Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[ThaiBob]

The admin court can tear down a building which has been illegal built up to 5 years after its completion.

View Talay 5 (finish in 2006), 3(finish in 2005) and “Beach” in Pattaya which is under construction are also in violation of Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) Issued under the Building Construction Control Act.

Will these buildings be torn down?

Is Realty Company warning buyer about the risk when showing View Talay 5 and 3?

Do realtors have a liability in selling this condo which violating the law?

I have been advices “YES” by and involved lawyer to all three of these question!

Now who want to show and sell the View Talay condos?

Where did you get this information from about admin court can take down illegal buildings up to 5 years after completion?

Refer to Post #77.

[Tammi]

The admin court can tear down a building which has been illegal built up to 5 years after its completion.

View Talay 5 (finish in 2006), 3(finish in 2005) and “Beach” in Pattaya which is under construction are also in violation of Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) Issued under the Building Construction Control Act.

Will these buildings be torn down?

Is Realty Company warning buyer about the risk when showing View Talay 5 and 3?

Do realtors have a liability in selling this condo which violating the law?

I have been advices “YES” by and involved lawyer to all three of these question!

Now who want to show and sell the View Talay condos?

Where did you get this information from about admin court can take down illegal buildings up to 5 years after completion?

Refer to Post #77.

Thank you. Yes, Richard wrote as follows:

"I was asked if I wanted to include VT5 in our case and have it torn down. I chose not to go their! It was explained for five years one could bring a case to tear down VT5 in Admin Court.

Richard."

Will have to find the appropriate Law.

[stopvt7]

“YES, I was asked if I wanted to include VT5 in our case and have it torn down. I chose not to go their! It was explained for five years one could bring a case to tear down VT5 in Admin Court.”

You can contact: Asia LawWorks Ltd.

They are on Thepprasit Rd. across from the 7/11 just before you get to the go-kart tracks.

Markus Klemm and Amnat Thiengtham

Phone 38-411-591 or e-mail [email protected]

Amnat Thiengtham is a Thai lawyer how has a master degree in Administrative Law. If you going to use this court you need a lawyer who specializes in administrative law work. Markus Klemm is his partner and he from Germany. He does good reach and speaks good English. They understand the law, do a lot of real estate law work and can advice you in administrative law and a legal case. If I was real estate agent I lay down some money to get some good advice to keep myself out of trouble.

[ThaiBob]

The admin court can tear down a building which has been illegal built up to 5 years after its completion.

View Talay 5 (finish in 2006), 3(finish in 2005) and “Beach” in Pattaya which is under construction are also in violation of Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) Issued under the Building Construction Control Act.

Will these buildings be torn down?

Is Realty Company warning buyer about the risk when showing View Talay 5 and 3?

Do realtors have a liability in selling this condo which violating the law?

I have been advices “YES” by and involved lawyer to all three of these question!

Now who want to show and sell the View Talay condos?

Where did you get this information from about admin court can take down illegal buildings up to 5 years after completion?

Refer to Post #77.

Thank you. Yes, Richard wrote as follows:

"I was asked if I wanted to include VT5 in our case and have it torn down. I chose not to go their! It was explained for five years one could bring a case to tear down VT5 in Admin Court.

Richard."

Will have to find the appropriate Law.

Well you might as well linclude VT3 which must be closer to the sea than VT5 since it doesn't have a hotel in front of it and I believe others in Na Jomtien.

[JR Texas]

The admin court can tear down a building which has been illegal built up to 5 years after its completion.

View Talay 5 (finish in 2006), 3(finish in 2005) and “Beach” in Pattaya which is under construction are also in violation of Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) Issued under the Building Construction Control Act.

Will these buildings be torn down?

Is Realty Company warning buyer about the risk when showing View Talay 5 and 3?

Do realtors have a liability in selling this condo which violating the law?

I have been advices “YES” by and involved lawyer to all three of these question!

Now who want to show and sell the View Talay condos?

Where did you get this information from about admin court can take down illegal buildings up to 5 years after completion?

Refer to Post #77.

Thank you. Yes, Richard wrote as follows:

"I was asked if I wanted to include VT5 in our case and have it torn down. I chose not to go their! It was explained for five years one could bring a case to tear down VT5 in Admin Court.

Richard."

Will have to find the appropriate Law.

Well you might as well linclude VT3 which must be closer to the sea than VT5 since it doesn't have a hotel in front of it and I believe others in Na Jomtien.

JR Texas: I can think of several condos near the beach in Jomtien where owners are in danger of losing their view of the sea. One is right on soi 7 and no doubt if development continues will find a new condo built right in front of it.

And forget about the law......if influential people want to build it, the law will either be overlooked or changed to make the project a reality.

Another is the new Ocean 1 (that 90-100 story condo fiasco) that may or may not be developed. The plan seems to be for the first one to be developed a considerable distance from the shoreline. It is Ocean 1.

Will there be an Ocean 2? Where will Ocean 2 be? Maybe right in front of Ocean 1. Can't happen? Will never happen? ha ha ha ha....right. Welcome to LOS.

[Weho]

My advice to people who want to preserve a view: buy the property in front of you. or get together with your neighbors and buy the property in front of you. maybe in LOS, that still might not be enough.

but remember: losing your view is a selfish thing, and something that in no way should influence whether some other project gets built to the maximum.

I saw a nice hotel in Pattaya, that had beautiful hand painted exterior walls, and hand made stained glass windows. Really gorgeous. They built part of it at the edge of their property, maybe six inches from their property line. Then along comes a NEW neighbor, who built their exterior wall right out to the edge of their property, completely covering up the beautiful stained glass windows and hand painted work on the older existing property. I don't think there is even enough room there now for the older property to service or clean their exterior walls. The new owner built out to the maximum, with ZERO consideration for their neighbor, as I agree they should NOT have had any consideration.

Kind of a shame, as the stained glass was beautiful. It now faces a tall wall, where no light gets in, six inches away.

[bmanly]

This went up today.

[stopvt7]

When Jomthien Complex Condotel was built they promise a luxury low rise hotel in front of the condos. This hotel was featured in their literature and was a selling point for the condos. Then in 2003 JCC developers announce they sold the land after the placed it in a sister company. They never asked condo owners to buy, or told the condo owners it was for sale. And it was never listed with a realtor as being for sale. So what do you thing this sale was about? Or was their a real sale? Is this a joint venture between JCC and VT to build VT7?

So if you could stop this VT7 project would you not try? Or do you enjoy people sh_ting on you?

Or would you just watch this law from 1978 be broken? Just do nothing? When a developer has enough tea money for city hall to issue a questionable building permit? The only people upset are the ones who now are not able to make money with VT7! Or think zone law should always be broken. That Thai people or farangs should not have equal rights under Thai law.

Richard

[bmanly]

The only people upset are the ones who now are not able to make money with VT7! Or think zone law should always be broken. That Thai people or farangs should not have equal rights under Thai law.

Richard

You are wrong, my friend is a buyer and has put in quite a considerable amount of baht into the condo he is buying in VT7. He has every right to be upset, he bought that place for his retirement NOT TO MAKE MONEY!

I have no interest in either properties but as a property investor there is one thing that is never ever guaranteed and that is the block of land in front of you. If you want absolute sea views then buy absolute sea front land, same everywhere in the world.

[Weho]

Regarding making money in real estate: the only way to "make money" with your home is if you sell it, then move to a CHEAPER PLACE. If you have a condo, and if you've lived there say 5 or 10 years, and if it's gone up in value, don't start celebrating yet... you can only celebrate in "making money" if you move to some place CHEAPER. If you're condo went UP in value, don't you think other condos in the area went up too?

I love these people, mostly in the U.S., that proclaim, "I bought my house for $200,000, and now it's worth $400,000". They think they are doing great... but IF they sell their house for $400,000, the only way to realize any gain is to buy something in a CHEAPER area, and have a few dollars cash left over. DOn't they realize that other properties in the are ALSO went up in value? So where's the profit?

Sell your home in the U.S. for $400,000, but something nicer and bigger in say Thailand for say $150,000, and you've made a profit. You have some extra cash in your pocket. If you sell something, then buy something else in the same area, you haven't made any money.

[Irene]

When Jomthien Complex Condotel was built they promise a luxury low rise hotel in front of the condos. This hotel was featured in their literature and was a selling point for the condos. Then in 2003 JCC developers announce they sold the land after the placed it in a sister company. They never asked condo owners to buy, or told the condo owners it was for sale. And it was never listed with a realtor as being for sale. So what do you thing this sale was about? Or was their a real sale? Is this a joint venture between JCC and VT to build VT7?

So if you could stop this VT7 project would you not try? Or do you enjoy people sh_ting on you?

Or would you just watch this law from 1978 be broken? Just do nothing? When a developer has enough tea money for city hall to issue a questionable building permit? The only people upset are the ones who now are not able to make money with VT7! Or think zone law should always be broken. That Thai people or farangs should not have equal rights under Thai law.

Richard

Richard,

Agreed! Great Stuff! You and your friends are not to be blamed for the losses of VT7 buyers who face big losses if they cannot get a refund from the developer if the Court favours you and your friends. You are usurping your legal rights in protecting your assets. Those buyers are now facing the dilemma of whether to updating their instalment payments when the future of VT7 is uncertain and will be uncertain for quite a while.

[Irene]

The only people upset are the ones who now are not able to make money with VT7! Or think zone law should always be broken. That Thai people or farangs should not have equal rights under Thai law.

Richard

You are wrong, my friend is a buyer and has put in quite a considerable amount of baht into the condo he is buying in VT7. He has every right to be upset, he bought that place for his retirement NOT TO MAKE MONEY!

I have no interest in either properties but as a property investor there is one thing that is never ever guaranteed and that is the block of land in front of you. If you want absolute sea views then buy absolute sea front land, same everywhere in the world.

bmanly,

But Richard believed that his Jomthien property was the seafront area and not to be blocked the nearby buidling that will be situated within 200 metres of the seashore. Hence, he took the City Hall to court for breaching the regulations in allowing the permit for that 27 floors high rise. He is now protecting his right.

Unfortunately, the buyers of VT7 would have to face the consequences of his protective action. Hopefully, they should get their refunds if the court's decision is final in a few years time. Now, they should seek legal advices whether they should go on paying their instalments and their necessary actions. Is the suspension caused by force majeour? I doubt that.

[Tammi]

The only people upset are the ones who now are not able to make money with VT7! Or think zone law should always be broken. That Thai people or farangs should not have equal rights under Thai law.

Richard

You are wrong, my friend is a buyer and has put in quite a considerable amount of baht into the condo he is buying in VT7. He has every right to be upset, he bought that place for his retirement NOT TO MAKE MONEY!

I have no interest in either properties but as a property investor there is one thing that is never ever guaranteed and that is the block of land in front of you. If you want absolute sea views then buy absolute sea front land, same everywhere in the world.

Your friend is right to be upset with VT, and only VT.

In this case the block of land is, by Law, guaranteed to be built on only to a height of 14 meters.

[Irene]

This went up today.

bmanly,

That is correct that the construction is legal with the appropriate building permit from the authority. The permit cannot be revoked until the Court has ordered so or considered the permit as good. Until that is known, the permit still stands except no construction could continue.

The only part that is missing from that huge posters for any potential buyers is the information that the Administrative Court has temporarily suspended the ongoing construction until the Court has deliberated the issue as from Novemeber 2007. Caveat Emptor!!! Let's the buyers beware!!!

[Ungabunga]

Hi, I'm not fully conversant with the intricacies of the case, so please forgive me for asking what may in these circles be considered a daft question: Could such a situation exist whereby the VT group offer 'compensation packages' to the residents of JCC in return of allowing the building to continue unopposed? Or, have VT even tried this already to make the problem go away? I fully take into account 'principles' and 'rights' involved and I don't mean in any way whatsover to insinuate that it would be about the money or mean any offence - but just was wondering if either of those would be likely or is it past the point of no return so to speak?

[bmanly]

The only people upset are the ones who now are not able to make money with VT7! Or think zone law should always be broken. That Thai people or farangs should not have equal rights under Thai law.

Richard

You are wrong, my friend is a buyer and has put in quite a considerable amount of baht into the condo he is buying in VT7. He has every right to be upset, he bought that place for his retirement NOT TO MAKE MONEY!

I have no interest in either properties but as a property investor there is one thing that is never ever guaranteed and that is the block of land in front of you. If you want absolute sea views then buy absolute sea front land, same everywhere in the world.

Your friend is right to be upset with VT, and only VT.

In this case the block of land is, by Law, guaranteed to be built on only to a height of 14 meters.

If you take note of the photo I posted before VT5 is in the background, complete and finished. Why did no one say anything about that and the several other buildings that may be questionable? There are a lot of other buildings closer to the water than VT5 too.

It's only about the views that will be lost that the Jomtien Complex Condotel have really filed this complaint isn't it? Otherwise they would have been a bit more proactive about other buildings being built both at present and in the past.

I have been around these parts now for quite a few years now an I will be around for quite a few more. If gambling was legal in Thailand I would put my money on VT7 and City Hall for a win. This is Thailand, anything can and will happen and usually the big boys win.

[bmanly]

This went up today.

bmanly,

That is correct that the construction is legal with the appropriate building permit from the authority. The permit cannot be revoked until the Court has ordered so or considered the permit as good. Until that is known, the permit still stands except no construction could continue.

The only part that is missing from that huge posters for any potential buyers is the information that the Administrative Court has temporarily suspended the ongoing construction until the Court has deliberated the issue as from Novemeber 2007. Caveat Emptor!!! Let's the buyers beware!!!

Well under these circumstances I would walk away from any such property anywhere in the world. I by the way do not invest in Thailand because laws are often not worth the paper it is written on and if you are a farang it will almost always go against you.

[ZZZ]

This went up today.

Why do the Thai text quote building license no 162/2550 and the English text 142/2550

[bmanly]

This went up today.

Why do the Thai text quote building license no 162/2550 and the English text 142/2550

Because they can't get anything right and because you are very observant! I missed it too

[Tammi]

The only people upset are the ones who now are not able to make money with VT7! Or think zone law should always be broken. That Thai people or farangs should not have equal rights under Thai law.

Richard

You are wrong, my friend is a buyer and has put in quite a considerable amount of baht into the condo he is buying in VT7. He has every right to be upset, he bought that place for his retirement NOT TO MAKE MONEY!

I have no interest in either properties but as a property investor there is one thing that is never ever guaranteed and that is the block of land in front of you. If you want absolute sea views then buy absolute sea front land, same everywhere in the world.

Your friend is right to be upset with VT, and only VT.

In this case the block of land is, by Law, guaranteed to be built on only to a height of 14 meters.

If you take note of the photo I posted before VT5 is in the background, complete and finished. Why did no one say anything about that and the several other buildings that may be questionable? There are a lot of other buildings closer to the water than VT5 too.

It's only about the views that will be lost that the Jomtien Complex Condotel have really filed this complaint isn't it? Otherwise they would have been a bit more proactive about other buildings being built both at present and in the past.

I have been around these parts now for quite a few years now an I will be around for quite a few more. If gambling was legal in Thailand I would put my money on VT7 and City Hall for a win. This is Thailand, anything can and will happen and usually the big boys win.

I am told by a good contact that Grand Condotel did have contact with both City Hall and VT but were told that City Hall have the power to reassess every five years how close to the seashore hi-rises can be built. Obviously, Grand Condo got bad advice from its lawyer - if, indeed it was sensible enough to get a lawyer.

Why should Jomthien Complex worry about a building that is quite a distance from it?

The big boys don't always win. As has been said earlier on this topic, the Administrative Court, has been and will continue to be a court where the little man can take his grievances against the 'big boys', be heard, and obtain justice.

It will be a bad day for Thailand if VT is allowed to build one centimeter more than 14 metres on land not 200 meters from the seashore.

[Irene]

Hi, I'm not fully conversant with the intricacies of the case, so please forgive me for asking what may in these circles be considered a daft question: Could such a situation exist whereby the VT group offer 'compensation packages' to the residents of JCC in return of allowing the building to continue unopposed? Or, have VT even tried this already to make the problem go away? I fully take into account 'principles' and 'rights' involved and I don't mean in any way whatsover to insinuate that it would be about the money or mean any offence - but just was wondering if either of those would be likely or is it past the point of no return so to speak?

Ungabunga,

No, not a daft question but a very good and very practical one that must have crossed the VT's mind. The VT group would definitely love to find ways and means of making this delay disappeared. I have no idea whether they did try to stop the JCC people from taking the case to the Administrative Court earlier.

But, at this present stage and with the case already under the deliberation of the Court, any compromise has to be made with the Court's consent. I simply cannot see JCC can compromise with only 10 co-owners (the number of plaintiffs) with VT. You would need all the co-owners of JCC to agree to that. To get a complete concensus of 100% co-owners requires miracle unless the VT group's offer is something that no one is likely to refuse. Second, the Court may not like the compromise if it considers the whole matter is necessary to be judged and concluded for the sake of good public order. Reading only the postings of the arguments on the measurement of 200 metres, I tend to think that the Court is likely to take the public order stand and disallow the compromise.

You are right that the VT group must be in a desperate situation. That is why the huge board was put up with a full-blown picture of the City Hall's permit to show that they are still legal though without disclosure of the permit being challenged and an injunction in suspending the construction already issued.

[Irene]

This went up today.

bmanly,

That is correct that the construction is legal with the appropriate building permit from the authority. The permit cannot be revoked until the Court has ordered so or considered the permit as good. Until that is known, the permit still stands except no construction could continue.

The only part that is missing from that huge posters for any potential buyers is the information that the Administrative Court has temporarily suspended the ongoing construction until the Court has deliberated the issue as from Novemeber 2007. Caveat Emptor!!! Let's the buyers beware!!!

Well under these circumstances I would walk away from any such property anywhere in the world. I by the way do not invest in Thailand because laws are often not worth the paper it is written on and if you are a farang it will almost always go against you.

bmanly,

Your reaction is correct on this type of property and in other countries, the continuance of sale offer would not have been allowed. The committed buyers of VT7 must be scratching their heads of what to do next.

But you are wrong on Thai laws which are well respected as independence and unbiased irrespective of your nationality. The bad deal the foreigners get is sometimes because of their representation and sometimes the enforcement force that has been giving Thai justice bad name.

[Irene]

The only people upset are the ones who now are not able to make money with VT7! Or think zone law should always be broken. That Thai people or farangs should not have equal rights under Thai law.

Richard

You are wrong, my friend is a buyer and has put in quite a considerable amount of baht into the condo he is buying in VT7. He has every right to be upset, he bought that place for his retirement NOT TO MAKE MONEY!

I have no interest in either properties but as a property investor there is one thing that is never ever guaranteed and that is the block of land in front of you. If you want absolute sea views then buy absolute sea front land, same everywhere in the world.

Your friend is right to be upset with VT, and only VT.

In this case the block of land is, by Law, guaranteed to be built on only to a height of 14 meters.

If you take note of the photo I posted before VT5 is in the background, complete and finished. Why did no one say anything about that and the several other buildings that may be questionable? There are a lot of other buildings closer to the water than VT5 too.

It's only about the views that will be lost that the Jomtien Complex Condotel have really filed this complaint isn't it? Otherwise they would have been a bit more proactive about other buildings being built both at present and in the past.

I have been around these parts now for quite a few years now an I will be around for quite a few more. If gambling was legal in Thailand I would put my money on VT7 and City Hall for a win. This is Thailand, anything can and will happen and usually the big boys win.

bmanly,

Buildings that are standing less than 200 metres are likely to be the one that was built before this new law of 200 metres was enacted.

Gambling is unlikely to be legal in Thailand because of a strong group of lobbyist believing strongly on Buddhist tenets. Though they may not be the majority but they have the loudest voice. Just look at the ban on alcohol advert, I never thought that would be possible. Yes, bmanly, you are likely to lose.

[bmanly]

Gambling is unlikely to be legal in Thailand because of a strong group of lobbyist believing strongly on Buddhist tenets. Though they may not be the majority but they have the loudest voice. Just look at the ban on alcohol advert, I never thought that would be possible. Yes, bmanly, you are likely to lose.

I was hoping for this response because when this is all over in 7 Months, 1 year, 2 years or 20 years I will still be posting here and I WILL bring up the subject no matter what, but some how I doubt you will be around to to answer your critics on this forum, I've seen many a newbie post and run when the event is over. Good luck to all parties concerned.

[stopvt7]

Not possible! Neither group has the authority to change or negotiate the Ministerial Regulation Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) Issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479. This regulation is for city planning and instructs the city they can not issue a build permit for a building taller then 14 meters from road level height within 200 meter of the sea.

Now the court only question left is where to start the measurement. Was their corruption in issuing the questionable building permit? I think It will be the high tide line.

They can hang all the signs they want, claim their construction is legal but these acts will not change the law!

If I purchased a VT7 condo I ask for my money back because they not going to finish this building. At less seek the advice of a good lawyer how knows and specializes in administrative law.

[Irene]

Gambling is unlikely to be legal in Thailand because of a strong group of lobbyist believing strongly on Buddhist tenets. Though they may not be the majority but they have the loudest voice. Just look at the ban on alcohol advert, I never thought that would be possible. Yes, bmanly, you are likely to lose.

I was hoping for this response because when this is all over in 7 Months, 1 year, 2 years or 20 years I will still be posting here and I WILL bring up the subject no matter what, but some how I doubt you will be around to to answer your critics on this forum, I've seen many a newbie post and run when the event is over. Good luck to all parties concerned.

bmanly,

I doubt that I need to run away in future since gambling can never be legal in Thailand and the case of Richard Haines and others against the City Hall is likely to become historical like Jack the Giant-Killer. I especially felt so when I saw that posting of the big board of the developer indicating fear and desperation.

[ThaiBob]

Hi, I'm not fully conversant with the intricacies of the case, so please forgive me for asking what may in these circles be considered a daft question: Could such a situation exist whereby the VT group offer 'compensation packages' to the residents of JCC in return of allowing the building to continue unopposed? Or, have VT even tried this already to make the problem go away? I fully take into account 'principles' and 'rights' involved and I don't mean in any way whatsover to insinuate that it would be about the money or mean any offence - but just was wondering if either of those would be likely or is it past the point of no return so to speak?

Ungabunga,

No, not a daft question but a very good and very practical one that must have crossed the VT's mind. The VT group would definitely love to find ways and means of making this delay disappeared. I have no idea whether they did try to stop the JCC people from taking the case to the Administrative Court earlier.

But, at this present stage and with the case already under the deliberation of the Court, any compromise has to be made with the Court's consent. I simply cannot see JCC can compromise with only 10 co-owners (the number of plaintiffs) with VT. You would need all the co-owners of JCC to agree to that. To get a complete concensus of 100% co-owners requires miracle unless the VT group's offer is something that no one is likely to refuse. Second, the Court may not like the compromise if it considers the whole matter is necessary to be judged and concluded for the sake of good public order. Reading only the postings of the arguments on the measurement of 200 metres, I tend to think that the Court is likely to take the public order stand and disallow the compromise.

You are right that the VT group must be in a desperate situation. That is why the huge board was put up with a full-blown picture of the City Hall's permit to show that they are still legal though without disclosure of the permit being challenged and an injunction in suspending the construction already issued.

...and a not so subtle way to remind people and City Hall how they screwed up. I still feel the court will bend over backwards to find a way for City Hall to save face and extricate themselves from this mess. There is enough wiggle room in the confusing interpretation of a poorly written ministerial regulation.

[ThaiBob]

...............

If I purchased a VT7 condo I ask for my money back because they not going to finish this building. At less seek the advice of a good lawyer how knows and specializes in administrative law.

and as a starting point , be sure you have the English version of the contract which explains the refund policy.

As a note, when the VT4 project was shelved all contract holders received refunds with interest. Mr. and Mrs. VT are reportedly to be the richest Thais in Pattaya and the VT company certainly has deep pockets and influential friends. With more projects on the drawing boards they certainly don't want to damage their reputation.

[Irene]

You are right that the VT group must be in a desperate situation. That is why the huge board was put up with a full-blown picture of the City Hall's permit to show that they are still legal though without disclosure of the permit being challenged and an injunction in suspending the construction already issued.

...and a not so subtle way to remind people and City Hall how they screwed up. I still feel the court will bend over backwards to find a way for City Hall to save face and extricate themselves from this mess. There is enough wiggle room in the confusing interpretation of a poorly written ministerial regulation.

ThaiBob,

You are really cynical on our Thai judiciary. Of the three branches, parliament, government and judiciary, the one still commands a lot of respect is the judiciary. There is nothing for the court to save face since the City Hall is a separate entity and has no relationship with the court.

Furthermore, the City Hall would lose no face since, as stated by you, "there is enough wiggle room" on interpretation by saying sorry I misinterpreted or misunderstood the clause. Hence, I am rather optimistic for Richard Haines and others because of my belief of the independence of the court and the City Hall through the public prosecutor would not fight the case like their lives are depending on the winning.

You are right that the VT group will not take this challenge quietly, they will find ways of beating the wrap. Whether successful or not depends on chances.

[Tammi]

YES, I was asked if I wanted to include VT5 in our case and have it torn down. I chose not to go their! It was explained for five years one could bring a case to tear down VT5 in Admin Court.

Richard

VT must be waiting for the other shoe to drop - a filing in Admin Court for the removal of buildings more than 14 metres high and within the 200 meters fom the shoreline.