You have been caught, and now you are offering an alternative.

The buildings can be demolished.

The forest should be replanted and may it have no more "we are government, we can do whatever we want" land poachers seeing that it is a National Park.

The junta is failing the public and proving that they are the criminals also.

Absolute Power is corrupt. Power is corrupt absolutely.

38 minutes ago, laocowboy2 said:

To house a certain watch collection perhaps?

How about a recreation center, with duty free shops, karaoke and massage parlors, a shooting range, and casino for meritorious members of the next unelected government?

They were gung-ho in demolishing everything illegal without considering the losses to the people, now they appeal to keep this due to the large amount spent. I guess if the case goes to the court of appeals...

23 hours ago, jackdd said:

It wasn't sold to court officials. The land was given from the military to the court, this means to the government.

 

Of course the court officials want to have some nice houses where they can stay for free, so they say that it can't be stopped and everything is ok

Obviously it's a joke that the court rules over something from which it's members benefit.

The first article I read in ThaiVisa said "sold" but I cannot find that article now. Instead I see articles saying "granted." Which is possibly even more inappropriate!

 

As the military received free title to the land given to it by a "nongovernmental/noncivilan organization," it would have been entitled to sell the property or any portion. As such I would expect the military would subsequently sell any portion of the granted property at market value to avoid the perception of corruption, ie., "I give you something of great value at no cost and you have a future obligation to me in return."

 

But instead the military gives a portion of its property. It doesn't matter whether it is to a person, company or government agency (ie., Ministry of Commerce) or Independent Organization (ie., Courts), there is the potential for corruption. 

 

I think it's certain with a person or company. With a governmental organization it might depend on whether the military can receive any foreseeable beneficial "favor" if it chooses. I believe that Court officials/Court of Appeals being the recipient whether individually or collectively makes the best case for corruption, ie., in either refusing law suits or petitions for court review that might be punitive or damaging to military or its "patrons," or in tainted judicial rulings that favor the military or its "patrons."

On 4/10/2018 at 12:35 PM, fakename said:

I wonder if the RELOCATED trees could be found? I will be WATCHING this closely.

Buried under some "officials" back yard.............like the last lot a  while  back

3 hours ago, themerg said:

The junta is failing the public and proving that they are the criminals also.

Absolute Power is corrupt. Power is corrupt absolutely.

Well, poor old John Emerich Edward Dalberg-Acton may be a little miffed at his famous words being corrupted, but, otherwise, you're absolutely spot on. But, to give the old boy his due, here's his original:-

 

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.”

 

The less well-known bit of his delivery on the powerful is every bit as damning and almost certainly truthful, too, I would reckon.

 

 

B*LLS**T!  Recently the esteemed powers that be evicted the good folk of a very old and historically valuable, community that was considered irreplaceable and without further ado, completely destroyed the village. I can't imagine this "judges enclave" could possibly be more important to Thailand. What could be missing here?  

On 4/10/2018 at 9:53 AM, Stargrazer9889 said:

Keep the houses and give them to the poor people in the area who are

prestently living in shacks.

Geezer

A noble idea. The trouble is that if that was to happen, chances are that in 5 years or less, they would still be living in shacks. Expensive shacks.

I wouldn't be surprised if a "suspicious fire" erupted someplace....

CAN NOT be scrapped.

Can not means, Don't want to scrap.

I know the area because until construction started a few years ago, it was a favorite mountain-biking route between the 700 year stadium and Huay Tung Tao. 

 

To place a housing development on a slope, surrounded by protected forest, draining down into two reservoirs, can only have been done without an environmental impact assessment. Photos on the web show open wastewater pipes just below the houses.

 

The problem is that even if the court relents and turns the buildings over to CMU, the pollution threat remains. 

 

I don't think local organizers would have trouble rousing 20,000 Chiang Mai residents to march from the stadium (great parking) to the site. The gov't would be wise to heed them.