site banner
PaperclipPerfector  8mo ago (text post)   26482 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of September 25, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

7
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

What you're missing are the land use restrictions that make it actually much less valuable on teh market than nearby lots.

I wish I could copy/paste from this part of the court ruling (the version I see is not OCRed), it's like 3 paragraphs and vastly clarifies the situation. Worth checking out if you care about this tweet.

Maybe the land is much less valuable but it would still be worth an order of magnitude more than the assessed value.

An order of magnitude more than the assessed value is already like 70% of the low end of OP's speculated value.

What do you mean by 'much less', and why do you think that?

Because we can look at much smaller properties around it and see how much they are worth. So even if per acre / per sq Ft MAL is worth much less it would still be worth a bunch because the amount of acres and sq Ft is much more than normal for this area.

$25mil is 'a bunch'.

You seem to agree with me that it will be worth less than surrounding properties, but you're still using them as your anchor.

The only question is how much less it is worth.

Absent any additional information about that, I'm fine trusting the county assessor and the judge, until someone shows me more evidence. I at least trust them more than Eric Trump, who is the source of this hot take.

But anyway, that's all sort of besides the point. It sounds like you agree with me that Trump significantly overstated the value of the property, which is what the judge was saying in this section.

The relevant section, copy/pasted for your convenience:

Donald Trump purchased Mar-a-Lago in 1985. In 1993, he sought , and obtained , permission from the Town of Palm Beach to turn the property into a social club (NYSCEF Doc. No. 900), and on August 10, 1993, he entered into a Declaration of Use Agreement by which he agreed the use of Land shall be for a private social club and that any additional uses of the Land shall be subject to approval by the applicable governmental authority including but not limited to the Town Council of the Town, the Landmarks Preservation Commission of the Town, the Architectural Review Commission of the Town, Palm Beach County, the State of Florida, the United States Government, and/ or any agencies under the foregoing governmental authorities. NYSCEF . No. 915 .

In 1995, Donald Trump signed a Deed of Conservation and Preservation Easement in which he gave up his right to use Mar-a-Lago for any purpose other than as a social club (the 1995 Deed) NYSCEFDoc. No.901. In 2002, Donald Trump signed a Deed of Development Rights NYSCEFDoc. No.902. Aspart of granting a conversation easement to the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Donald Trump agreed that "Trump intend [s] to forever extinguish [his] right to develop or use the Property for any purpose other than club use (the 2002 Deed). The 2002 Deed also specifically "limits changes to the Property including, without limitation, the division or subdivision of the Property for any purpose, including use as single family homes, the interior renovation of the mansion, which may be necessary and desirable for the sale of the Property as a single family residential estate, the construction of new buildings and the obstruction of open vistas." Id. In exchange for granting the easement, Mar-a-Lago was taxed at a significantly lower rate (the club rate) than it otherwise would have been (the private home rate). NYSCEF Doc. No.903.

From 2011-2021, the Palm Beach County Assessor appraised the market value of Mar-a - Lago at between$ 18 million and $27.6 million. NYSCEF No.905.

Notwithstanding, the SFCs values do not reflect these land use restrictions

Is it your contention that Trump is violating the land use restrictions by living at MAL? If he is not, then it seems MAL has at least value to someone to live there. Given its size and location that means MAL is worth a sizeable chunk.

I thought he might have been, but apparently the deal is that employees of the club are allowed to stay on site, so he's able to live there as a Mar-a-Lago employee or something? I dunno.

Edit: Having said that, all I was doing in this particular comment was giving @guesswho the quote he wanted.

Thanks!

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats