Donald Trump & Mr. Forbes

[Jack Daw]

Right - it's capitalism. The value of the land is based on what price both can agree on.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

.....

[jdriskill3]

Right - it's capitalism. The value of the land is based on what price both can agree on.

I think as long as they can both agree on a price, fine. But when government violates private property rights to snatch land from an owner for another persons project, I disagree.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

I think as long as they can both agree on a price, fine. But when government violates private property rights to snatch land from an owner for another persons project, I disagree.

There is a fundamental difference between the concept of eminent domain (in the USA) and a compulsory purchase order (in the UK); without wishing to become embroiled in the politics of property rights, in both instances the government has the legal right to acquire privately held property from an individual if that acquisition is, ultimately, for the benefit of the community as a whole.

My original reference to a notional CPO being served on the landowner was merely to illustrate the fact that he has been offered a price for his land in excess of its commercial value, and far in excess of any value that might be placed upon it by the government should they exercise their right to acquire the land for the benefit of the community.

[jdriskill3]

There is a fundamental difference between the concept of eminent domain (in the USA) and a compulsory purchase order (in the UK); without wishing to become embroiled in the politics of property rights, in both instances the government has the legal right to acquire privately held property from an individual if that acquisition is, ultimately, for the benefit of the community as a whole.

My original reference to a notional CPO being served on the landowner was merely to illustrate the fact that he has been offered a price for his land in excess of its commercial value, and far in excess of any value that might be placed upon it by the government should they exercise their right to acquire the land for the benefit of the community.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, there for it is a duck.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, there for it is a duck.

Unless, of course, it is a drake. Only female ducks quack, and at that only those that dunk to feed. Other species of ducks don't quack, at all.

So, one may infer from your posting of an old canard (for those not familiar with ducks) that, just as with ducks, there really is a difference between what Americans call " the right of eminent domain" and what is referred to in Britain as "a compulsory purchase order". The political rights and wrongs of property being acquired by the government for the betterment of the community-- perhaps to build a duck pond?-- are beyond the scope (and outside the rules) of XMTS. I referred to both mechanisms of acquisition merely to highlight the fact that (a) Mr. Trump's company offered more for the land than it was worth on the open market, and (b) to point out that if the local council had chosen to acquire the property, they would have paid Mr. Forbes less than Trump's offer.

As I have stated, I have no interest, whatsoever, in discussing the rights and wrongs of the system that allows the government to acquire land from the individual. The point of my original post was simply this: Calling Donald Trump names, because he wants to build a golf course, is childish.

[ccga3359]

Unless, of course, it is a drake. Only female ducks quack, and at that only those that dunk to feed. Other species of ducks don't quack, at all.

But if Trump weighed the same as a duck... then he's made of wood. Therefore he's a witch!*

Don't know how an (I would assume) exclusively private golf club is a benefit to the community. Does Mr. Forbes work his land? How does the threat of losing one's land that might've been in his family generations benefit the community? I'm sorry I'm with Mr. Forbes and not for someone, a non-citizen who lives thousands of miles away who I believe has no right to have Forbes forced to sell his land. I think Mr. Trump's reputation of bully is shown here.



*With thanks to Mønti Pythøn ik den Høli Gräilen.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

But if Trump weighed the same as a duck... then he's made of wood. Therefore he's a witch!*

Don't know how an (I would assume) exclusively private golf club is a benefit to the community. Does Mr. Forbes work his land? How does the threat of losing one's land that might've been in his family generations benefit the community? I'm sorry I'm with Mr. Forbes and not for someone, a non-citizen who lives thousands of miles away who I believe has no right to have Forbes forced to sell his land. I think Mr. Trump's reputation of bully is shown here.



*With thanks to Mønti Pythøn ik den Høli Gräilen.

Er, here's the thing... people are reading into this things which, as far as I am aware, HAVE NOT HAPPENED. Trump hasn't forced Forbes to do anything. Forbes hasn't had his land CPOed. Nobody has taken anything away from Forbes and handed it Trump and it is doubtful that this will happen. But if I'm wrong, and it does come to pass that the local council chooses to CPO the land and sell it on to Trump, well that's part of the legal process in Scotland. Either way, I fail to see why the nationality of the CEO of a company (or his place of residence) should enter into the equation, at all.

[hospitaller]

The point of my original post was simply this: Calling Donald Trump names, because he wants to build a golf course, is childish.

But of course, it is ok for you to call Mr. Forbes greedy for refusing to sell his property.

I see how the troll works.

[jdriskill3]

People like that don't see things that way that they could finance Mr. Forbes property improvement. Grounds clean up, a few coats of fresh paint would take care of it and a little extra jingle to go along with it. Mr. Trump has his golf course with Mr. Forbes a happy camper and still owning his land.