Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[JaiDeeFarang]

Looking at the posts regarding the problems at VT you have to realize that these developments are being sold by so called real estate agents who are just one jump up from timeshare bandits.

BB

BB - Please note that View Talay Condominium sell their own stock directly, they/their developments are not represented by real estate agents.

These people know nothing, and are all experts in their field of knowing nothing

[JaiDeeFarang]

I am very disappointed.

Looking at the posts regarding the problems at VT you have to realize that these developments are being sold by so called real estate agents who are just one jump up from timeshare bandits.

For those who buy these developments off plan just see an artists impression and have no concept of what their investment will look like in ten years, yet they have only to look at VT1 & 2 to see.

And when VT7 is completed what is to stop another developer coming along and ripping up the beach in front and building a marina?

BB

A Marina you say? Now, that is a great idea and the most sensible thing you've said. Why has no one thought of that before? It would be fabulous to offer such facilities and improve the image of the area without a doubt. Another thing I thought may be a good idea is having two man made Dubai style islands just off Dongtan beach in the shape of Jomtien Complex Condominium, which could be incorporated into a Marina also.

[Tammi]

BB

A Marina you say? Now, that is a great idea and the most sensible thing you've said. Why has no one thought of that before? It would be fabulous to offer such facilities and improve the image of the area without a doubt. Another thing I thought may be a good idea is having two man made Dubai style islands just off Dongtan beach in the shape of Jomtien Complex Condominium, which could be incorporated into a Marina also.

A marina would be great so long as it's done as nicely and kept as nicely as Ocean Marina. At the far end of Dongtan Beach where the jet skis are for hire the jet ski owners/employees keep the place like a - I was going to say pigsty but pigs are clean

[OhdLover]

I would have chosen to lose my seaview, because I don't think I would be able,

as a farang, to tell the Thai how they should behave.

He chose to try it, and now lost both his seaview and perhaps a lot of other things.

Farangs don't tell Thais how to behave - Thai Laws do.

I love innocence.

[beginner]

What is your source of information?

Where is the judgement?

Nothing on TV, nothing in Bangkok Post, nothing in Nation, nothing in local papers (Deadlines too early I guess).

Why is everyone so confident of the court's ruling? What exactly was the ruling?

[torrenova]

For those acquainted with the argument but inable to read and re-read page after page of quoted text (do TV members have to quote all before unlike any other forum ?) can someone please lay it out. have VT won, finally due to some micky mouse interpretation of the "law" or is this just another steping stone on the way to a final judgement ?

Thanks.

[BillK]

If there is a decision on VT7, can anyone throw any light please on whether it means that the courts have confirmed that there is at least a 14mtr/100mtr restriction in the Jomtien/Dongtan beach areas.

[tropiccapricorn]

And the new facts what do they spell out?

Again the iron rods grow to high heaven but this time above the ominous 14m limit.

I don't know if there was a decision or not and what.

But somebody (VT) seems to be certain climing higher is ok.

One could wonder how much tea it takes to ridicule a law to that extent.

Measuring out to sea in itself is an insult but then one should know the exact wording of this thing.

But as some wise man stated, when there is so much money involved, the breaks fail.

[stopvt7]

"Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B. E. 2521) that sets Construction standards. This regulation has an explanation below which tell you how the apply the regulation called:

"No 3 to fix the 200 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 in the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 at the sea shore in which the following constructions shall not be built:

Building of 14 meters higher than road level.

What are the facts in Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B. E. 2521)

1) to fix the 200 meters measured

2) from the construction control line

3) at the sea shore

4) following constructions shall not be built (Building of 14 meters higher than road level)

5) according to the annexed map.

From the construction control line at the sea shore is shown to be at MSL on the Issue9 which all parties agree you start to measure.

What are the Difference between Issue 8 and Issue 9:

Issue 8 "to fix the 100 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map at the sea shore that building of the following types are not permitted for construction"

Issue 9 "to fix the 200 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map at the sea shore that building of the following types are not permitted for construction"

We think the facts are clear for the judge to make his final decision."

A Copy of January 16 Court Order was posted on:

http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

[Tammi]

Am I right in thinking that the judge agreed that 100 meters is measured out to sea from MSL and then 200 meters is measured back towards land and that hi rises over 14 meters can be built on the line of that 200 meters?

Where in the law does it say anything about measuring 100 meters out to sea?

If this is the judge's decision is Jomthien Complex Condominium going to the Appeals Court?

If VT7 does get built to 27 storeys it is going to be hideous and probably bad to manage and will have no beauty around it. And it will get another VT between it and VT5. 15 minute waits for elevators and constant renovation noise for years!

Yuck!

[prospero]

What seems odd to me is that the Administrative Court could have come up with this exact ruling a year ago. It seems like the decision was left entirely to the surveyor. The judge could have ordered the survey and accepted the results almost immediately after the initial request for an injunction was filed.

Why this agonizing wait for a ruling about the 100/200 meter distance? The decision asserts the hundred meter distance without any justification or explanation. Did it take a year to come up with that?

Jomtien Comlex's appeal should be most interesting indeed.

Edited January 20, 2008 by prospero

[TheWalkingMan]

Part of the VT7 blog says "Expert witness for the court claims you measure from the MSL in two directions, 100 meters to the land and 100 meters to the sea". Maybe the witness will have a huge tea party soon.

Anyway, reading the latest update on the blog does make things alot clearer in my mind. The part where Issue 8 was amended by Issue 9 in order to extend the construction restriction area tells me that the spirit of the amendment was to increase the area near the sea which would not allow buildings over a certain height. If in fact the judge has given the ok for construction to start, it will be interesting to see if VT7 will appeal. Maybe they need a more persuasive lawyer.

TheWalkingMan

[stopvt7]

More food for thought!

Summary of Thailand Building Control Regulation:

Ministerial Regulation Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) Chonburi Province (Pattaya)(the very first regulation)

Setting of 100 meters measured from construction restricted area in which the Building of 14 meters higher than road level shall not be built.

Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) Chonburi Province (Pattaya)

Setting of 200 meters measured from construction restricted area in which the Building of 14 meters higher than road level shall not be built.

Ministerial Regulation Issue 15 (B।E। 2529 ) Phu-ket Province Pha-thong beach )

Setting of 200 meters measured from border of construction restricted area onto the western land in which the Building of 12 meters higher than road level shall not be built

Ministerial Regulation Issue 19 (B.E. 2531 ) Song-Khra Province ( Kho-Yao)

Whole area in Kho-Yao (accepted area 1) in which the Building of 12 meters higher than road level shall not be built.

Ministerial Regulation Issue 20 (B.E. 2532 ) Phu-ket Province ( Along the western coast line )

Area 1 Setting of 100 meters measured from the western coast line into the sea then setting of 50 meters measured from coast line onto the land in which the single one storey house of 6 meters higher than road level shall not be built.

Area 2 Setting of 200 meters measured from coast line onto the land in which the Building of 12 meters higher than road level shall not be built.

Ministerial Regulation Issue 22 (B.E. 2532) Suratthani Province ( Sa-mui )

Setting of 200 meters measured from coast line onto the land in which the Building of 12 meters higher than road level shall not be built.

Ministerial Regulation Issue 22 (B.E. 2532) Along coast line in Phang- nga Province

Setting of 225 meters measured from coast line onto the land in which the Building of 12 meters higher than road level shall not be built.

Ministerial Regulation Issue 30 (B.E. 2534 ) Phetchaburi Province ( Cha-um )

Setting of 200 meters measured from coast line onto the land in which the Building of 12 meters higher than road level shall not be built.

Ministerial Regulation Issue 31 (B.E. 2534 ) Chanthaburi Province

Setting of 200 meters measured from coast line onto the land in which the Building of 12 meters higher than road level shall not be built.

Ministerial Regulation Issue 36 (B.E. 2535 ) Prachuap khiri khun Province ( Hua-Hin )

Setting of 200 meters measured from coast line onto the land in which the Building of 12 meters higher than road level shall not be built.

Ministerial Regulation (B.E. 2543) Trang Province ( accepted Lee-pea island )

Area 1 Setting of 200 meters measured from coast line onto the land in which the building of 12 meters higher than road level shall not be built.

Area 2 Setting of 500 meters measured from coast line onto the land in which the building of 16 meters higher than road level shall not be built

Ministerial Regulation (B.E. 2546) Trad Province

 Setting of 200 meters measured from coast line onto the land in which the Building of 12 meters higher than road level shall not be built.

Ministerial Regulation (B.E. 2547) Khabi Province

Setting of 200 meters measured from coast line onto the land in which the Building of 12 meters higher than road level shall not be built।

Ministerial Regulation (B.E. 2549 ) Ranong Province

Setting of 200 meters measured from coast line onto the land in which the Building of 12 meters higher than road level shall not be built.

Ministerial Regulation (B.E. 2549) Sa-toon Province ( accepted Lee-pea island )

Area 1 Setting of 200 meters measured from coast line in Sa-toon Province ( accepted Lee-pea island )onto the land in which the building of 12 meters higher than road level shall not be built.

Area 2 Setting of 500 meters measured from coast line in Sa-toon Province

( accepted Lee-pea island )onto the land in which the building of 16 meters higher than

road level shall not be built.

[OneMikeInBangkok]

Does this sound the death knell for projects like Ocean 1?

Ocean 1 200 meters from the sea - 90 f;oors of uninterupted sea views - not any more!!!!!!

Who in their right mind is going to pay many millions of Baht for a condo in Ocean 1 when another 100 storey can be built smack infront.

All those existing condo owners in buildings built 200 meters from the beach.........

Who is going to invest in a VT7 rabbit hutch on the north side when another monstrocity is sure to go up at the waters edge and bugger their view of Koh Larn

[stopvt7]

What seems odd to me is that the Administrative Court could have come up with this exact ruling a year ago. It seems like the decision was left entirely to the surveyor. The judge could have ordered the survey and accepted the results almost immediately after the initial request for an injunction was filed.

Why this agonizing wait for a ruling about the 100/200 meter distance? The decision asserts the hundred meter distance without any justification or explanation. Did it take a year to come up with that?

Jomtien Comlex's appeal should be most interesting indeed.

Amazing Thailand!

[Thailandvisitor]

Does this sound the death knell for projects like Ocean 1?

Ocean 1 200 meters from the sea - 90 f;oors of uninterupted sea views - not any more!!!!!!

Who in their right mind is going to pay many millions of Baht for a condo in Ocean 1 when another 100 storey can be built smack infront.

All those existing condo owners in buildings built 200 meters from the beach.........

Who is going to invest in a VT7 rabbit hutch on the north side when another monstrocity is sure to go up at the waters edge and bugger their view of Koh Larn

A common way of preserving views is to purchase the land over which the view is obtained.

Then if it is sold a restrictive covenant is applied which limits building. This would protect the views of the rear site.

The difference in value between the unrestricted right to build and a limited right to build can be considerable.

That is the price that would have to be paid to protect the views.

[TheWalkingMan]

A common way of preserving views is to purchase the land over which the view is obtained.

Then if it is sold a restrictive covenant is applied which limits building. This would protect the views of the rear site.

The difference in value between the unrestricted right to build and a limited right to build can be considerable.

That is the price that would have to be paid to protect the views.

That sounds good when applied to a place where the rule of law is enforced. But do you really believe that in any jurisdiction, not just Thailand, where tea money seems run over the law, that something written on a piece of paper would really hold water? Especially something which is saying that you will not be able to earn as much as you can because the building can only be x meters high.

TheWalkingMan

[OneMikeInBangkok]

At this time maybe we should be giving a thought to the real losers in this debacle.

The losses of the owners at Jomtien Complex are peanuts in comparison to those POOR Thais at City Hall

How on Earth are they going to meet their outgoings. Who is going to pay for servicing of their Mia Noi's and the diamonds for their Benz's

They can't receive any contributions to issue "Special" building permits anymore.

Now anyone have a super project they want to build on the beach itself?

Or maybe a special "Pattaya Seaview Tax" collected from existing condo owners - farang owners of course cause they are ruch and stupid buffaloes

I am sure "where there's a BiLL there's a way"

[ZZZ]

What are the Difference between Issue 8 and Issue 9:

Issue 8 "to fix the 100 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map at the sea shore that building of the following types are not permitted for construction"

Issue 9 "to fix the 200 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map at the sea shore that building of the following types are not permitted for construction"

We think the facts are clear for the judge to make his final decision."

So the only difference between issue 8 and 9 is that from issue 9 you measure 200m inland in stead of 100m that was used from issue 8.

This means that during the time between issue 8 and issue 9 it was legal to build all the way up to the MSL!!!!!

This would have left no beach what so ever between the building and the sea shore.

I wonder if there were any court cases during this time setting a precedence on how these measurements should be taken??

[lookat]

The court decision move the building closer to the sea but elsewhere in Thailand all the regulations were moving the build further back from the beach.

Why? To protect the beaches for further of Thai and farang users.

Look at the poster Explanation at http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/ the facts are very interesting.

Did not your attorneys bring these fact out at the court hearings? Did they question the expert witness? What was said in court about moving the 14 meters building closer to the sea? Was your attorney at the tea party?

It looks as the tea party people did not think about what the fact in the court order would show all of Thailand?

Edited January 20, 2008 by lookat

[lookat]

The law as written is very clear in its statement “to fix the 200 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map at the sea shore” The map may not be clear to the court experts?

All he had to do was to look at the map to find out where was construction control line at the sea shore (according to the annexed map)? The map says at MSL at the sea shore.

Anything other then this was dreamt up at the tea party. Has your attorney explained about these tea parts?

Keep it simple and all can understand what happen with your attorney and the court at the tea party. Only thing they should ask was it Thai, American or Euro tea served?

[JaiDeeFarang]

Going a bit off topic, but I read a book called "Welcome to hel_l" yesterday. An excellent story and it fully illustrates the Thai legal system and it's various pitfalls. I strongly recommend anyone to read it. "Thailand is a country of Laws" - complete bolony

[Tammi]

Can somebody please tell me where to find the law that says measurement is 100 meters into sea and 200 meters back to land.

If there is such a law I think the intent must be to not allow construction over the sea as on Walking Street in Pattaya. What's happening on Walking Street - wasn't there was a lot of talk by City Hall a few years ago that the sea side buildings had to be taken down?

[beginner]

Can somebody please tell me where to find the law that says measurement is 100 meters into sea and 200 meters back to land.

If there is such a law I think the intent must be to not allow construction over the sea as on Walking Street in Pattaya. What's happening on Walking Street - wasn't there was a lot of talk by City Hall a few years ago that the sea side buildings had to be taken down?

FROM 16TH OCTOBER 1998

VOL.VI NO.42 16 October 1998 News | Sports | Columns | Features | Letters | Mail Market | Sports Round-Up

101 trespassers to put up a fightRenewed government interest stirs local reaction

The recently renewed interest of the central government in the South Pattaya landfill and pier project has once again brought out the fighting spirit of the 101 trespassers with "illegally built" businesses on the Golden Mile.

Naris Petchrat (right), President of the Walking Street Committee, presents a petition to Mr. Sonthaya Khumpleum (left), Deputy Minister of Communications, watched carefully by Dr. Sansak Ngarmpiches (2^nd left) and Chanyuth Hengtrakul (3^rd left).

On October 6-7, newspapers stated that, "the Cabinet agrees with the plan to tear down the 101 buildings built illegally on Pattaya's beaches."

The ministerial committee published the following:

The committee agreed with the Ministry of Science and Technology and the Environment's agreement with experts that the following should be done:

The committee agreed that the 101 buildings should be torn down as the Public Works and Provincial Authority suggested.

The committee agrees with the building of a Pattaya Pier as designed by the Public Works department and orders it begun.

The committee agrees with the land-fill project in order to build edifices which would be an integral part of the Pattaya Pier. This would be on a land area of approximately 18.79 rai.

To delay the building of a dike in the Dusit Resort Point area and the landfill and beach restoration, for a while. This will give the Public Works committee time to devise the most efficient way to accomplish these. This will also give the Public Works Department time to report the changes which will occur in Pattaya's shoreline before going ahead with the project.

The Public Works Department and Pattaya City should do this work with as little adverse effect to the environment as possible. A committee will be set up to see that this is done. This committee will consist of the Public Works Department, Pattaya City, the Port Authority, the Office of Policies and Environmental Planning and the Pollution Control Board.

Chonburi Province should report on the progress of the removal of the buildings which are trespassing on public lands (South Pattaya Beach) every 6 months.

When the Provincial Authorities have finished the demolition, the Public Works Department will begin the beach restoration.

The reaction:

There was considerable agitation among the trespassers after the above was published on the first page of Thai and foreign language newspapers. The 101 of Pattaya did not expect to be thrown off the land upon which they were trespassing. Gathering themselves into a righteous group of protesters, the group held a hurried meeting to find ways to foil the attempts of overzealous lawmakers. The 101 put ads in newspapers, asking the Council of Ministers to review their decision.

Leading the group was Mr. Naris Petcharat, the Head of the Walking Street Committee, Mr. Jaran Jitiwuthikarn, owner of King Seafood, Mr. Narongchai Bowornratanakosol, owner of Central Gems, Mr. Amarin Phachernyuth, owner of the Golden Mile Plaza, Mr. Vichai Wongdecho, owner of Sally's Jewellry, Mr. Santi Phakdirathanmint, owner of Santi Gallery, and Mr. Mohondr Singh Kalati, owner of Playboy Fashion. A large group of trespassers was in attendance, along with the above leaders.

The meeting was held on October 5th with Chanyuth Hengtrakul, Member of the Provincial Council in attendance.

Mr. Naris said the governmental decision was unfair to the 101 trespassers. "When the government made these decisions, the trespassers were not allowed to be present at the meeting to present their points of view."

He also said that the government's claims that the 101 trespassers were polluting the water was also unfair, "as there are other people polluting the water too. The wind and tide have also brought in much of the effluvia from other areas and we are not the only culprits. The rains are especially insidious at washing pollution into the area. During the cool season, the southern Monsoon wind is culpable, as it brings out the pollution. Many hotels and other establishments are also responsible for the pollution."

He said the governmental committee never knew the real truth about the situation and blamed it totally on the trespassers. "Demolishing the 101 buildings will not solve the problem as completely as the government thought. We have laid pipes in the area, which are connected to waste water treatment plants."

Mr. Naris continued, saying that the landfill project could be done without demolishing the 101 illegal buildings, claiming, "Doing this would be tantamount to burning down a house to chase away a few cockroaches."

He reminded Mr. Chanyuth that the trespassers businesses were their livelihood and the livelihood of many Thai people. "The number of people who make their living working in the restaurants, shops, Go-Go Bars and other establishments number in the hundreds of thousands."

Mr. Naris waxed eloquent, saying that Pattaya's Golden Mile "was the city's birthplace. This one area of Pattaya is the city's main generator of foreign currency and brings in tens of thousands of millions of baht each year. Tourists from around the world choose this one area of Pattaya more than other area for their vacations."

Mr. Naris spoke of the Walking Street, saying that the trespassers had built it for tourists' delectation, with the city, the Tourism Authority of Thailand and the public and private sectors' blessings.

He said that once the construction of Pattaya's waste-water treatment plant was completed, only then would Pattaya's roads be able to match the international quality of the Walking Street into which the trespassers had poured their hard-earned baht.

He asked if the government, sitting comfortably in their air-conditioned offices, were aware of this.

Mr. Naris stated that if the demolition came out of truly "pure" intentions for the good of the nation, none of the 101 trespassers would utter a word. But everyone must remember that the Golden Mile was Pattaya's "trademark".

The compensation money the government was offering was not enough to make up for the losses which would be incurred. "To take the people's tax money to demolish an area which was making money for the country is unfair," said Mr. Naris.

He said this tax money could be used to develop other areas along the coastline which were lagging far behind Pattaya's Golden Mile.

He told Mr. Chanyuth that the trespassers were more than happy to have any edifice which protruded more than 40 meters out into the sea demolished. This had been agreed upon long ago. After this was done, the government's land should revert to the government and they could rent the land out to the trespassers.

He said that the Tourist Pier and accompanying buildings could be built according to the Public Works Authority's plans.

He also did not agree with the government's changing the Tourist Pier's location. Why did the government want to build it on Bali Hai point now? This also meant that the Tourist Pier would be far away from the 101 buildings, so why did they wish to tear them down?

He revealed that the former area belonged to an influential politician who wanted to build an Aquarium. He said that the residents of Pattaya and the whole country probably had the same question, "For whose benefit are the buildings being torn down?"

Later, at the OD Bowl, trespassers presented a letter to Mr. Sonthaya Khunpleum, Deputy Minister of Communications, stating their protests. Mr. Sonthaya accepted the letter from the trespassers to give to the governmental committee, and told the trespassers, "If the demolition does go through, it would cause people a lot of hardship. I doubt if the people of Pattaya will allow it."

He told the trespassers that the Environmental Standards Board was probably looking at the situation from a different point of view. They were environmentalists and wish to emphasize nature. He said that it must be decided which is of basic importance; nature or the economy.

Mr. Sansak Ngarmphiches, Head of the Parliamentary Committee on Tourism, told the trespassers to write a letter of protest to the Council of Ministers and the Environmental Board and the Head of the Parliamentary Board on Tourism, which was having a meeting soon.

The two governmental officers told the trespassers that this might help stop the government from acting and make it review its decision

Edited January 21, 2008 by beginner

[Tammi]

Beginner, thank you for above, but we shouldn't get off topic for tooo long. I would, however, suggest that Jomthien Compex hire Mr. Naris as their spokesperson - that is if VT have not already done so.

[lookat]

Now the stopvt7 group needs to appeal the facts of the law to the Administrative Supreme Court.

From the facts of their appeal will be include an unwritten question for the Administrative Supreme Court. Is Thailand a country of fair and honest courts?

http://www.transparency.org/

Edited January 21, 2008 by lookat

[JaiDeeFarang]

Now the stopvt7 group needs to appeal the facts of the law to the Administrative Supreme Court.

From the facts of their appeal will be include an unwritten question for the Administrative Supreme Court. Is Thailand a country of fair and honest courts?

http://www.transparency.org/

Is there any new evidence? NO! An appeals court won't even look at the case now. Save your money for now, View Talay will soon take it from you. NO Thailand is not a country of fair and honest courts, anyone who has spent time here will tell you that. Thailand looks after Thais, not farangs so get over it.

[lookat]

Now the stopvt7 group needs to appeal the facts of the law to the Administrative Supreme Court.

From the facts of their appeal will be include an unwritten question for the Administrative Supreme Court. Is Thailand a country of fair and honest courts?

http://www.transparency.org/

Is there any new evidence? NO! An appeals court won't even look at the case now. Save your money for now, View Talay will soon take it from you. NO Thailand is not a country of fair and honest courts, anyone who has spent time here will tell you that. Thailand looks after Thais, not farangs so get over it.

Don’t show your ignorance! Appeal court are about correcting misstate made by lower courts. In this case the Administrative Supreme Court are both a appeal court and the final court.

I asked my Thai friend who followed the court filings and believe in the Kings good action in setting up a fare court call Administrative Court system about the ruling.

Who said in anger the expert witness was wrong!

You measure 200 meters into the sea why leave any beach to tourism.

The god of money won.

This is not about farangs it about the protecting the Thai environment.

Copy taken from the Government Gazette No. 93 Section 87 dated 29 June 1966.

Note: The reason issuing this Ministerial Regulation is that further to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 applying to some areas of...... Tambol Bang Lamung, and the aforesaid areas are open public resorts. It is appropriate that the areas shall not be allow to construct some kinds of building considered to disturb good environment and generating any kind of wastes, pollutions. This Ministerial Regulation is, therefore, issued.

[torrenova]

Sorry but can someone just spell it out in black and white without refernece to 100 lines of various rulings, codes, links etc.

So the court says you have to go out to sea 100m then come back in 200m ? Yes or no ?

So why not just say from MSL inland 100m as it is the same thing ?

Obviously a tea money judgement but is that the end ?

Thanks.

[lookat]

Blach and White!