prime examples of site selection and management. And Mr. Kidd, architect and builder of both, happens to be a Scot!
Sheila, keep it simple and keep it SCOTTISH.
Cheers,
Jinx Hoover
Make no mistake--Trump is about making money, plain and simple. That and seeing his name blaring in the headlines. His proclaimed interest in Scotland and golf falls way behind the millions he envisions.
Take a look at a similar development--the Scottish National Golf Centre at Drumoig, just north of St. Andrews. Proposed in 1995 as a golfing center for all the UK, it would provide the latest in instruction, accomodations, and housing. Opened in 1999, it went into receivership in 2003. Lesson learned?
Bully for new golf courses. The Castle Course of St. Andrews, opening in 2008, and the new Machrihanish links, soon following, are prime examples of site selection and management. And Mr. Kidd, architect and builder of both, happens to be a Scot!
Sheila, keep it simple and keep it SCOTTISH.
Cheers,
Jinx Hoover
Dec 6th, 2007, 04:43 PM
#9
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not getting drawn into the argument about the pros and cons of Mr T's proposals, but .....
Sheila, I have the priveledge of still serving in a similar role to the one you once held. If your former colleague acted in good faith, and I've no reason to believe otherwise, it's despicable that he is now facing a vote of no confidence. One of the most basic rules of our Planning system is that you are not allowed to put a perty "whip", or any other kind of whip, on planning decisions. And that's even leaving aside the fact that the only reason he had to use the casting vote was because half of the committee voted to reject Trump's plans. Are they all facing the sack as well?
As for Flanneruk's jaundiced observation about job creation post devolution, we're barely six months into the first proper Scottish Government who didn't take their orders from London. Give them time, Flanner, or are you scared that they might be too successful and give us silly ideas about being able to run our own country?
Sheila, I have the priveledge of still serving in a similar role to the one you once held. If your former colleague acted in good faith, and I've no reason to believe otherwise, it's despicable that he is now facing a vote of no confidence. One of the most basic rules of our Planning system is that you are not allowed to put a perty "whip", or any other kind of whip, on planning decisions. And that's even leaving aside the fact that the only reason he had to use the casting vote was because half of the committee voted to reject Trump's plans. Are they all facing the sack as well?
As for Flanneruk's jaundiced observation about job creation post devolution, we're barely six months into the first proper Scottish Government who didn't take their orders from London. Give them time, Flanner, or are you scared that they might be too successful and give us silly ideas about being able to run our own country?
Dec 14th, 2007, 04:44 AM
#10
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Sheila. I have been wondering what you thought about this. I had no idea it was your old ward, though !
The whole thing makes me ashamed of Scotland, putting the demands of someone like Trump above all normal planning procedures - indeed democracy itself IMO - and all environmental considerations. It sends out the message that if you have big enough bucks, the Scottish Government will let you do whatever you like.
It wouldn't seem quite so horrible if there'd been any suggestion of a possible compromise on Trump's part, rather going straight for strongarm tactics - only the little people appeal, I guess.
He bangs on about wanting to create the world's greatest golf course, as if it were some kind of vocation, without mentioning all the housing, Disney-style resort hotel, etc. (And who on earth is going to want to live in all these houses ?)
And how many golf courses does Scotland already have ?
And how much time has he actually spent there - does he actually realise what the weather is like a lot of the time ?
So Sheila, when you say you don't knbow how you would have voted - what are the pros for you ?
Flanner, your views on the value of the SSSI seem to have something in common with those of the guy (local "businessman" I think) quoted in the Scotsman a day or two ago, who said that the development would be an improvement on what's just wasteland now. You are correct, though, that the development won't create much long term employment. And Aberdeen has effectively full employment anyway.
The whole thing makes me ashamed of Scotland, putting the demands of someone like Trump above all normal planning procedures - indeed democracy itself IMO - and all environmental considerations. It sends out the message that if you have big enough bucks, the Scottish Government will let you do whatever you like.
It wouldn't seem quite so horrible if there'd been any suggestion of a possible compromise on Trump's part, rather going straight for strongarm tactics - only the little people appeal, I guess.
He bangs on about wanting to create the world's greatest golf course, as if it were some kind of vocation, without mentioning all the housing, Disney-style resort hotel, etc. (And who on earth is going to want to live in all these houses ?)
And how many golf courses does Scotland already have ?
And how much time has he actually spent there - does he actually realise what the weather is like a lot of the time ?
So Sheila, when you say you don't knbow how you would have voted - what are the pros for you ?
Flanner, your views on the value of the SSSI seem to have something in common with those of the guy (local "businessman" I think) quoted in the Scotsman a day or two ago, who said that the development would be an improvement on what's just wasteland now. You are correct, though, that the development won't create much long term employment. And Aberdeen has effectively full employment anyway.
Dec 14th, 2007, 05:33 AM
#11
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 7,313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have lived within three blocks of one of Trumps other projects, this one was Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, FL (http://trumpinternationalpalmbeaches...me/welcome.asp)
All we ever saw or heard of this was the rows of Royal Palms that were put up around the property. Palm Beach is too large a city to notice an influx (or otherwise) of work or industry on this project. It was (and is) a very insular property, keeping to itself. Now, granted, there were no sand dunes to worry about as it is inland... and right near the airport, so no one really wanted the property anyhow. However, there was little disruption while it was being built.
I think I would vote for it - if only to allow more people the opportunity and incentive to see the beautiful country that Scotland is. Remember that folks that visit will be much more likely to do a 'tour' of golf courses nearby and afield, and spend tourism dollars in the like of St. Andrews, etc. What golf afficionado could resist playing the Old Course if they are that close already??
All we ever saw or heard of this was the rows of Royal Palms that were put up around the property. Palm Beach is too large a city to notice an influx (or otherwise) of work or industry on this project. It was (and is) a very insular property, keeping to itself. Now, granted, there were no sand dunes to worry about as it is inland... and right near the airport, so no one really wanted the property anyhow. However, there was little disruption while it was being built.
I think I would vote for it - if only to allow more people the opportunity and incentive to see the beautiful country that Scotland is. Remember that folks that visit will be much more likely to do a 'tour' of golf courses nearby and afield, and spend tourism dollars in the like of St. Andrews, etc. What golf afficionado could resist playing the Old Course if they are that close already??
Dec 14th, 2007, 05:55 AM
#12
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 6,282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But GreenDragon, you are talking about a development *in a city* - very different from on a stretch of wild, unspoilt coastline. And lots of visitors come here already for the golf - I don't think this is likely to a bigger attraction than St Andrews.
Dec 14th, 2007, 06:03 AM
#13
Sheila: I've read that the council member who cast the deciding vote has been sacked. By the way, how is a councilor fired - aren't they elected officials? But it was only a short report so I'm sure important details were omitted.
Anyway, does this mean the scheme may be re-considered?
Anyway, does this mean the scheme may be re-considered?
Dec 14th, 2007, 10:39 AM
#15
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 7,313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree, caroline - which is why I said no dunes were involved. However, I think IF you can get an agreement with the company to preserve the natural beauty of the area, it should be a good thing for the area.
I've lived in underdeveloped (and overdeveloped!) areas before. Both have their downfalls. Both have their advantages. But if there's one thing I've learned of Donald Trump is that he doesn't do things halfway. Each of the hundreds of Royal Palms planted around his Palm Beach property costs about $4,000 EACH... yet they are everywhere. They are attractive to those outside of the club, not inside. Granted, it's not 'native beauty', but he didn't have much to work with in the city when he got there. Scotland has lots to offer his creative minds, I think.
I've lived in underdeveloped (and overdeveloped!) areas before. Both have their downfalls. Both have their advantages. But if there's one thing I've learned of Donald Trump is that he doesn't do things halfway. Each of the hundreds of Royal Palms planted around his Palm Beach property costs about $4,000 EACH... yet they are everywhere. They are attractive to those outside of the club, not inside. Granted, it's not 'native beauty', but he didn't have much to work with in the city when he got there. Scotland has lots to offer his creative minds, I think.
Dec 15th, 2007, 10:21 AM
#16
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, I agree with you GreenDragon; nad (being dragged to sound like I'm against), the site extends to 1200 acres. The SSSI extends to 450 of which about 1/3 is in the development site.
Oh, and did I mention that the applicant refused to alter anything in his application- not a jot? not a tittle?- or he'd take his money and spend it elsewhere? Protect the dunes? He wants to stabilise them. And they're special because they move!
Martin has not been sacked asa councillor, Janis- Councillors, as you say, are elected- but he has lost his "job" as chairman of the committee.
Oh, and did I mention that the applicant refused to alter anything in his application- not a jot? not a tittle?- or he'd take his money and spend it elsewhere? Protect the dunes? He wants to stabilise them. And they're special because they move!
Martin has not been sacked asa councillor, Janis- Councillors, as you say, are elected- but he has lost his "job" as chairman of the committee.
Dec 15th, 2007, 10:12 PM
#18
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The issue has become highly politicised, with the Scottish Nationalists, who are the largest party in the provincial administration, now 'calling it in' - jargon for saying the provincial executive, not the county planning committee will decide. And from their propaganda, they've decided for Trump already
As Sheila says, Trump has made it clear he won't change any of the proposal. In rolling over and doing whatever any loudmouth demands if he dangles enough money, the SNP have clearly learned from the cavortings of the Labour party nationally - and shown themselves just as unfit to govern.
Almost enough to get you voting LibDem, eh Sheila?
As Sheila says, Trump has made it clear he won't change any of the proposal. In rolling over and doing whatever any loudmouth demands if he dangles enough money, the SNP have clearly learned from the cavortings of the Labour party nationally - and shown themselves just as unfit to govern.
Almost enough to get you voting LibDem, eh Sheila?
