Better Yet, Call It “Donald Trump’s Very Private National Drive”
It’s not often I agree with Donald Trump. But count me among his supporters in this controversy:
Trump Drive Hits a Rough Patch
Mogul wants his name on a street at his Rancho Palos Verdes golf course. The city’s not sold.
He controls the chips. But they hold the trump card.
That’s the gist of the high-stakes card game being played in Rancho Palos Verdes as billionaire developer Donald Trump struggles to rename a street that leads to his new $250-million oceanfront golf course, Trump National Golf Club Los Angeles.
Trump wants city officials to change Ocean Trails Drive to Trump National Drive.
But some on the Palos Verdes Peninsula say they are already weary of the mogul’s push into their community and have suggested some alternative names: “Ego Aisle.” Or “Narcissism Lane.”
Why am I on the side of this egoistic puffhead? Simple:
Trump’s name on the street could inaccurately suggest that the golf course is private and dissuade people from using a city park and public hiking trails near the ocean, said Councilman Douglas Stern.
“It tips the balance of creating an aura of more of a private entrance and facility,” Stern said.
Speaking as someone who wants to see these trails remain uncrowded, I say:
Sold!
How about splitting the difference and calling it “Richard Corey Ave.”?
But Trump probably wouldn’t get it…
C. S. P. Schofield (c1cf21) — 5/16/2006 @ 9:42 amOuch! I take it that a fair and honest man like you is only joking, Patterico. One of my pet peeves is those people who move to the South Bay for the beaches, parks, night life, etc., then try to make sure that no one from outside their community can enjoy them. You see this in opposition to building parking structures, cities trying to prevent Metro buses from terminating at the beaches, residents petitioning to get traffic barricades put up on their streets and reserve street parking for permit holders, and all the other small ways of telling outsiders to bug off.
JVW (d667c9) — 5/16/2006 @ 9:52 amRegarding Trump and the city, they have been carping at each other since Trump came to town. While entertaining, both sides look foolish. I could care less about Trump’s reputation. As an RPV resident, it would be nice to have have city council that acted in a professional manner. Although this bunch is certainly better than what we’ve had in the past.
JVW – Are you saying that you actually like going to places that are crowded? I understand the ideals, but the bottom line is people like elbow room. The Palos Verdes Peninsula is pleasant and highly-desirable because the cities have implemented policies to prevent them from becoming crowded and over run. I know it sounds terribly elitist, but I don’t see people streaming to visit the San Fernando Valley on a Saturday afternoon. It’s a Catch-22, the policies that discourage outsiders actually make a location more attractive to outsiders.
Jeff C. (29f726) — 5/16/2006 @ 12:59 pmHey Jeff:
A public place is a public place. I hate crowds just as much as anyone, but I don’t like surfer localism (which is an extreme manifestation of this sort of “elitism”) any more than I like those Pasadena or Hollywood folks who try to make getting to the Rose Bowl or the Hollywood Bowl as difficult of a task as it possibly can be. By living near the beach, I get instant accessibility as well as my own private parking spaces, but I shouldn’t be discouraging others from coming.
It’s one thing to have policies that limit residential development to what is sensible from an infrastructure standpoint, but when you are trying to affect recreation and commerce it becomes problematic. Those of us in the beach cities love having restaurants and bars and botique stores in our neighborhoods, but God forbid we increase parking capacity so that “outsiders” can enjoy them too. This is the attitude I hate, especially when it is undertaken under the cynical guise of environmentalism.
JVW (d667c9) — 5/16/2006 @ 1:16 pmJVW – Good point, the environmental guise is bunk. In RPV, the guise is “geologic stability”. Where I used to live in Ventura County, the saying was “protecting the county’s farmland”. Instead of dressing up motivations as lofty, noble aims, cities should just come out and say “we have something nice and we don’t want it changed”.
Presumably a city loses money by limiting outsiders (parking fees, sales taxes, etc.). If the city chooses to sacrifice the income by discouraging outsiders, it really should be their choice. This assumes that the city acts in a legal and non-discriminatory manner. For instance, a resident parking permit seems wrong to me. However, I have no problem with limiting parking spaces or even eliminating direction signs to secluded parks. It should be up to the city. If other cities that would rather have the income, they can go after the outsiders.
Jeff C. (29f726) — 5/16/2006 @ 3:18 pmIn a way I agree with you, but if a bunch of wealthy beach property owners in Santa Monica decide to limit commerce in the Third Street Promenade, the middle-class folks in East Santa Monica are going to suffer for it through higher property and sales taxes. I don’t think that is right. If the rich folks want to buy up all the available land to prevent it from becoming parking lots then I have no quibble with that, just don’t turn to the political or legal systems to do the dirty work.
As to the issue of limiting directional signs to parks, maybe I can go for that, but doesn’t the State of California (and maybe even the Feds) end up passing money along to cities for maintaining public park space? If a park is entirely funded and maintained by a municipality, OK, but if someone else is picking up a part of the bill then they can and ought to demand that the park is well marked.
JVW (d667c9) — 5/16/2006 @ 6:56 pmmy elitism trumps your elitism. i’m eagerly awaiting $10/gallon gasoline so we can price some of these muthaz off the road.
assistant devil's advocate (76e072) — 5/17/2006 @ 7:06 amDearly beloved trails… we are gathered here today. To unite in cool ocean breezes and the happy pursuit of golf balls.
How about Ivana Golf Parkway? It’s friendly but approachable.
Vermont Neighbor (a9ae2c) — 5/17/2006 @ 10:30 amFrom Bill of PalosVerdesBlog:
I just spent a half hour in the hot bubbly and am now more than usually mellow. Some think that’s comparable to Attila the Hun, but no matter. I’m ready to blog.
[…] While the rest of SoCal frets about an invasion from Mexico, we in Palos Verdes worry about the invasion by The Donald. Yes, Mr. Trump is well ensconced at the former Ocean Trails golf course, now called Trump National Golf Club Los Angeles. Note: it’s not Trump National Golf Club Palos Verdes. The Trumpster thinks we’re just a hick town not up to his exalted standards. So it’s Los Angeles for him.
And now he has petitioned the City to change the name of Ocean Trails Drive to Trump National Drive. From the Trump National web site we find this description: Located on the luxurious Palos Verdes Peninsula just thirty minutes south of Downtown Los Angeles, Trump National serves as the perfect busy executive’s getaway. From the moment you turn down Trump National Drive, the spectacular views and exceptional service embrace you like no place else. But some on the Palos Verdes Peninsula say they are already weary of the mogul’s push into their community and have suggested some alternative names: Ego Aisle. Or Narcissism Lane.
In an interview Monday from New York, Trump made it clear he doesn’t plan on being strong-armed by Rancho Palos Verdes officials, even as he praised the peninsula as a great area — one of the richest, if not the richest, in California. But Trump is a tough dude. I’m very hard to extort, if they’re looking to do that, he said when asked about the city’s tough stance. I’m happy to report that our City Fathers have respectfully declined the request, no matter what The Donald thinks.
Vermont Neighbor (a9ae2c) — 5/17/2006 @ 8:55 pmhttp://palosverdesblog.blogspot.com/
[…] And you wonder why I want to keep it that way. […]
Patterico’s Pontifications » A Trip to an Uncrowded Beach — in L.A. (421107) — 6/3/2006 @ 8:30 pm