Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[Tammi]

“Does anyone know who the are investigating. Is it VT, the City Hall employee who issued the building permit or the mayor or a combination of all three?”

Yes, It is all parties involved in the case including Asia LawWorks and the court. The explanation I received the investigation is about the questionable building permit which is clearly against Issue 8 and 9. We were told they have been studying the case for some time. And their was enough evidence and the governor office request an anti corruption team. Now they been informed their will be a anti corruption investigation lead from Bangkok.

Also it looks like a good election issue for the up come Pattaya mayor election?

This is interesting. And why would the anti-corruption team be investigating Asia LawWorks? How can a provincial governor's office investigate a national administrative body like an Administrative Court? If all parties are being investigated does that mean the original 10 complaintants are being investigated too? What might the investigation uncover? That foreigners own their units using illegal Thai companies and if so taxes haven't been paid? That foreigners or their Thai companies own more than one condo unit (which is against the law). Sounds like good grounds for denying retirement visa extensions. Perhaps Pandora's box has been opened.

l

That foreigners are perhaps not paying taxes on rental income?

Yes, if a foreigner forms one those questionable Thai companies (with 49 percent or less minority stake) the Thai company must pay taxes just like any other Thai business.

What about foreigners who do not have a company, buy units, and rent those units - do those foreigners pay taxes? I know I had to pay taxes in the west on property I rented out. Does Thailand allow one to earn income on rentals and not pay taxes?

You can say this is off topic but not off topic insofar as farangs will be buying units in VT7 and either renting out or selling on at a profit.

[JaiDeeFarang]

"Does anyone know who the are investigating. Is it VT, the City Hall employee who issued the building permit or the mayor or a combination of all three?"

Yes, It is all parties involved in the case including Asia LawWorks and the court. The explanation I received the investigation is about the questionable building permit which is clearly against Issue 8 and 9. We were told they have been studying the case for some time. And their was enough evidence and the governor office request an anti corruption team. Now they been informed their will be a anti corruption investigation lead from Bangkok.

Also it looks like a good election issue for the up come Pattaya mayor election?

This is interesting. And why would the anti-corruption team be investigating Asia LawWorks? How can a provincial governor's office investigate a national administrative body like an Administrative Court? If all parties are being investigated does that mean the original 10 complaintants are being investigated too? What might the investigation uncover? That foreigners own their units using illegal Thai companies and if so taxes haven't been paid? That foreigners or their Thai companies own more than one condo unit (which is against the law). Sounds like good grounds for denying retirement visa extensions. Perhaps Pandora's box has been opened.

l

Just as I've said all along, no doubt Pandora's box has been opened and officialdom is well and truly cheesed off with these farangs calling them corrupt, when perhaps they should look at themselves first. I have no sympathy whatsoever if retirement visas are revoked.

[lookat]

JaiDeeFarang Is a person who refuses to accept the hand writing on the wall! Keep listening to vt7 instead reading the law and about the changes in government. He just does not understand what going on!

[JaiDeeFarang]

JaiDeeFarang Is a person who refuses to accept the hand writing on the wall! Keep listening to vt7 instead reading the law and about the changes in government. He just does not understand what going on!

Mr. lookat I'm afraid you are very diluded, you do not have a clue about what you are talking about. You are so wrapped up in your cocoon and wearing blinkers, wake up and smell the coffee. You refuse to acknowledge the truth as anyone with an ounce of brain will confirm. I hope we do not have to put up with your drivel for much longer as it is always incorrect and manipulated. By the way the term you are looking for is "The writing's on the wall" not hand writing. You're telling me to read about the law!!!?? It hasn't done you much good has it?

Thailand is a country of laws! Do you think the changes in government care about your poxy seaviews? Give me a break! You're all stark raving bonkers!

[Pattaya_Fox]

Please keep this thread on topic.

Some off topic posts involving personal comments about members have been removed.

Thanks.

[ThaiBob]

“Does anyone know who the are investigating. Is it VT, the City Hall employee who issued the building permit or the mayor or a combination of all three?”

Yes, It is all parties involved in the case including Asia LawWorks and the court. The explanation I received the investigation is about the questionable building permit which is clearly against Issue 8 and 9. We were told they have been studying the case for some time. And their was enough evidence and the governor office request an anti corruption team. Now they been informed their will be a anti corruption investigation lead from Bangkok.

Also it looks like a good election issue for the up come Pattaya mayor election?

This is interesting. And why would the anti-corruption team be investigating Asia LawWorks? How can a provincial governor's office investigate a national administrative body like an Administrative Court? If all parties are being investigated does that mean the original 10 complaintants are being investigated too? What might the investigation uncover? That foreigners own their units using illegal Thai companies and if so taxes haven't been paid? That foreigners or their Thai companies own more than one condo unit (which is against the law). Sounds like good grounds for denying retirement visa extensions. Perhaps Pandora's box has been opened.

l

That foreigners are perhaps not paying taxes on rental income?

Yes, if a foreigner forms one those questionable Thai companies (with 49 percent or less minority stake) the Thai company must pay taxes just like any other Thai business.

What about foreigners who do not have a company, buy units, and rent those units - do those foreigners pay taxes? I know I had to pay taxes in the west on property I rented out. Does Thailand allow one to earn income on rentals and not pay taxes?

You can say this is off topic but not off topic insofar as farangs will be buying units in VT7 and either renting out or selling on at a profit.

If you as a foreigner, own your Thai condo in your own name then you would not have to pay a Thai tax. If you form a Thai company you have to pay Thai tax. I have farang friends that have their Thai lawyers/accountants do the paperwork and calculate the tax. They want no problems and are following the law. but they usually understate the tax as the government seems happy just to know that a tax has been calculated and paid. I also have farang friends who disregard the law and pay no tax. The tax is not that all expensive for them and if they get caught they will just pay the back taxes and penalty (their logic, not mine). As far as I know they do not declare any rental income on taxes for their home country as this money would be very difficult to trace. Also, a foreigner is allowed to own one condo unit in their own name. I know farangs who own several, some using Thai companies. They do this for investment income. They have never been challenged although it is against the law. The point of all this is when living as guests in a foreign country one would think to keep a low profile and stay under the radar. The StopVT7 folks have taken an opposite approach and don't seem to care about the consequences. They have their supporters sure, but they have also pissed off a lot of people both Thai and farangs. Retirement visas are not automatic, that is why they are only good for one year and can be denied at the discretion of the Immigration. I will bet the 10 complaintants are now (or will be ) under the microscope.

[stopvt7]

Whats taxes and Retirement visas have to do with " Replying to Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View" ?

[ThaiBob]

Whats taxes and Retirement visas have to do with " Replying to Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View" ?

Sorry, I was trying to reply to a specific tax question but comments about the retirement visas are very appropriate because their status could be directly related to the topic lawsuit.

[OneMikeInBangkok]

Whats taxes and Retirement visas have to do with " Replying to Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View" ?

Sorry, I was trying to reply to a specific tax question but comments about the retirement visas are very appropriate because their status could be directly related to the topic lawsuit.

I suggest you keep such comments to the Visa section of ThaiVisa - unless you want to continue with your veiled threats and innuendos.

There seems to be some issue here regarding the Thai Law over issue 8 and 9 that apparantly makes the building of VT7 against Thai Law.

So what on Earth are you talking about.

The VT7 group has not broken any laws as far as I know - are you suggesting otherwise?

Strong allegations from someone who knows nowt!!

I dropped a cigarette butt on the street yesterday - yes I admit it - I am a criminal under Thai Law - fine me - jail me - deport me - give me the death penalty - how about coming after me you sad git?

Do you think the VT group did not consider the consequences - Do you think they are as stupid as you appear to be?

If you have any valid comment on topic - I would like to hear them otherwise butt out

[ThaiBob]

Whats taxes and Retirement visas have to do with " Replying to Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View" ?

Sorry, I was trying to reply to a specific tax question but comments about the retirement visas are very appropriate because their status could be directly related to the topic lawsuit.

I suggest you keep such comments to the Visa section of ThaiVisa - unless you want to continue with your veiled threats and innuendos.

There seems to be some issue here regarding the Thai Law over issue 8 and 9 that apparantly makes the building of VT7 against Thai Law.

So what on Earth are you talking about.

The VT7 group has not broken any laws as far as I know - are you suggesting otherwise?

Strong allegations from someone who knows nowt!!

I dropped a cigarette butt on the street yesterday - yes I admit it - I am a criminal under Thai Law - fine me - jail me - deport me - give me the death penalty - how about coming after me you sad git?

Do you think the VT group did not consider the consequences - Do you think they are as stupid as you appear to be?

If you have any valid comment on topic - I would like to hear them otherwise butt out

No veiled threats at all but I do wonder if all the complaintants truly understood the possible consequences of their actions. In my opinion, they have every legal right to go down the road they chose and I might have done the same thing if I was in their place. But I do feel the line was crossed. Where I come from when you are a guest in a foreign country you do not suggest or imply on a public form or Website that your host government (governmental agencies, Mayor) is corrupt, incompetent, etc.....especially without evidence. And you're lucky that I don't enforce Thai law but I do obey them.

Edited February 26, 2008 by ThaiBob

[marekm1]

Whats taxes and Retirement visas have to do with " Replying to Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View" ?

Sorry, I was trying to reply to a specific tax question but comments about the retirement visas are very appropriate because their status could be directly related to the topic lawsuit.

I suggest you keep such comments to the Visa section of ThaiVisa - unless you want to continue with your veiled threats and innuendos.

There seems to be some issue here regarding the Thai Law over issue 8 and 9 that apparantly makes the building of VT7 against Thai Law.

So what on Earth are you talking about.

The VT7 group has not broken any laws as far as I know - are you suggesting otherwise?

Strong allegations from someone who knows nowt!!

I dropped a cigarette butt on the street yesterday - yes I admit it - I am a criminal under Thai Law - fine me - jail me - deport me - give me the death penalty - how about coming after me you sad git?

Do you think the VT group did not consider the consequences - Do you think they are as stupid as you appear to be?

If you have any valid comment on topic - I would like to hear them otherwise butt out

No veiled threats at all but I do wonder if all the complaintants truly understood the possible consequences of their actions. In my opinion, they have every legal right to go down the road they chose and I might have done the same thing if I was in their place. But I do feel the line was crossed. Where I come from when you are a guest in a foreign country you do not suggest or imply on a public form or Website that your host government (governmental agencies, Mayor) is corrupt, incompetent, etc.....especially without evidence. And you're lucky that I don't enforce Thai law but I do obey them.

Thank you ThaiBob, I think it’s a valid point. I myself was wondering how far they can push it, running around and implying corruption in government . Certainly it is more valid than somebody's smoking and disgusting habit throwing cigarette butts on the street.

Mike whatever gets his retainer from stopVT7 to intimidate people and twist the facts, so I wouldn’t take any notice of him. Once the retainer is finished he will change the sides.

Edited February 26, 2008 by marekm1

[marekm1]

Whats taxes and Retirement visas have to do with " Replying to Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View" ?

Sorry, I was trying to reply to a specific tax question but comments about the retirement visas are very appropriate because their status could be directly related to the topic lawsuit.

I suggest you keep such comments to the Visa section of ThaiVisa - unless you want to continue with your veiled threats and innuendos.

There seems to be some issue here regarding the Thai Law over issue 8 and 9 that apparantly makes the building of VT7 against Thai Law.

So what on Earth are you talking about.

The VT7 group has not broken any laws as far as I know - are you suggesting otherwise?

Strong allegations from someone who knows nowt!!

I dropped a cigarette butt on the street yesterday - yes I admit it - I am a criminal under Thai Law - fine me - jail me - deport me - give me the death penalty - how about coming after me you sad git?

Do you think the VT group did not consider the consequences - Do you think they are as stupid as you appear to be?

If you have any valid comment on topic - I would like to hear them otherwise butt out

No veiled threats at all but I do wonder if all the complaintants truly understood the possible consequences of their actions. In my opinion, they have every legal right to go down the road they chose and I might have done the same thing if I was in their place. But I do feel the line was crossed. Where I come from when you are a guest in a foreign country you do not suggest or imply on a public form or Website that your host government (governmental agencies, Mayor) is corrupt, incompetent, etc.....especially without evidence. And you're lucky that I don't enforce Thai law but I do obey them.

Thank you ThaiBob, I think it's a valid point. I myself was wondering how far they can push it, running around and implying corruption in government. Certainly it is more valid than somebody's smoking and disgusting habit throwing cigarette butts on the street.

Mike whatever gets his retainer from stopVT7 to intimidate people and twist the facts, so I wouldn't take any notice of him. Once the retainer is finished he will change the sides.

Edited February 26, 2008 by marekm1

[prospero]

<br />

<b>Whats <u>taxes and Retirement visas</u> have to do with " Replying to Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View" ? <img src="style_emoticons/default/angry.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="angry.gif" /> <img src="style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="biggrin.gif" /> <img src="style_emoticons/default/mad.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="mad.gif" /> <img src="style_emoticons/default/mad.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="mad.gif" /> </b>

<br /><br />Sorry, I was trying to reply to a specific tax question but comments about the retirement visas are very appropriate because their status could be directly related to the topic lawsuit.<br /><br /><br /><br />

<br /><br />I suggest you keep such comments to the Visa section of ThaiVisa - unless you want to continue with your veiled threats and innuendos.<br /><br />There seems to be some issue here regarding the Thai Law over issue 8 and 9 that apparantly makes the building of VT7 against Thai Law.<br /><br />So what on Earth are you talking about.<br /><br />The VT7 group has not broken any laws as far as I know - are you suggesting otherwise?<br /><br />Strong allegations from someone who knows nowt!!<br /><br />I dropped a cigarette butt on the street yesterday - yes I admit it - I am a criminal under Thai Law - fine me - jail me - deport me - give me the death penalty - how about coming after me you sad git?<br /><br />Do you think the VT group did not consider the consequences - Do you think they are as stupid as you appear to be?<br /><br />If you have any valid comment on topic - I would like to hear them otherwise butt out<br />

<br /><br />No veiled threats at all but I do wonder if all the complaintants truly understood the possible consequences of their actions. In my opinion, they have every legal right to go down the road they chose and I might have done the same thing if I was in their place. But I do feel the line was crossed. Where I come from when you are a guest in a foreign country you do not suggest or imply on a public form or Website that your host government (governmental agencies, Mayor) is corrupt, incompetent, etc.....especially without evidence. And you're lucky that I don't enforce Thai law but I do obey them.<br />

<br /><br /><font face="Calibri">Thank you ThaiBob, I think it's a valid point. I myself was wondering how far they can push it, running around and implying corruption in government. Certainly it is more valid than somebody's smoking and disgusting habit throwing cigarette butts on the street.</font><br /><br /><font face="Calibri">Mike whatever gets his retainer from stopVT7 to intimidate people and twist the facts, so I wouldn't take any notice of him. Once the retainer is finished he will change the sides.</font><br /><br /><br />

<br />

<br /><br /><br />

A friend forwarded me this email exchange between him and Pattaya Agency, a local real estate dealer. The replies in the original were in red, but I think without the coloration, one can easily pick them out. The original ad appeared in Real Estate Thailand. I think it speaks for itself.

Dear Khun Toni, Khun Dao, Khun Jeorg, Khun Sao

I read your company's advertisement for View Talay 7 on page 30 of Real Estate Thailand , and I must say I was appalled by both its content and tone!

Let me list the conclusions and inferences I drew from your badly written, inaccurate copy.

Well – English is not my native language. If you prefer to communicate in German – you would be very welcome.

* All information you receive from the View Talay Sales Office you consider "reliable". You don't do any checking on your own. (According to information I have read on Thai Visa, the plaintiffs are appealing and the courts have still not made a final decision about View Talay 7. Am I wrong?)

The developer assures to us, that they are allowed to continue to build theit 27 floor building – and that this decision is final. The work on VT 7 has restarted already - therefore I have no reason to doubt the information above.

* Foreigners who purchase property here are are "guests of the Kingdom of Thailand only". They do not, and should not, have access to justice in the courts.

All foreigners are “guests of the Kingdom of Thailand only” – there is no change with this legal position with purchasing property.

* Those who dare to disturb the "Thai Courts and well-working Thai/Farang community of developers and entrepeneurs (sic) in Pattaya" should " leave the Kingdom and return to their home countries".

Who is not happy in the country that live in – he should go to a new country, which is more matching for him.

* Pattaya is a place where you will be threatened, not only by the courts, but by the real estate developers and who sell you your property!

Nobody never ever “threaten” a client – we only teach them honestly about their legal situation in Thailand .

* Your company is deeply xenophobic and resents selling to "aliens". That may also be true of other local companies dealing with overseas investors.

“Alien” is a 100% common term in Thailand – it is ever used in the official law books of Thailand (for example with the application of a work permit).

* Any magazine or group of realtors that tolerates the type of threatening attitude you practice is not worthy my trust.

Well – at least we tell the truth about our opinion about appropriate behavior of foreigners in Thailand in public – in magazines and on our web site.

This should be reason enough to trust us 100% - or do you prefer liars ?

I came to Pattaya thinking I might buy a condo. I leave knowing that I never will. Who wants to invest in a place controlled by thugs and mobsters? Who wants to invest in a place where foreigners have no standing in the legal system?

Of course foreigners have a standing in th Thai legal system – they only should not disturb this system for selfish reasons only.

I shall look for property in Malaysia . I shall also make sure that my friends who are considering purchases in Thailand see your ad and receive copies of my email. Good luck in a muslim country – have a lot of fun in the nightlife over there.

Sincerely,

Butler Low.

P.S.: I hope you forward my reply to all of your friends too

Best regards

Joerg Szwalkiewicz, MD

[stopvt7]

ThaiBob wrote: “No veiled threats at all but I do wonder if all the complainants truly understood the possible consequences of their actions. In my opinion, they have every legal right to go down the road they chose and I might have done the same thing if I was in their place. But I do feel the line was crossed. Where I come from when you are a guest in a foreign country you do not suggest or imply on a public form or Website that your host government (governmental agencies, Mayor) is corrupt, incompetent, etc.....especially without evidence. And you're lucky that I don't enforce Thai law but I do obey them.”

Do you understand how the group of ten organized? After the old JCC committee fail to take any action a group of Thai and Farang petitioned the Royal Places for help! It was a secretary to the king which meant to the JCC group at the places office in Bangkok and he explained and encouraged them to us the Administration Court.

Then a group stood up and agrees that they would files a lawsuit in Administrative Court at Rayong for the issued of a illegal building permit for all co-owners benefit. All the court costs are being paid but JCC.

The king secretary has keep in touch all along with the case and has offered advises. This is how great Thailand treats guests.

We do not suggest corruption! Our legal case is against Pattaya City Hall for issuing a questionable building permit. Also it was the court how brought VT7 into the cases. We have not suggested VT7 has done anything. I’m sure they are professional business people.

It was the Governor’s offices that contacted Thais in our group and informed them or us of a corruption investigation was started and request some copies of our case files. We never request or asked for any such investigation.

So get your facts correct before shouting you month off! Then learn to read English that you can understand the meaning of Issue 8 and 9.

You can get some facts from: http://stopvt7.blogspot.com

[Tammi]

Whats taxes and Retirement visas have to do with " Replying to Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View" ?

It would be sensible for you to stop saying you are suing for a sea view. The view is incidental. You are suing because VT intends to erect a building over 14 meters in height and which building appears to be against the Law.

I am not understanding a lot of the post that the following quote came from but such a statement is indicative of farangs wanting to control and intimidate.

"Of course foreigners have a standing in the Thai legal system – they only should not disturb this system for selfish reasons only."

I guess that one always goes to court for a "selfish" reason.

[OhdLover]

So get your facts correct before shouting you month off!

Then learn to read English that you can understand the meaning of Issue 8 and 9.

Funny remark for someone whose posting is full of questionable english......

Edited February 26, 2008 by OhdLover

[ThaiBob]

FYI: “The meeting approved the aforesaid draft of the Ministerial Regulation, because of the reason to protect the area by the shore, by controlling the constructions which may impact the seas and beaches: details as shown in the attachment of the appeal No:1 – The Meeting of Drafting of the Ministerial Regulation of Issue8 ( B.E. 2519 ) Therefore, the intention or purpose of The Ministerial Regulation of Issue 8 is “to fix the 100 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map at the sea shore onto the land that the type of building of No. 3 ( 1 ) – ( 8 ) are not permitted to be constructed, in accordance with the Ministerial Regulation of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ), which stated that….Because the aforesaid areas are public attractions for taking an airing, it’s suitable to prohibit certain types of constructions which may cause troubles and disturbance and create waste and may destroy the environment. Later on, there was the adjustment of the construction control area in the regions of Banglamung / Naklua / and Nongprue Sub-districts of Chonburi province, by expanding the area, as shown in the annexed map of the Royal Decree Promulgating The Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, controlling over the areas of Banglamung / Naklua and Nongprue Sub-district of Chonburi province B.E. 2521, it is suitable to make an amendment to the Regulations of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ), to be more suitable, therefore, The Ministerial Regulation of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) was promulgated, shown in the remark section, on the attached map of Ministerial Regulation of Issue 9, and therefore, the provision of both Ministerial Regulations are in accordance with one another, / or the procedures are connect with one another, so they were always mentioned of / or used as references in parts of their regulations. The intention or purpose to promulgate the Ministerial Regulation of Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) is to expand the control area for constructions in Banglamung / Naklua and Nongprue Sub-district, Bang-lamung District of Chonburi Province, which are the public attractions for taking an airing or holiday, by in the Regulations of Issue 9 fixes the 200 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map of the Royal Degree of B.E. 2521, at the sea shore that types of buildings of NO. 3 ( 1 ) – ( 8 ) shall not be permitted to be constructed. When it is needed to be interpreted to be in accord with the intention or purpose of the Regulations of Issue 8 (B.E. 2519), the expansion made from 100 to 200 meters must be expanded the distance at the sea shore onto the land, in order to protect those areas from the prohibited constructions, in accordance with the provisions of Issue 8 and 9, to be more suitable and appropriate.”

Let's see if we can get this discussion back on track and discuss the facts. You say I don't understand meaning of Issue 8 and 9 but apparently the Court witness from the Department of Engineering did and testified accordingly. You dismiss his testimony of arrows on a map as "magic" and completely rewrites Issue 9. I don't think you understand the implications of the map or lack technical expertise to interpret it. So let's look at the map again. But first let's see if we can all agree on something. Issue 8 or Issue 9 appears to be very confusing and poorly written regulations (or perhaps something was lost in the English translation). Issue 8 talks about a 100 meter measurement landward from the "seashore" and refers to the annexed map. Issue 9 clarifies "seashore" and introduces the term Median Sea Level (MSL), increases the measurement from 100 to 200 meters and also refers to the annexed map. Importantly, Issue 9 never talks about a measurement of 200 meters from the MSL. If it did then JomTien Plaza, VT3, VT5, Adriantic Hotel, VT7, etc. would never have been built and there never would have been a lawsuit. But as StopVT7 has pointed out on his blog, Issue 9 talks about construction control lines and construction restricted zones. So looking at the legend on map (thank you Stopvt7):

http://bp0.blogger.com/_1x8bR0BbXM4/Rv2uMz...200+meter+Q.jpg

The map demonstrates the concept of a construction control border. It shows the most seaward border of the construction restricted line, (A) Bordline of Constution Restriced Area (which in Thai literally means, line border control construction) and the MSL seperated by a distance 0f 100 meters as shown by the "magic" arrows. The Court witness testified logically that from the map you measure 200 meters from the clearly marked seaward construction control border line toward the land. This establishes the 200 meter construction restriction zone which Issue 9 references. The StopVt7 group argues you measure 200 meters landward from the MSL. This is illogical because in effect it would create a 300 meter construction restricted zone. Nowhere does Issue 9 talk about a 300 meter construction restricted zone. You simply cannot disregard those "magic" arrows and pretend they don't exist.

The above post I believe is suppose to show the intent of Issue 8 to protect beaches and the intent of Issue 9 to expand the protection from 100 meters to 200 meters. The expert Court witness and Court ruling have not contradicted this but fully supports and complies with the intention of "expansion made from 100 to 200 meters must be expanded the distance at the sea shore onto the land".. The City of Pattaya from what I see has been consistment in it's application of Issue 9 and this has just been re-affirmed by an expert witness and the Court.

You simply cannot dismiss those "magic" arrows. Please do not re-hash old arguments but share any new evidence you may have.

[OhdLover]

@ ThaiBob

Finally a technical explanation I can actually understand!! Thanks for this posting ThaiBob!!

Edited February 27, 2008 by OhdLover

[Binkie]

“Does anyone know who the are investigating. Is it VT, the City Hall employee who issued the building permit or the mayor or a combination of all three?”

Yes, It is all parties involved in the case including Asia LawWorks and the court. The explanation I received the investigation is about the questionable building permit which is clearly against Issue 8 and 9. We were told they have been studying the case for some time. And their was enough evidence and the governor office request an anti corruption team. Now they been informed their will be a anti corruption investigation lead from Bangkok.

Also it looks like a good election issue for the up come Pattaya mayor election?

This is interesting. And why would the anti-corruption team be investigating Asia LawWorks? How can a provincial governor's office investigate a national administrative body like an Administrative Court? If all parties are being investigated does that mean the original 10 complaintants are being investigated too? What might the investigation uncover? That foreigners own their units using illegal Thai companies and if so taxes haven't been paid? That foreigners or their Thai companies own more than one condo unit (which is against the law). Sounds like good grounds for denying retirement visa extensions. Perhaps Pandora's box has been opened.

l

That foreigners are perhaps not paying taxes on rental income?

Yes, if a foreigner forms one those questionable Thai companies (with 49 percent or less minority stake) the Thai company must pay taxes just like any other Thai business.

What about foreigners who do not have a company, buy units, and rent those units - do those foreigners pay taxes? I know I had to pay taxes in the west on property I rented out. Does Thailand allow one to earn income on rentals and not pay taxes?

You can say this is off topic but not off topic insofar as farangs will be buying units in VT7 and either renting out or selling on at a profit.

If you as a foreigner, own your Thai condo in your own name then you would not have to pay a Thai tax. If you form a Thai company you have to pay Thai tax. I have farang friends that have their Thai lawyers/accountants do the paperwork and calculate the tax. They want no problems and are following the law. but they usually understate the tax as the government seems happy just to know that a tax has been calculated and paid. I also have farang friends who disregard the law and pay no tax. The tax is not that all expensive for them and if they get caught they will just pay the back taxes and penalty (their logic, not mine). As far as I know they do not declare any rental income on taxes for their home country as this money would be very difficult to trace. Also, a foreigner is allowed to own one condo unit in their own name. I know farangs who own several, some using Thai companies. They do this for investment income. They have never been challenged although it is against the law. The point of all this is when living as guests in a foreign country one would think to keep a low profile and stay under the radar. The StopVT7 folks have taken an opposite approach and don't seem to care about the consequences. They have their supporters sure, but they have also pissed off a lot of people both Thai and farangs. Retirement visas are not automatic, that is why they are only good for one year and can be denied at the discretion of the Immigration. I will bet the 10 complaintants are now (or will be ) under the microscope.

Bob, From your email I gather that you are of the oppimion that it is not within the law, as a foreigner, to own more than one condominium unit. That seems very strange to me as I own several units in one building and have never heard that I cannot own more than one unit. Is this Thai law or just hearsay? I am truly curious.

[ThaiBob]

Bob, From your email I gather that you are of the oppimion that it is not within the law, as a foreigner, to own more than one condominium unit. That seems very strange to me as I own several units in one building and have never heard that I cannot own more than one unit. Is this Thai law or just hearsay? I am truly curious.

Thai law. This was discussed on the TV Real Estate, housing, house and land ownership forum a year or two ago. Please search that forum. Also see the Condominium Act of Thailand 1999. This law (like many in Thailand) is seldom enforced I believe. If you had a condo in Pattaya and one in Bangkok I doubt the Land Office could ever connect the dots. Some people by two or three adjacent units and make one, I don't know how that is treated either. Please take future questions to the TV Real Estate, housing, house and land ownership forum. Thanks.

Edited February 27, 2008 by ThaiBob

[stopvt7]

Whats taxes and Retirement visas have to do with " Replying to Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View" ?

It would be sensible for you to stop saying you are suing for a sea view. The view is incidental. You are suing because VT intends to erect a building over 14 meters in height and which building appears to be against the Law.

I am not understanding a lot of the post that the following quote came from but such a statement is indicative of farangs wanting to control and intimidate.

"Of course foreigners have a standing in the Thai legal system – they only should not disturb this system for selfish reasons only."

I guess that one always goes to court for a "selfish" reason.

The title for this sight comes from The Nation news paper. We had nothing to do with the title or name of this sight.

We are suing to uphold the Thai environment law and because of our support.

What sad is some in Thailand care more about their pockets then the environment

[Tammi]

The title for this sight comes from The Nation news paper. We had nothing to do with the title or name of this sight.

We are suing to uphold the Thai environment law and because of our support.

What sad is some in Thailand care more about their pockets then the environment

That is a world wide problem and seems that the richer you are the less you care. Branson excepted.

Edited February 28, 2008 by Tammi

[JaiDeeFarang]

Whats taxes and Retirement visas have to do with " Replying to Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View" ?

It would be sensible for you to stop saying you are suing for a sea view. The view is incidental. You are suing because VT intends to erect a building over 14 meters in height and which building appears to be against the Law.

I am not understanding a lot of the post that the following quote came from but such a statement is indicative of farangs wanting to control and intimidate.

"Of course foreigners have a standing in the Thai legal system – they only should not disturb this system for selfish reasons only."

I guess that one always goes to court for a "selfish" reason.

The title for this sight comes from The Nation news paper. We had nothing to do with the title or name of this sight.

We are suing to uphold the Thai environment law and because of our support.

What sad is some in Thailand care more about their pockets then the environment

Don't talk such absolute rubbish, this is personal not for the good of the environment, look at what Richard Haines says:

Condo owners sue for sea view

PATTAYA: -- A group of Jomtien apartment owners has asked the Administrative Court in Rayong to halt the construction of a new residential building that will block their sea views.

Ten foreign Jomtien Complex Condotel apartment owners are fighting to preserve their uninterrupted beach views following Pattaya City Council building permission for a new apartment building directly in front of them.

The complaint asserts Pattaya City wrongly granted construction permission to View Talay Jomtien Condominium.

It adds the permission did not meet 1978 planning regulations and alleges it will deprive them of their present unobstructed views of Jomtien Beach.

Jomtien Complex Condotel resident of two years Richard Haines, 62, retired, is one of the plaintiffs. The United States expatriate claims the development of View Talay 7 is in breach of planning law.

The building is on the beachfront and will obstruct views, he argued. "I purchased my condo in October 2005 when I decided to make Thailand my retirement home.

"But the new View Talay 7 building will block me from ever seeing another sunset from my condo," he said.

Haines alleged View Talay 7 was illegal because it was 14 metres in height and within 200 metres of the sea. Buildings of this height are prohibited within 200 metres of the shore by planning law, he said.

Pattaya Mayor Niran Wattana-sartsathorn said the city correctly issued building permission.

"I'm not worried that some foreigners are suing the city in the Administrative Court because we are just an agent to mediate this problem.

"If the foreigners succeed it will be a precedent for others and maybe developers will think before getting into problems like this," Niran added.

The court will hold a preliminary hearing tomorrow.

--The nation 2007-03-27

I also note that no doubt at 62 Richard is here on a retirement visa....ooops! How many others I wonder? What is happening is as I've been saying all along but only a few other VT7 investors took any notice, the JCC refuse to listen to reason and stated I had no inside knowledge. I don't know about immigration coming to take them away, more like the men in white coats I reckon! You just cannot call anyone corrupt in their home country, without evidence if you are merely a guest here.

[Pattaya_Fox]

An off topic post has been deleted.

[prospero]

<br />

<b>Whats <u>taxes and Retirement visas</u> have to do with " Replying to Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View" ? <img src="style_emoticons/default/angry.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="angry.gif" /> <img src="style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="biggrin.gif" /> <img src="style_emoticons/default/mad.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="mad.gif" /> <img src="style_emoticons/default/mad.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="mad.gif" /> </b>

<br /><br /><font color="#ff0000"><b>It would be sensible for you to stop saying you are suing for a sea view</b></font>. The view is incidental. You are suing because VT intends to erect a building over 14 meters in height and which building appears to be against the Law. <br /><br />I am not understanding a lot of the post that the following quote came from but such a statement is indicative of farangs wanting to control and intimidate.<br /><br /><font color="#0000ff">"Of course foreigners have a standing in the Thai legal system – they only should not disturb this system for selfish reasons only."</font><br /><br />I guess that one always goes to court for a "selfish" reason.<br />

<br /><font color="#000080"><b>The title for this sight comes from The Nation news paper. We had nothing to do with the title or name of this sight. </b></font><br /><br /><font color="#000080"><b>We are suing to uphold the <u>Thai environment law</u> and because of our support. <br /></b></font><br /><br /><b><font color="#006400">What sad is some in Thailand care more about their pockets then the environment</font></b><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

<br /><br /><b>Don't talk such absolute rubbish, this is personal not for the good of the environment, look at what Richard Haines says:<br /></b><br /><b>Condo owners sue for sea view<br /><br /></b>PATTAYA: -- A group of Jomtien apartment owners has asked the Administrative Court in Rayong to halt the construction of a new residential building that will block their sea views. <br /><br />Ten foreign Jomtien Complex Condotel apartment owners are fighting to preserve their uninterrupted beach views following Pattaya City Council building permission for a new apartment building directly in front of them.<br /><br />The complaint asserts Pattaya City wrongly granted construction permission to View Talay Jomtien Condominium.<br /><br />It adds the permission did not meet 1978 planning regulations and alleges it will deprive them of their present unobstructed views of Jomtien Beach.<br /><br />Jomtien Complex Condotel resident of two years Richard Haines, 62, retired, is one of the plaintiffs. The United States expatriate claims the development of View Talay 7 is in breach of planning law.<br /><br />The building is on the beachfront and will obstruct views, he argued. "I purchased my condo in October 2005 when I decided to make Thailand my retirement home. <br /><br />"But the new View Talay 7 building will block me from ever seeing another sunset from my condo," he said.<br /><br />Haines alleged View Talay 7 was illegal because it was 14 metres in height and within 200 metres of the sea. Buildings of this height are prohibited within 200 metres of the shore by planning law, he said.<br /><br />Pattaya Mayor Niran Wattana-sartsathorn said the city correctly issued building permission.<br /><br />"I'm not worried that some foreigners are suing the city in the Administrative Court because we are just an agent to mediate this problem. <br /><br />"If the foreigners succeed it will be a precedent for others and maybe developers will think before getting into problems like this," Niran added. <br /><br />The court will hold a preliminary hearing tomorrow.<br /><br />--The nation 2007-03-27 <br /><br /><b>I also note that no doubt at 62 Richard is here on a retirement visa....ooops! How many others I wonder? What is happening is as I've been saying all along but only a few other VT7 investors took any notice, the JCC refuse to listen to reason and stated I had no inside knowledge. I don't know about immigration coming to take them away, more like the men in white coats I reckon!</b> <b>You just cannot call anyone corrupt in their home country, without evidence if you are merely a guest here.</b> <img src="style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="biggrin.gif" /><br />

<br /><br /><br />

The sad thing is that putting money down on View Talay 7, or any other VT, is essentially entering a lottery. No matter how early you place your deposit, you have no guarantee that you will be able to own your property in your own name!! When the building is completed, you have to compete with everyone else for the 49% foreign ownership. If you are not one of the lucky ones, or the ones who pay under the table, you will be required to own your unit in the name of a Thai company. This is legally shaky, as the law is unclear and can change at any time.

As has been demonstrated, and stated by so many on this thread, foreigners are "guests in the Kingdom of Thailand only" and should not go about disturbing the courts. So, if their ownership is challenged in any way, they have no recourse but to "go to a new country which is more matching to him" and lose their home.

View Talay's marketing ploy is designed to sell as many empty shells to empty headed farangs as possible, with no guarantee that they will actually own their units. It is shameful, but, as we can see by huge number of blokes who buy in the buildings, ther's a sucker born every minute.

[Pattaya_Fox]

An off topic post has been deleted.

[OhdLover]

View Talay's marketing ploy is designed to sell as many empty shells to empty headed farangs as possible, with no guarantee that they will actually own their units. It is shameful, but, as we can see by huge number of blokes who buy in the buildings, ther's a sucker born every minute.

Being an empty headed sucker, I would like to thank you for your kind words.

[stopvt7]

View Talay's marketing ploy is designed to sell as many empty shells to empty headed farangs as possible, with no guarantee that they will actually own their units. It is shameful, but, as we can see by huge number of blokes who buy in the buildings, ther's a sucker born every minute.

Being an empty headed sucker, I would like to thank you for your kind words.

Something I can agree with you on!

The same empty head farangs who don’t care abound the environment laws or about Thai land and condo ownership laws.

Maybe he need to weary about his retirement visa.

[OhdLover]

View Talay's marketing ploy is designed to sell as many empty shells to empty headed farangs as possible, with no guarantee that they will actually own their units. It is shameful, but, as we can see by huge number of blokes who buy in the buildings, ther's a sucker born every minute.

Being an empty headed sucker, I would like to thank you for your kind words.

Something I can agree with you on!

The same empty head farangs who don't care abound the environment laws or about Thai land and condo ownership laws.

Maybe he need to weary about his retirement visa.

wow!! English may not be my native language, but it certainly isn't yours.

How can you interprete all these Thai-English translations with such a poor understanding of english?

As I stated before, you keep saying you are so concerned about the environment,

it's not about your seaview.

Can you honestly and without blinking tell me if you would have done

all you did so far, if VT7 would have been built

1 km to the left or right??

If the answer is no, please stop behaving like a wannabee Saint, and admit

your actions are just to protect your seaview and the value of your condo in JCC.

(which, btw, is perfectly reasonable)

And let me ask you, when you decided to buy your condo in JCC, how much of a due diligence did

you do on all the aspects you expect the VT7-buyers to have done when they decided to buy...???

If I have to question all permits given by whatever governmental organization,

my life would be very poor and boring I guess.

Let's not make things bigger (except the height of VT7 of course) than they are,

don't accuse people of being empty-headed if they just want to buy a nice located

home, close to the beach and with all the necessary permits being ok.

And... last thing to mention, the environment, well.... I think we should worry more

about other things than buildings too close to the sea. If you really care about environmental

problems, then I suggest to do some work on your priority list. This one shouldn't be at place 1.

Good, now my head is empty for some time... and it feels good!

Edited March 1, 2008 by OhdLover

[ThaiBob]

View Talay's marketing ploy is designed to sell as many empty shells to empty headed farangs as possible, with no guarantee that they will actually own their units. It is shameful, but, as we can see by huge number of blokes who buy in the buildings, ther's a sucker born every minute.

Being an empty headed sucker, I would like to thank you for your kind words.

Something I can agree with you on!

The same empty head farangs who don't care abound the environment laws or about Thai land and condo ownership laws.

Maybe he need to weary about his retirement visa.

wow!! English may not be my native language, but it certainly isn't yours.

How can you interprete all these Thai-English translations with such a poor understanding of english?

As I stated before, you keep saying you are so concerned about the environment,

it's not about your seaview.

Can you honestly and without blinking tell me if you would have done

all you did so far, if VT7 would have been built

1 km to the left or right??

If the answer is no, please stop behaving like a wannabee Saint, and admit

your actions are just to protect your seaview and the value of your condo in JCC.

(which, btw, is perfectly reasonable)

And let me ask you, when you decided to buy your condo in JCC, how much of a due diligence did

you do on all the aspects you expect the VT7-buyers to have done when they decided to buy...???

If I have to question all permits given by whatever governmental organization,

my life would be very poor and boring I guess.

Let's not make things bigger (except the height of VT7 of course) than they are,

don't accuse people of being empty-headed if they just want to buy a nice located

home, close to the beach and with all the necessary permits being ok.

And... last thing to mention, the environment, well.... I think we should worry more

about other things than buildings too close to the sea. If you really care about environmental

problems, then I suggest to do some work on your priority list. This one shouldn't be at place 1.

Good, now my head is empty for some time... and it feels good!

You have seen through this latest ruse by City of Pattaya and VT7 opponents. Their latest ploy appears to be that the Court interpretation of Issue 9 violates the environmental protection intent or spirit of the law. This is nonsense as implementing the Court witness's testimony will expand from 100 to 200 meters "the distance at the sea shore onto the land," protection to the beaches and seashore. The City has historically and correctly interpreted and implemented the environmental aspects of Issue 9 by creating a 200 meter wide restricted construction zone.

My regret is the City of Pattaya did not have an expert witness (not a bunch of inept lawyers) at the original Court hearing in 2007 that could give testimony on all technical aspects of Issue 9. If so, then the Court would not have issued the temporary ban on construction in the first place and saved all parties time and money.