Donald Trump & Mr. Forbes

[jdriskill3]

It was fun to watch Nightline and see a piece on Donald Trump. Seem he wants to build a golf course in Scotland. A kilted gent by the name of Forbes refuses to sell his property to the Donald because it would ruin the view from the golf course with Mr. Forbes rusting barns. Mr. Forbes just wants the Donald to die and go to hell and leave him alone. Nice to see someone standing up to a big money bully like Donald Trump.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

It was fun to watch Nightline and see a piece on Donald Trump. Seem he wants to build a golf course in Scotland. A kilted gent by the name of Forbes refuses to sell his property to the Donald because it would ruin the view from the golf course with Mr. Forbes rusting barns. Mr. Forbes just wants the Donald to die and go to hell and leave him alone. Nice to see someone standing up to a big money bully like Donald Trump.

In my book Forbes is merely trying to extort more money from Trump than his land is worth. You can bet your bottom dollar that if the land had been subject to a compulsory purchase order by the local council they wouldn't have paid Mr. Forbes as much as Trump has offered. Sheer greed on Forbes part, if you ask me.

But neither of our opinions really matter because this is old news that has been talked to death here on XMTS. Some members are opposed to anything Trump does, others feel he should be allowed to go about his lawful business. Time to move on, comrades, from bashing the rich. And, my fellow plutocrats, time to move on from trying to enrich the poor through the benefits of unbridled capitalism.

[jdriskill3]

Oh, Sorry About That MacMillan, it was NEW NEWS TO ME since Nightline presented it last night for the first time. I like seeing pieces about the little guy standing up to land grabbing rich guys with bad comb overs.

[###KILTEDKIWI###]

In my book Forbes is merely trying to extort more money from Trump than his land is worth. You can bet your bottom dollar that if the land had been subject to a compulsory purchase order by the local council they wouldn't have paid Mr. Forbes as much as Trump has offered. Sheer greed on Forbes part, if you ask me.

I agree that this is old news (sorry JD), but I disagree with the above statement.

although he is pretty much poked with the CPO, why shouldnt he try and hold out for the current market valuation of his property?
If the UK is similar to here, the CPO will be the current Government Valuation of the land plus improvements (house etc), and this is not always reflective of the current market value, as they are a snap shot of the value and churned out by monkey's in an office who have probably never seen the property.

Also there would be other issues, such as disbursements for shifting / moving to a new location etc,
court costs and of course paying a valuer.

If it was a road or part of any other infrastructure asset, then I'd say I would agree with MOR, however, as this is for a leisure pursuit, I disagree.

[cessna152towser]

Time will tell, it will be interesting to see whether Mr. Forbes will eventually agree to be bought off by Mr. Trump or whether he will hold on to his land as a matter of principle.

[bricelythgoe]

I love capitalism.

[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.