newnative

Apologies for the length--short is not my forte. No, I'm not assuming property values always go up. I've never said that, nor do I believe that. With many projects in Thailand, you'll be happy if they maintain their value, or don't decrease much. We've had a poster on this thread mention that with his rental condo in Phuket, that he has owned for 5 years, he would be lucky to get back what he paid for it. But, note he didn't say he would be lucky to get back half of what he paid for it--and he's, hopefully, had some rental income from it. I've relayed some of my experiences and said that buying wisely is important, doing your homework is important, finding a good deal is important, and taking your time is important. Most of the condos my partner and I have bought have been to live in, and I think buying to live in long-term makes the most sense with condo buying in Thailand, if one prefers to own their space rather than rent. I've also said that timing can be important, as well. In a number of cases, we sold at the right time. For example, from 2011 to around 2014, we bought (not at the same time) 6 empty 48 sqm foreign quota studio shells at VT3, 5C, 5D, and 7. We finished and furnished them, lived in some of them, and sold each at a profit. At that time period, VT was a big player in Pattaya, with competition just starting to develop. (small pun) VT condos were easy to sell then at a profit. Not long ago, I saw one of our VT seaview studios back up for sale on Hipflat. We had sold it for around 3.25MB-3.5MB and it was now for sale for 2.85MB. Our buyer had been a Russian investor so he had about 10 years of rental income during a period when VTs rented easily. So, he made some money with the condo but he was now selling for less than what he paid for it. Hipflat still has higher floor VT5 seaview studios listed for 3 to 3.5MB so perhaps the Russian needed a quick sale. The last condo I bought as a residence in the US was a foreclosure in 2008. Paid $170,000 for a condo that had last sold for over $300,000 in the real estate frenzy. Thought I had gotten a bargain. Yaa me. Little did I know that the condo would drop a further $10,000 in value, to $160,000, after I bought it. Boo me. In 2010, I decided to move to Thailand. The market had not improved much, so if I had sold the condo then, I would have lost money. Instead of selling, I rented it out, sometimes a good option instead of selling at a loss. In 2014, I needed some money and the market had recovered enough for me to sell the condo at a $10,000 profit. Pat on the back, good job, dodged a bullet. Timing. Fast-forward to 2023, Zillow tells me the condo is now worth $257,400. Smack on the head, idiot for selling. Also timing, bad. Just some illustrations that real estate has ups and downs. Like most investments, there are risks involved in buying. I know and accept that going in, that I might lose money. I like to own, not rent, so I take the risk--life is short. If one is happy living in a rental property, with no property worries, with the freedom to move around and not be tied down, rent, instead--bargains abound here. Certainly renting is a good option if you are likely to be here for just a short time or your length of stay is uncertain. Owning pays off more long-term--with both the rent savings and the accumulated joys of owning your space and putting your stamp on it. I'll circle back to the original VT studio that we bought in 2011. Paid about 2.2MB for the empty shell, if I recall, and spent about 400,000 baht to fix it up. Investment of about 2.6MB. Had we not sold it, and lived there instead since 2011, we would have saved about 12 years of rent payments. 12 years of saved rent payments at 20,000 baht a month for rent ( I think about average for nice VT3 and 5 seaview studios during most of that period) equals a rent savings of 2,880,000 baht. The rent savings would have more than paid for the condo. So, essentially a free condo rather than 12 years of rent money thrown out the window--and a roof over your head that you still own. Not a bad deal, in my opinion, although many would rather rent in Thailand and invest that 2.6MB in other investments--also good. Different strokes. . .

VT3 used to have that system when we first owned there--I think it was a flat rate of 6000 baht a year per unit. Then it switched to a baht per sqm system, I believe 12 baht when we were there years ago. I think some of the other newer VTs also switched.

Legitimate property developers continue to build condos in Pattaya because they are able to find buyers for their product. It's really just that simple. I've used this example before. Riviera Group built Riviera Wong Amat and found buyers for its product. From Riviera Wong Amat they progressed to Riviera Jomtien, Riviera Monaco, Riviera Ocean Drive, and Copacabana. Had there been no buyers at Riviera Wong Amat, I doubt the other projects would have been built. You can see similar examples with other developers building multiple projects, such as Sansiri, Lumpini, and Raimon Land. Developers study the market and will sometimes switch gears. Supalai built, I believe, just one highrise condo project in Pattaya, Supalai Mare, and then segued to building houses on the Darkside. Pattaya continues to grow but I think the number of large, new condo projects has slackened a bit. Question. If you believe, as you state, that condos bought for investment will have, in your words, 'no resale value really', why are you thinking about such an investment? If that's your thinking, you might be better off just renting and investing your money in something else. Despite the occasional posters who proclaim that their condo has lost half its value, has lost ALL its value, cannot be given away, cannot find a buyer at any price, etc. , etc., I think you know that is not actually the reality in most cases. Suppose you spend 1.5 million for a Pattaya condo. That's about $43,000 at today's exchange rate. About the average price of a new car. Suppose, in 10 years, that it has, worse case, actually lost half its value. If you've been able to steadily rent it out, you'll have 10 years of rent to help offset the loss in value. If you've lived in it, you've saved 10 years of rent. Even if it is now valued at only half--unlikely--you still have a roof over your head that you own free and clear, come what may. What's that now 10-year old car worth and would you be happy living in it, come what may? My partner and I have bought and sold 2 condos in Rayong and 16 in Pattaya, some studios, some 1 to 3 bedrooms. None lost any value, all sold at a profit, although some of the profits on the studios were small. All were condos with a seaview, a key point, I think. In your shoes, I would also look for a seaview condo. I believe they hold their value and are easier to sell--right off the bat you've eliminated all the condos competing on the market that don't have a seaview. If you bump your budget up a bit, you could possibly get a 32 sqm seaview condo at Lumpini Park Beach for under 2MB. Not very big, but a good use of space with a nice-size balcony, reasonable condo fee, beachfront, and on the baht bus line. Up the beach, I think you could get into a 48 sqm studio with a bit of a seaview at VT5D, possibly 5C, for around 2.5MB. We renovated 4 of these on higher floors with better seaviews and sold them about 9 or 10 years ago for around 3.25-3.5MB. If condos lose half their value, as some pundits say, these seaview VT5 condos should now be around 1.6MB but that doesn't seem to be the case, although there are a couple low floor units listed on Hipflat for around 2.2MB. Short on amenities--just a pool--but good, popular location and low condo fee. My partner and I lived in 48 sqm units at VT3, 5, and 7 for various periods and found we had enough space. The very large balconies are an extra, outdoor room. If you go with one of the 'theme park' projects, I would look around and find the one that suits you best with location, price, and condo size variety. Arcadia seems to be limited with 1 bedroom condo sizes--most just around 25-27sqm. Atlantis, on the other hand, has 1 bedrooms in the 35 to 42sqm range. A number of these resorts to choose from in Jomtien. If a lot of short-term, noisy, tourist-type renters bother you--as they do me--you might look for a project that has more long-term type renters. One thing my partner and I always kept in mind, even when we were strictly buying a condo as an investment to rent out, we never bought anything we would not personally be ok living in, if we had to. If 26 sqm is too small for you, it's likely going to be too small for most long-term renters, as well. And, I think your aim would be long-term renters rather than all the hassle and work of dealing with short-term tenants. Maybe consider looking for something a bit bigger that gives you flexibility to live in it, yourself, at some points, and rent it out at other points. The great thing about Pattaya is the terrific choice of housing at all price points and in a number of neighborhoods--from south Jomtien to Wong Amat. I would urge you to take your time, not rush into anything, and do lots of looking--it's a good way to educate yourself on pricing and all that is available. Good luck!

The typical studios at VT3, VT5C, VT5D, VT6, and VT7, which are mostly 48sqm, would not have condo fees of 45,000 baht a year. Faz Waz gives the VT6 fee as 40 baht a sqm. I think some of the other VT projects have cheaper fees; Faz Waz has VT5's fee at 15 baht a sqm. So, for VT6, 48sqm x 40 baht equals 1,920 baht a month. Times 12 months equals 23,040 baht a year.

So, you understand the concept of Chinese influencing a Canadian election but Russians influencing an American election apparently eludes you.

Srettha's turn.

Yes, come immediately, if not sooner. Total no-brainer. As BigStar used to say, Next.

Hmm. Time to focus your attention on the lazy police and the corrupt officials. Don't always take the easy way out by blaming the ex-pats. You do that and you're no better than your lazy underlings. Set an example and do some work for a change, instead.

There were no positive stories available 'benefitting' Trump. He's a sex offender, draft-dodging, tax dodging, serial lying, grifter. How do you put a positive spin on that? Of course, even harder now to come up with something. His spray tan seems less ghastly orange? There you go.

Pattaya draws huge numbers from Bangkok, an easy drive on a 4-lane motorway.

Put him out to pasture already, along with all the other old goats.

Absolutely not needed if the other two are doing their jobs properly.

Nice to see Pattaya pop up at #15.

Agree. I love a pool--especially in Thailand with year-round warm weather. I wouldn't buy a condo in a complex without a big pool, or pools. The pools were definitely used in the condo projects I owned at and lived in at Pattaya condos.

For me, it's the 1980s, at least for American people, with these remarks from an American who went through his 30s in the 1980s. People, I think, were just more civil back then, in many ways. As others have mentioned, things did move slower. You leisurely read a newspaper in the morning and in the evening you watched a 30 minute news program on one of the networks to see what went on that day around the world. No instant news, real or fake, from multiple sources bombarding you all the time. Likely just one or two tvs in the household and there was more family viewing then of the much more limited choice of programs. The tv show Dynasty averaged 21 million viewers a week in 1985. These days, most network tv shows only attract 3 or 4 million viewers, and some less. Everybody individually off doing their own thing now, with less family time together. I think people behaved themselves more then. Politicians being more civil then to members of opposing parties, with a more willingness to compromise on legislation. Fewer people acting up and behaving badly on airplanes, in restaurants, schools, movie theaters, public places in general. People don't seem to care now about making an ass of themselves in public. More people now seem to want to be famous for their 15 minutes--even if it's more likely they end up infamous, instead. Were people more discreet in the 1980s? I think so, and possibly that was a good thing. In 1989, Laura Bush was not yet First Lady--that would come in 2001--but her father-in-law was President of the US and she was in the public eye. Can anyone imagine her going on national tv in 1989 and announcing that she was not wearing any underwear? Not in a million years, I suspect. Yet, her daughter, Jenna Bush, did just that not too long ago. Is that something she needed to share with the public? No. Is it information I needed to know? No. Is it the first thing I think of when I hear her name? Yes--and maybe that's something you might not want to be your claim to fame. Pop quiz: When did the phrase 'too much information' become widely popular? Hint: It wasn't the 1980s. In the 1980s, the year with the most mass shootings in the US was 1984, with 5. The other years there were 1 to 4. In 2022, there were 30 mass shootings. 30! This year already 23, with the year far from over. Why are people now doing these mass shootings so much more? From 5 to 30 is a huge difference. Also, I think there was less law-breaking then with things like shoplifting--now such a problem in the US that it is having a big impact on the bottom line of stores like Home Depot, Target, and Wal-Mart. The CEO of Home Depot spoke out on it recently. Retailers have started to pull out of some communities altogether, throwing in the towel on trying to make a profit when so much merchandise is being stolen, including by organized shoplifting gangs that swarm into a store and ransack it, overwhelming the security. Walgreen's is redesigning some stores with most of the merchandise locked up. My brother-in-law manages a CVS drug store and the police have told him not to even think of calling for any stealing that is less than $150--they cannot be bothered to respond. Sad that is now the state of affairs--and his store is in one of the wealthiest counties in America. Did any losing presidential candidates--let alone a sitting president--plot to overthrow the government in the 1980s? No. Two losing candidates in other decades actually had legitimate claims, Nixon in 1960 and Gore much more so in 2000, when the Supreme Court ordered the Florida vote recount halted and awarded George W. Bush the presidency in a very close 5-4 vote. Neither of those two acted like spoiled, crybaby, serial lying, criminal Trump, the poster boy for people behaving very badly, with zero regard for others. To end on a brighter note, of course some things changed for the better. In the 1980s, the majority of people in America, and many other places, were against gay marriage. In 1988, only 11% of Americans were in favor of it. Living in conservative Virginia, I never thought that gay marriage would one day become legal in my life time. From 11%, people's attitudes have changed and support for gay marriage now stands at 71%, according to Gallup data.

2000 baht. OUCH! That's gonna hurt and hurt BAD! Not.

Is this #20 or #21? Either one, I am, of course shocked, I tell you. Shocked that he is not coming. Who'd have thunk it? And I was all ready to greet him at the airport like those other poor souls coming from the boonies!

Hundreds of Thai legal scholars knew right from the get-go that the decision to block a candidate having a second vote for PM was unconstitutional. Absolutely no reason that the Constitution Court, for heaven's sake, should also not know this immediately. Their needing two more weeks--to do lord knows what, twiddle their thumbs counter-clockwise instead of clockwise?--on top of all the time they have already had, is just nuts. In the weeks before the very first vote for PM, there were stories about how many times Pita's name would be submitted to be voted on. First it was thought to be two, then three times was mentioned, and I think there was talk about not setting a specific number. Why didn't anyone, especially all those Constitution legal scholars, step up then and say, hey, he can only be voted for once? Nobody stepped up because it's clear that is not the case. Delay, delay, delay for no reason.

Sweet!

We always try to buy in foreign quota and, normally, we would not break the rule. But, sometimes you can get away with it and not end up with the 'booby prize'. A desirable project is a desirable project. The last Pattaya condo my partner and I owned was at Northshore. Foreign quota at Northshore is long gone but the project remains desirable and in demand. Location, location, location, with very little in the way of competition from other seaview condo projects at that prime area. We wanted to live there so we bought in Thai name. When we decided to switch gears a couple years later and buy a house on the Darkside, we were able to find a buyer and make a profit on the condo. Foreign quota condos do generally sell for higher prices at Northshore, and other projects where FQ is full, but we got a lower price when we initially bought because our condo was not in foreign quota and needed some work, so we were still able to make a profit.

Absolutely. Document everything and have the landlord sign the documents before signing any rental contract. If he won't, move on. You are in the driver's seat before a contract is signed. After you sign, you lose all your power. Get everything you want in the contract while you are still in the driver's seat.

PT instruction manual. Get into bed and have a one-night-stand with whomever you need to in order to win the PM. Get elected PM by your one-night-stand. Kick your one-night-stand out of bed and get back together with your main squeeze, MF. Hope MF will have you back or you may find yourself impotent in the next election.

I think that depends on whether foreign quota is still available or not.

There is no such thing as 'Thai quota'. Thais can own 100% of a project. The condo mentioned is likely in Thai name, meaning registered at the Land Office to a Thai owner. Foreign quota could or could not still be available, one cannot tell this from a particular condo being in Thai name.

You hit it. My partner and I like it for most of the same reasons.