More than 120,000 locals have signed petitions opposing a proposed Trump-branded tower in Surfers Paradise, arguing the project threatens the Coast’s identity, infrastructure and public beachfront. Craig Hill writes.
WE NEVER EXPECTED to be at the centre of what’s become one of the Gold Coast’s most visible community campaigns in years.
But as soon as the Trump Organisation’s first Australian project was unveiled – a proposed 91-storey, 340-metre Trump International Hotel and Tower for Surfers Paradise – we felt we had no choice but to respond.
When a powerful brand plants a flag on an iconic public coastline, ordinary people either shrug or stand up. We chose to stand up and we did it the only way most people can: we organised.
Through two Change.org petitions – one led by me and the other launched by ‘CK’ – the movement has now gathered more than 120,000 verified signatures. That number matters because it shows this isn’t a fringe objection or a social-media flash. It’s a broad public message that the project is not automatically welcomed and certainly not “inevitable.”
CK has decided to remain anonymous for a simple reason: fear of retaliation from the most hostile corners of Trump’s supporter base. That kind of intimidation has become a grim feature of the Trump era and we won’t pretend it isn’t a factor for people who simply want to speak up without being targeted.
When we write “we”, we mean more than two organisers. We mean a cross-section of the community: teachers and tradies, hospitality workers and students, parents, small business owners, long-term locals, and visitors who love the Coast for its openness — the feeling that the beach is for everyone and that our culture still has a distinctly Australian character.
What’s on the table and why it’s bigger than a tower
Supporters of the proposal are selling it as a statement piece: a “six-star resort hotel”, luxury apartments, retail space, a beach club — the whole high-end package designed to project glamour and exclusivity. The Trump Organisation is framing it as a landmark development, a premium address, a new symbol on one of Australia’s most recognisable beachfront strips.
But the defining point is not the glass and steel. It’s the business model. This is described as a hotel management and brand-licensing arrangement, meaning the Trump Organisation profits from the name, the marketing and the prestige effect — even if others finance and construct the building.
In other words, the Trump brand doesn’t need to pour the concrete to collect the value. That is precisely why we’re opposing it. Branding isn’t decorative. Branding shapes a city’s identity and it can carry consequences long after the ribbon cutting.
Our core objection: the name and the pattern it brings with it
We’re not campaigning against height for the sake of height. We’re campaigning against what the Trump name represents, and what similar Trump-linked projects have been associated with elsewhere: displacement of local businesses, rapidly rising property values and sharper income inequality. That is not the future we want for Surfers Paradise or the wider Gold Coast.
Donald Trump is a convicted felon, found guilty on 34 felony counts in New York. He was also found liable for sexual abuse in the E Jean Carroll civil case and a judge later clarified that, in ordinary language, the jury’s findings amounted to rape even if the legal definition applied in that specific court setting was narrower. Those facts are not minor footnotes. They go to consider whether this is an individual and a brand that should be welcomed into Australia as a prestige partner on a major public-facing venture.
Then there is the commercial record — the part that should matter even to people who don’t follow politics. Independent reporting and fact-checking have long documented six Trump-linked corporate bankruptcies, largely tied to the casino and hospitality world. Again and again, the pattern described is heavy leverage, aggressive deal-making and others left to absorb the losses.
We’ve also documented a wider pattern in our own research: ten locations worldwide where Trump-owned or Trump-branded developments were reported as catalysts or symbols of luxury-driven upheaval, with communities describing pressure on small businesses, escalating prices and widening inequality.
That list spans New York, Atlantic City, Vancouver, Toronto, Pune, Gurgaon, Panama City, Scotland and Ireland. The point isn’t that one tower single-handedly changes a city; the point is that this brand has repeatedly been linked to the kind of transformation that benefits the wealthy first and leaves the local character behind.
That is why the line “it’s only a building” doesn’t work. It isn’t only a building. It’s the importation of a brand and the baggage that comes with it.
Why reward hostility?
The timing makes this proposal harder to stomach. Australia is dealing with an increasingly confrontational U.S. tariff agenda. Official guidance indicates the U.S. has imposed a 10% Temporary Import Surcharge on most goods, alongside far steeper “national security” tariffs, including 50% tariffs on steel and aluminium. There has also been reporting about efforts to lift the temporary global rate to 15%, which would hit Australian exporters again.
So we ask a straightforward question: if the Trump Administration is actively making it harder for Australian industries to compete and for Australian workers to thrive, why should the Gold Coast roll out the red carpet by elevating the Trump name above our beachfront skyline? Why build a massive monument to this man?
Mayor Tom Tate (whose corruption IA has been continually investigating — read about it here) has spoken positively about the concept in the media and the Council has confirmed that no development application had been lodged at the time of reporting. That matters because it means nothing is locked in. There is still time – and therefore responsibility – to take a breath, examine the risks properly and reconsider.
“Beach cabanas” and the Schoolies problem
One particular element of the plan has triggered alarm among locals who understand how Surfers Paradise actually functions: the idea of cabanas on the beach across the road and a resort experience that is designed to spill onto the sand. Beaches in Queensland are public. But anyone who has watched these developments elsewhere knows how “exclusive” beach servicing can shift the feel of a place, inch by inch, until a public space starts operating like a private forecourt.
Directly across the road sits the Queensland Government’s Schoolies Hub — a fenced, alcohol and drug-free precinct where school leavers gather during Schoolies Week. This is a major youth-safety operation involving police, health staff, volunteers and careful planning.
The prospect of a Trump-branded luxury hotel exerting influence over the same beachfront environment, through cabanas, beach club operations, or simple brand dominance, is not just culturally wrong-headed. It’s a real operational risk.
We do not want Schoolies turned into a staged “VIP backdrop” for wealthy tourists. We do not want a public beach, especially one that operates as a youth safety precinct, to become the functional extension of a private hotel.
Delivery risk: Serious questions about the developer
Our concerns are not only political. They’re practical. ABC investigative reporting has described the project’s local proponent, Altus Property CEO David Young, as having previously run a business that collapsed owing $28 million to creditors, with a liquidator’s report portraying him as largely uncontactable and failing to file key financial information following the collapse.
The same reporting notes two prior bankruptcies, both completed. Raising these issues isn’t “cancel culture”. It’s what basic due diligence looks like when a city is asked to accept a mega-project with long-term consequences.
Infrastructure and congestion: The costs can’t be hand-waved away
We also reject the idea that a tower of this scale can be dropped into Surfers Paradise without major downstream impacts. The precinct already faces peak-season gridlock, limited loading and parking capacity, tight access for deliveries and emergency services, and a packed events calendar that pushes roads and public transport to their limits.
A combined hotel-and-residential complex of this magnitude would add thousands of additional trips – by private cars, rideshares, service vehicles and construction traffic – into a zone that is already strained.
If council is contemplating approval in any form, the public deserves clear, detailed answers: what road upgrades are required; which intersections will be redesigned; how pedestrian movement and disability access will be improved; what extra public transport and active-transport links will be funded; and how years of construction traffic will be managed without turning the area into a permanent choke point.
On top of that, essential services must be proven – not assumed – to have sufficient capacity: electricity and substation load, reliable water supply, sewerage, stormwater capacity, and resilient internet and mobile coverage in a dense high-rise environment.
And the crucial question must be answered honestly: who pays? Ratepayers and taxpayers should not be left holding a quiet infrastructure bill while a private brand harvests the upside.
What we’re doing now
We’ve begun applying pressure where it can actually affect outcomes: through organisations that represent workers, builders and industry standards. We have written to, and are seeking discussions with, the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU), the Electrical Trades Union (ETU), Plumbers Union, Australian Workers' Union (AWU), Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union (AMWU), Master Builders Queensland and the Queensland Major Contractors Association (QMCA).
Ideally, we would like to see the project black banned, but we will respect whatever alternative action the unions decide is appropriate.
We have also written to the elected representatives who have formal responsibility for this area and for the public interest:
- Gold Coast Mayor, Tom Tate;
- Queensland Member for Surfers Paradise, John-Paul Langbroek (LNP);
- Federal Member for Moncrieff, Angie Bell (LNP);
- Senator Murray Watt, Labor Duty Senator for Moncrieff; and
- Greens Leader, Senator Larissa Waters (Queensland).
We’ve contacted three former Independent federal candidates and Gold Coast activists who have indicated they are willing to help organise: Stewart Brooker, Michelle Faye and Belinda Jones. We’ve also been approached by a Victorian law firm offering assistance to raise funds from law firms around Australia and a Brisbane barrister who is helping us identify a local lawyer who may act pro bono if fundraising falls short.
And we encourage every concerned resident to contact these elected officials as well — calmly and respectfully. We can be determined without becoming what we oppose. We don’t need threats or abuse. We need sustained civic pressure, transparency and democratic accountability.
A final appeal: Pause, reconsider, choose better
We are not arguing that the Gold Coast should stop evolving. We are arguing that it should stop trading its skyline, its beach culture and its civic identity to a brand that brings division, controversy and a long record of hard-edged commercial fallout.
We’re asking Mayor Tate and the Gold Coast Council to take another look at what this project really means and who it ultimately serves. The Coast belongs to the community that lives there, works there and raises families there. We can do better than a tower that effectively shouts “TRUMP” over the Pacific.
You can read more about our exclusive decade-long Tate Town investigation here, highlighting the corruption behind the Gold Coast's Mayor and City Council.
Craig Hill is a Brisbane-based Writer, Teacher, Business Consultant, Social Justice Campaigner and Journalist. He was the Legalise Cannabis Party candidate for the Federal Seat of Bonner at the 2025 Federal Election and author of the twelve-book Doctor Who Anthology episode guides. Twitter: @CraigHill01
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Australia License
Support independent journalism Subscribe to IA.
Related Articles
- CARTOONS: QLD residents rate Trump tower of disappointment
- Hitler’s Moscow to Trump’s Minneapolis: When power meets resistance
- The braggart soldier returns: Trump on the grand stage of ego
- CARTOONS: Donald Trump is on thin I.C.E. with immigrants
- Mayhem is the point: Trump's politics of terror
