Trump brand losing luster?
September 4th, 2009
Even as Donald Trump battles for control of the failing casinos that bear his name, the developers of Trump International Hotel & Tower in Fort Lauderdale face a federal class action suit that claims buyers were misled about buying into the Trump brand.
The Trump International Hotel & Tower sits empty and incomplete on A1A. Buyers who put down a security deposit on condo units have been put on notice: If at least 50 percent of the buyers don’t close on their units the hotel won’t open. If the hotel doesn’t open, the owners can’t move in. That means the building may lose the elite Trump insignia because of a default on the licensing agreement.
The class action suit seeks a refund of security deposits to buyers who expected to move into units long ago, units bearing the Trump brand name. A separate false advertising lawsuit was recently filed on behalf of 55 buyers.
So how does this impact the Trump brand? With Trump-named projects struggling like other South Florida condos, the Donald’s properties are not immune to the economic downturn.
Click here to read the rest of my story in The Real Deal.
Entry Filed under: Hot off the Press
2 Comments Add your own
1. Zack | January 31st, 2012 at 9:33 pm
Point of order: atcktaing others actions and arguments with truth is one of the best things on can do! It’s a good thing, a positive thing. If I use my blog to attack someone–actually attack a person– it is to comment on what their actions and arguments say about their character, not the *ad hominem* argument that because they are of low character, their aguments are wrong. What I see over an over again from some circles (and I call mainstream media Mass Media Podpeople because their actions are almost uniform in parrotting the same demonstrably false memes) is attacks upon people as a means to shout down or otherwise keep their arguments from being heard.THAT is exactly the tactic Daniel Lyons seems to make his own. he thinks by tarring all blogs with the brush of “atcktaing people” (without distinguishing between legitimate attacks upon actions and arguments from *ad hominem* attacks), he reveals himself as being what he argues against.Despicable hypocrisy, IMO. But all too typical of the illegitimate, fallacious arguments made by the members of mass media who have been converted by the mythical mothership into alien-to-honest-argument Mass Media Podpeople.(Yes, just as there may beâ€â€Âsomewhereâ€â€Âan honest politician, there are some mass media folks who maintain some sense of integrity and ethics. No, not the laughable “journalistic ethics” of CBS‗all the news that’s fit to fake”â€â€Âbut ethics that most common folks would understand and respect.)In recent years (oh, say ever since Walter Cronkite first lied about Viet Nam), it has been my policy to assume a mass media personality _might_ be lying until I could verify their report.Of course, with politicians, I assume they ARE lying until I get multiple independant verifications.So, am I “atcktaing” these classes of people to say that I have found them generally unreliable, although I do give them a chance to demonstrate otherwise? No. I am simply discriminating (a VERY good thing to do, as long as bigotry isn’t involved!) based upon years of experience with these classes of people, just as I would be discriminatory concerning anything a group of death row inmates might say in protestation f their innocence. While such protestations would be acceptable to me when accompanied by PROOF, I feel safe in dismissing them, alongside most mass media pronouncements about darned near anything open to interpretation, ABSENT PROOF.Hmmm… a ramble almost fit for a rantpost…heh
2. qitgqjre | February 3rd, 2012 at 5:57 pm
U9Jl2H dzzjufqixrsd
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed