Some are easy. Some need a lot of thought. Some are basically down to affordability - if we do X then we can't do Y. But occasionally there are issue of fundamental principle.
And the issue of compulsory purchase for some homes on and at the edge of the Menie estate is to me a matter of basic rights. It is one thing for a public authority to take away someones home for a major infrastructure project. But it is another matter entirely for a developer to ask this in the interest of private profit.
The Trump Organisation is quoted as wanting to acquire the homes in question amicably and peacefully. That is the only terms possible - the opposite of amicable and peaceful are not options.
So the Trump Organisation should withdraw their request to use CPOs, even as
a last resort.
I understand from the Sunday Herald that any vote is likely to be against the use of CPOs. I am pleased that it seems that my councillor colleagues feel this way and recent advice from the councils legal team may encourage more to be public in their opposition to the CPOs. Any that support the use of CPOs need to explain in public why they believe it would be just to force people out of their homes. After the Trump Organisation made it perfectly clear at the Public Local Inquiry that they "had all the land they needed" (they said this repeatedly).
In PR terms perhaps 'managed retreat' would be the best (albeit unfamiliar) option for Trump.
Post a Comment
I am happy to address most contributions if they are coherent. Comments with a constructive contribution to make to the discussion, even if it is critical will be posted.
Please do not add comments in the name of real people unless you are that person.
The views expressed in comments are those of the poster, not me.