Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[Artisan]

Hello again Tammi,

In Thailand, the average mid water level is defined as the mean height of the surface of the sea for all stages of the tide over a 19-year period. In global meteorology, mean sea level is used as the reference surface for all altitudes in upper-atmospheric work; in aviation it is the level above which altitude is measured by a pressure altimeter. It's a type of tidal datum.......for everything, including the Building Control Act of Thailand

Now go and measure those 200 very important metres!!!

[Scott]

Oh, I think global warming will take care of everyone's problem. Pretty soon we may all have a sea view!

Actually, I do hope they find a way to work this out. I'd hate to pay for a seaview and then see a view of my neighbors behind instead!

[stopvt7]

Hello again Tammi,

In Thailand, the average mid water level is defined as the mean height of the surface of the sea for all stages of the tide over a 19-year period. In global meteorology, mean sea level is used as the reference surface for all altitudes in upper-atmospheric work; in it is the level above which altitude is measured by a pressure altimeter. It's a type of tidal datum.......for everything, including the Building Control Act of Thailand

Now go and measure those 200 very important metres!!!

The below statement is from the Thailand Ministry of Resources and it help you

“Sea Coastal Line means the line which the sea water reaches highest as usually does in nature”

Please let me explain this is higher then tide charts because on sea storm surge. Also It was explained to me that some Thailand coastal areas the low tide is more then 500 meters from high tide lines.

So you telling me that from your miss given logic, that in this areas where the tide moves over 500 meter, you can build in the sea?

You need to go out are talk with some servers maybe they could help you understand that their are high tide marker place along the coast and they were set above 19 year tide charts records because of natural sea storms and surge water. This was done for safety reasons and not to punish condo developer!

But like our lawyer explained to the Judge at the court hearing, “you could even measure from the low tide line and VT7 is still breaking the law.”

This is not about aviation!

[Artisan]

Hello again Tammi,

In Thailand, the average mid water level is defined as the mean height of the surface of the sea for all stages of the tide over a 19-year period. In global meteorology, mean sea level is used as the reference surface for all altitudes in upper-atmospheric work; in it is the level above which altitude is measured by a pressure altimeter. It's a type of tidal datum.......for everything, including the Building Control Act of Thailand

Now go and measure those 200 very important metres!!!

The below statement is from the Thailand Ministry of Resources and it help you

“Sea Coastal Line means the line which the sea water reaches highest as usually does in nature”

Please let me explain this is higher then tide charts because on sea storm surge. Also It was explained to me that some Thailand coastal areas the low tide is more then 500 meters from high tide lines.

So you telling me that from your miss given logic, that in this areas where the tide moves over 500 meter, you can build in the sea?

You need to go out are talk with some servers maybe they could help you understand that their are high tide marker place along the coast and they were set above 19 year tide charts records because of natural sea storms and surge water. This was done for safety reasons and not to punish condo developer!

But like our lawyer explained to the Judge at the court hearing, “you could even measure from the low tide line and VT7 is still breaking the law.”

This is not about aviation!

I guess that you mean the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources. Is that so? I would be grateful if you would share your knowledge relating to the source of the statement from this particular ministry. From my experience of statements from many of the Thai Ministries, their wording is usually contradictory, over-elaborated, pompous and, usually, gobbledygook.

Obviously you have missed my point completely, or maybe I’m doing you an injustice because I have had some problems in putting together the gist of your posts, including this one. If so then I humbly apologise.

In the many years that I have lived in Jomtien, I don’t remember the difference between high water mark and low water mark being anywhere close to 500 metres. Sure, I don’t doubt that tide differentials can approach this elsewhere in Thailand but we’re talking about the sea at Jomtien; to be precise Dong Tan Beach!!

Regarding my miss given (sic) logic, it’s laughable that you should apply the argument about building in the sea!!! And, I’m not “telling” you anything of the sort, old fruit. By the way the word is misgiven and is inappropriate in this context. (Please check your English dictionary for its meaning…and furthermore, to assist your many readers, I advise you to check it much more frequently than you seem to do).

Please would you clarify your suggestion that I “should go out and talk to some servers?”

My posting was an attempt to clarify the global definition of mid-water level and to indicate its purpose as a reference to other aspects of surveying, including vertical measurement. As I said earlier, you missed the point completely.

One last question.......By any chance, is your lawyer a chartered surveyor also?

[Weho]

Somewhere I hope the condo people get to stop the one in front, but somewhere they were foolish.

I find it hard to believe that when a project already gets started in construction, that it won't go through, especially on desirable beach property.

Sure, you may delay it, and cost the VT people some money, but also cost yourselves some money too in the process, but they probably have the upper hand here, both legally, and maybe with City Hall people they may have long since bought off.

In most places, views are NEVER protected. If you whine and argue, "oh, I'm going to lose my view, they are going to block my precious view", I'm am certain you will lose.

If you argue on legal grounds, that you can prove, and maybe you can, at least you can convince yourselves you have a chance at stopping them... but the reality is, in the long term, they are probably going to win.

I admire your fight, though.

[Ground Engineer]

Guys, let's just stay with the fundamentals which are that on Jomthien Complex going to the Admin Court the Court gave an injunction that VT stop work on VT7 probably because the Law says that nothing over 14 metres can be built within 200 metres of the seashore (probably the high tide mark).

Tammi, the Interior Ministry regs dont seem to be specific. You yourself state the word probably regarding the 200m mark and the sea level.

I have read a translated version of the Interior Ministry regs (by Thai lawyers) and they dont make sense. At best the regs are not clear and need ammending for local authorities to enforce them properly.

I have also asked many Thai people to read the regs and they all come up with different explanations.

[Sapillyder]

Guys, let's just stay with the fundamentals which are that on Jomthien Complex going to the Admin Court the Court gave an injunction that VT stop work on VT7 probably because the Law says that nothing over 14 metres can be built within 200 metres of the seashore (probably the high tide mark).

Hua Hin City has stopped issuing permits for construction over 14 metres within the 200m until the decision is made by the Admin Court on VT7.

Jomthien Condotel has taken its case to Pattaya City Hall to try to stop Indochine starting work on Regatta which is planned to be 8 storey and over 14 m and is within 200 m from the seashore. I suppose that if City Hall says that Indochine can go ahead with Regatta that Jomthien Condotel will also go to the Admin Court.

So we just all now have to wait for the Admin Court's decision on VT7 and City Hall's decision on Regatta.

Hua Hin were sensible in deciding to stop issuing permits until Admin Court's decision.

We can argy-bargy back and fore but it means nothing and usually doesn't sound nice or sensible.

If City Hall says Indochine Assests Co Ltd. can go ahead with the Regatta project, I can assure you that Jomtien Condotel Juristic Manager will take the case to the Administrative Court in Rayong.

[ThaiBob]

Guys, let's just stay with the fundamentals which are that on Jomthien Complex going to the Admin Court the Court gave an injunction that VT stop work on VT7 probably because the Law says that nothing over 14 metres can be built within 200 metres of the seashore (probably the high tide mark).

Hua Hin City has stopped issuing permits for construction over 14 metres within the 200m until the decision is made by the Admin Court on VT7.

Jomthien Condotel has taken its case to Pattaya City Hall to try to stop Indochine starting work on Regatta which is planned to be 8 storey and over 14 m and is within 200 m from the seashore. I suppose that if City Hall says that Indochine can go ahead with Regatta that Jomthien Condotel will also go to the Admin Court.

So we just all now have to wait for the Admin Court's decision on VT7 and City Hall's decision on Regatta.

Hua Hin were sensible in deciding to stop issuing permits until Admin Court's decision.

We can argy-bargy back and fore but it means nothing and usually doesn't sound nice or sensible.

If City Hall says Indochine Assests Co Ltd. can go ahead with the Regatta project, I can assure you that Jomtien Condotel Juristic Manager will take the case to the Administrative Court in Rayong.

As a point of law, I believe technically at least 10 Jomtien Condotel co-owners must take legal action not the juristic manager. I was curious, what happens to the JCC case if the number of complainants were to drop below 10. Could the case go forward or could the complaint be amended and another complainant be added?

[thebounder]

I guess it was around 4 years ago, maybe less, that the son of a prominent politician was alleged by numerous witnesses to have walked up to a policeman in a busy Bangkok hotel bar in the early evening and shot him in the head, killing him. Amongst the witnesses were several police colleagues of the dead man. The suspect then disappeared for about a year, after which he returned to stand trial for murder. Guess what, he was found not guilty.

I don't know how this VT7 case will end and frankly I don't care, but if I were StopVT7 I would stop gloating/showing extreme confidence over the outcome of final hearing of this matter. If there was one thing I learnt in 8 years as a litigation solicitor, during which I ran numerous trials all connected to the construction industry, it was that even in the most upstanding of Courts everything can change at trial.

Any piece of legislation can be construed in several different ways. Sometimes the interpretation of a Court can seem to have very limited relevance to the actual words used, for example when they look at the real intention of the legislating body. Courts can also sometimes wiggle their way out of legislative provisions that seem to be contrary to their decision by concepts such as public policy. Moreover, a good lawyer will sometimes find other legislation which is at odds with the legislation you are seeking to rely upon, in which case the Court will have to decide which of the laws is right and which is wrong. In short, if a Court wants to find a way out of a difficult piece of legislation there is usually a way to do it. It is never black and white.

Like I say, I don't know what the outcome will be, but I think it is naive to count ones chickens as StopVT7 seems to be doing. After all his proclomations as to "Thailand being a country of laws" he is going to be in a difficult situation if he ends up losing the case. Has he never heard of the phrase "tempting fate"? I wish him and his fellow litigants the best of luck, but having been as outspoken as he has, he is going to look awfully stupid if they lose.

[Tammi]

Like I say, I don't know what the outcome will be, but I think it is naive to count ones chickens as StopVT7 seems to be doing. After all his proclomations as to "Thailand being a country of laws" he is going to be in a difficult situation if he ends up losing the case. Has he never heard of the phrase "tempting fate"? I wish him and his fellow litigants the best of luck, but having been as outspoken as he has, he is going to look awfully stupid if they lose.

Don't be ridiculous. StopVT7 and the other 9 litigants AND their lawyer believe they can win. If they don't win what's to look stupid about?

And remember that Hua Hin City has stopped issuing building permits for buildings within the 200 m until the outcome of this case is known.

If Pattaya City Hall does not repond favourably to Jomthien Condotel it will be interesting to see if the Admin Court also accepts Jomthien Condotel's case. We should know in a few more days.

[stopvt7]

Order in the event that the

Plaint has asked for a solution

Or a means of protection GARUDA

To temporarily alleviate the ills ROYAL INSIGNIA

Prior to judgement Case Black No. 54/2550

IN THE NAME OF HIS MAJESTY THE KING

Administrative Court of Rayong

9^th April 2007

10 Plaint-maker

Between

Competent Officer, Locale of Pattaya City 1

View Talay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. 2 plaint receiver

Re: Dispute relating to the competent officer of the government has performed an illegal act.

This case the 10 plaint makers stated that they had the ownership rights to the units and resided in the building, Condominium Jomtien Complex Condotel, situated at Thappraya Road, Moo 12, Nongprue sub-district, Banglamung district, Chonburi province. The 10 plaint makers were in distress or have received damage from the receiver of plaint No.1 in the issuance of a Construction Permit No. 162/2550 dated 28 November 2006 to View Talay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. to construct a high rise or a especially large permanent building of 912 units, 24 shops in R/C of 27 storey with a roof top as residence with a total area of 101,429 sq. m., parking area of 11,708 sq. m. for 418 cars, a swimming pool 1,134 sq. m. and piping 1,261 m. situated in Nongprue sub-district, Banglamung district, Chonburi province having a boundary line connecting to Jomtien beach striding a small garden and footpath. Whereas the Jomtien Complex Condotel is situated to the West of the building to which the receiver of plaint 1 had issued a Construction Permit. The consideration of the plaint receiver 1 to issue any construction permit pursuant to the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2522, over and above the consideration of stability in strength and safety consideration must be given to the layout of the area, drawings and accompanying details submitted together with the request for a building permit as well. But, it appeared that the receiver of plaint 1 had issued the building permit without having followed the norm, methods and conditions stipulated in the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479 point 3 which stipulated that the area within 200 m. measuring from the controlled zone of buildings as per plan attached to the Act, the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479 in the locale of Banglamung sub-district, Nongplalai sub-district, Naklua sub-district, Banglamung district, Chonburi province B.E. 2521 fronting the sea as an area that may not have the said building constructed upon and in point 3 (8) which stipulated that a building with height of over 14 m. did not fall into the norm for which permission may be given, which, this Ministerial Regulations was taken into use as of 23 November B.E. 2521 (1978) to this date without there being any amendments whatsoever. If the construction of the said building is permitted to be completed it will cause the sea breeze to change direction, not blowing towards Jomtien Complex Condotel and what is more it will block the view of the beach and the sea that was once there which will affect the health and feelings of the 10 plaint makers and other residents in the Jomtien Complex Condotel because the building that the receiver of plaint 1 had granted permission to construct has 27 storey or a height of about 81 m. which is similar in height to the condominium where the 10 plaint makers are in residence. After the plaint receiver 1 had granted the permit View Talay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. to construct, at present the company had graded the area and had driven piles which caused cracks in the Jomtien Complex Condotel and there had been no method of preventing the dust caused by the construction to in turn caused pollution in the air affecting the breathing of the 10 plaint makers. Prior to filing the case in court the 10 plaint makers and other residents of Jomtien Complex Condotel had petitioned for justice and objected to the issuance of the building permit to the plaint receiver 1 and had petitioned to other related authorities throughout but received no remedial measure to alleviate the distress in any way necessitating all 10 plaint makers to file a case in court.

It is requested that the court withdraw the Building Permit, Alteration to or Demolition of Building No. 162/2550 dated 28^th November 2006 and issue an order to temporarily stop the construction of the said building until the court has passed a judgement because if the construction is permitted to continue the 10 plaint makers shall receive damage which shall be difficult rectify at a later stage.

The court ordered View Talay Condominium (1999) Co., Ltd. to interpose in the case and stipulated as the plaint receiver 2.

The court interrogated both parties in the consideration stage of setting a measure or a method of temporary protection prior to passing judgement on the case brought by the 10 plaint makers and received further facts as follows:

Mr. Amnat Thiengtham, the recipient of Power of Attorney from all 10 plaint makers gave a statement that the plaint receiver 2 constructed the building from the point away from the mean sea level, namely the lowest level at ebb tide only about 100 m. not 200 m. in accordance with the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479. At present the construction has passed the piling stage and was now at the footing stage but the sheet piles have yet to be done around the construction site and no work was carried out after 17.00 hrs. The point which the 10 plaint makers used in the commencement of measurement of 200 m. as pre Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 was the point of the median level of the sea, meaning the lowest point of the sea at ebb tide, which if measured from this point the building of the plaint receiver 2 will fall within the 200 m. pursuant to the said Ministerial Regulations.

Mr. Pornsakci Piyakamolrat, Civil Engineer 7, the recipient of Power of Attorney from the plaint receiver 1 testified that this Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2519) and Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the meaning of the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479 which was still in force. In accordance with the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 point 3 which stipulated the distance of 100 m. from the construction boundary control as per map attached to the Act B.E. 2479. Later there was an alteration/addition into the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 whereby the distance was increased to 200 m. from construction boundary control line as per map attached to the Act B.E. 2521 which extended down the beachhead, therefore the distance of 100 m. as per Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 and the distance of 200 m. as per The Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 was one of the same. According to the Act B.E. 2521 the construction boundary control line will extend a further 100 m. from the coast line at the median sea level which point was the highest point of natural high tide, the building of the plaint receiver 2 was situated away from the construction boundary control pursuant to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 about 205 m.

Mr. Pricha Dachamualvalvit, the recipient of Power of Attorney from plaint receiver 2 gave a statement that the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) and Issue 9 (B.E.2521) issued pursuant to the meaning of the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479 should not currently be in force.

The court considered the plaint and the request for the court to stipulate a measure or a method of protection to temporarily lessen the plight of the 10 plaint makers prior to judgement together with other documentary evidence that both parties had submitted and found that the point to consider was whether it was appropriate to stipulate a measure or a method of protection to temporarily lessen the plight of the 10 plaint makers prior to passing a judgement or not.

After due deliberation it was found that Section 62 paragraph 1 of the Act of proclamation of the Administrative Court and Method of Consideration B.E. 2542 had stated in the event the Administrative Court saw it appropriate to stipulate a measure or by any other methods to alleviate the plight of the two related parties temporarily prior to passing judgement, whether there were petition from the said persons or not, the Administrative Court has the power to stipulate a measure or temporary measure and issue an order to the administrative unit or the related competent officer of the state to perform in accordance with the standard and method stipulated by the regulations of the General Meeting of judges in the Supreme Administrative Court, which, point 77 of the said regulations stipulated the use of the meaning in the characteristics 1 of Portion 4 of the method of consideration of the Civil Code to use in enforcing the standard in deliberation of the petition. The conditions in the issuance of the court and the results of the stipulation of measure or method of any protection to lessen the plight temporarily prior to passing judgement or a method to protect the benefits of the petitioners during deliberation or to enforce pursuant to judgement, mutatis mutandis as far as the conditions of the case permit without being in contrary to these regulations and the general principle of the law governing the method of consideration of Administrative cases and Section 255 (1) and (2) of the Civil Code prescribed in the consideration in order to find whatever method of protection must be satisfactory to the court that the case has substance and sufficient reasons to warrant the use of the protection method where the plaintiff will be troubled or will receive damage through the actions of the defendants, or there was a reason necessitating the deliberation of the court to give justice and appropriateness. In this case it appeared that both parties argued in the salient point of the distance away from the building pursuant to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the meaning of the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479 which was directly connected to the alignment of the control of the construction of as per map attached to the Act to use the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479 in the locale of Banglamung sub-district, Nongplalai sub-district, Naklua sub-district, Banglamung district, Chonburi province B..E. 2521. The 10 plaint makers and the plaint receiver 1 have a difference of understanding in the starting point used in the measurement pursuant to the Ministerial Regulations of the said Issue. The 10 plaint makers used the lowest ebb tide point as the starting point to measure the distance point, whereas the receiver of plaint 1 used the point away from the highest point of natural high tide a further 100 m. away as the starting point. Therefore in the deliberation the court found it necessary to make a thorough check on the starting point to measure the distance pursuant to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9, which point the building under dispute was at the correct distance pursuant to the Ministerial Regulations or not, which, the court shall require appropriate time to do the checking. But, if the construction of the building under dispute was still being carried out and in the end the court issued a cancellation of the building permit as brought forward by the 10 plaint makers it may be difficult to heal the troubles or damage to the 10 plaint makers at that time. The case thus has sufficient reasons to evoke the use of the measure or method of protection temporarily prior to the judgement on the case brought forward by the 10 plaint makers.

The court therefore issued an order the receiver of plaint 2 to cease construction as granted by Construction Permit No. 162/2550 dated 28 November 2006 temporarily for the time being, effective from acknowledgement of this order.

Mr. Kittinai Thammachat. Dep. D.G Administrative Court Case Judge

Mrs. Saisuda Sethrabutr. D.G. Administrative Court

Mr. Pongsakdi Kamphoosiri. Chief Judge, Administrative Court

[Artisan]

........and that's what I mean stopvt7. That's what you're up against. It's all gobbledygook. It really doesn't mean a thing. Please please, show some humility and maybe, just maybe, some of us on the sidelines, just might, show some support.

I think the term is "wise up"....... before you fukc up!!!!

Sorry Tammi and others.... think about it.

[Ling Kae]

stopVT7, I did not feel the need to reply to this thread as I am not involved with either side. What you are doing is citing the same regulations and statements over and over and over again. Thailand is a country of laws but you have to understand that these laws are broken, bent, forgotten, not adhered to or simply negotiated on sometimes. Just remember in September last year a military junta threw out the legally elected government and tore up the constitution that was in place for years. Just like all bars must shut by 1AM but why are they still serving at 4AM? How could Police Officers murder drug lords on the streets without convictions a few years back? A country of laws?

You are emotionally involved and can not be objective. When you walk around Pattaya you can see 5 star hotels being built right now much closer to the water than VT7. Now tell me if all these buildings can be approved and built why can't VT7? A precedence has been set several times already. I would not like to be in your position, did you really think that you could buy a condo half way up a street and expect that nothing will get built in front of you? Take the baht bus to Pattaya and look around for yourself.

[stopvt7]

Thailand is a country of laws and but you have to understand that these laws are broken. Yes, I do understand and we were the first group ( Richard Haines and10 farangs from JCC) in 29 year to ask for the law to be enforced. And the king had set up a new Administrative Court to hear legal case against government who done questionable acts.

Did you read to out come of the admin court first hearing? As of now this will be the only hearing and we are waiting final court order.

That’s where to start the measurement of 200 meters?

I have confidence it will be from the high tide markers, Because their other laws in Thailand which addresses this matter.

“In this case it appeared that both parties argued in the salient point of the distance away from the building pursuant to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the meaning of the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479 which was directly connected to the alignment of the control of the construction of as per map attached to the Act to use the Buildings Control Act B.E. 2479” ,,,,,,, 1 have a difference of understanding in the starting point used in the measurement pursuant to the Ministerial Regulations of the said Issue. The 10 plaint makers used the lowest ebb tide point as the starting point to measure the distance point, whereas the receiver of plaint 1 used the point away from the highest point of natural high tide a further 100 m. away as the starting point. Therefore in the deliberation the court found it necessary to make a thorough check on the starting point to measure the distance pursuant to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9, which point the building under dispute was at the correct distance pursuant to the Ministerial Regulations or not, which, the court shall require appropriate time to do the checking. But, if the construction of the building under dispute was still being carried out and in the end the court issued a cancellation of the building permit as brought forward by the 10 plaint makers it may be difficult to heal the troubles or damage to the 10 plaint makers at that time. The case thus has sufficient reasons to evoke the use of the measure or method of protection temporarily prior to the judgement on the case brought forward by the 10 plaint makers.

The court therefore issued an order the receiver of plaint 2 to cease construction………”

Now you are telling me Thailand Administrative Court is the same as Pattaya Police?

Why did VT7 stop construction? Because “Thailand is a country of laws”!

[Artisan]

The court therefore issued an order the receiver of plaint 2 to cease construction………”

Once more, you've neglected to include the operative word in this statement. Let's see if you can guess what that word is!!!

Just another couple of very small things....Jomtien Complex Condotel is to the east of VT7 (your court statement says West!!) and there were cracks evident in JCC six or seven years ago!!!

Edited May 30, 2007 by Artisan

[stopvt7]

“Thailand is a country of laws”! and I’m not worried!

[Binkie]

The court therefore issued an order the receiver of plaint 2 to cease construction………”

Once more, you've neglected to include the operative word in this statement. Let's see if you can guess what that word is!!!

Just another couple of very small things....Jomtien Complex Condotel is to the east of VT7 (your court statement says West!!) and there were cracks evident in JCC six or seven years ago!!!

STOPVT7 seems to have forgotten a couple of things from the English language (which it seems to me is not his mother tongue).

1. Humility, always a good thing to have in abundance especially in a place like this and a saying that we are taught from an early age.

Pride comes before a fall.

Please bare these things in mind whilst gloating (for that is what you are doing, confidence is merely your excuse for it).

[thebounder]

Like I say, I don't know what the outcome will be, but I think it is naive to count ones chickens as StopVT7 seems to be doing. After all his proclomations as to "Thailand being a country of laws" he is going to be in a difficult situation if he ends up losing the case. Has he never heard of the phrase "tempting fate"? I wish him and his fellow litigants the best of luck, but having been as outspoken as he has, he is going to look awfully stupid if they lose.

Don't be ridiculous. StopVT7 and the other 9 litigants AND their lawyer believe they can win. If they don't win what's to look stupid about?

And remember that Hua Hin City has stopped issuing building permits for buildings within the 200 m until the outcome of this case is known.

If Pattaya City Hall does not repond favourably to Jomthien Condotel it will be interesting to see if the Admin Court also accepts Jomthien Condotel's case. We should know in a few more days.

Please explain how it is ridiculous to suggest that someone who engages in constant gloating about a future victory will look awfully stupid if he ends up losing. It is like a boxer boasting how he will dismantle a future opponent only to get well and truly beaten up. The expression to risk being left with egg on one's face refers to exactly this kind of behaviour. I rather think it is you being ridiculous to suggest he won't look stupid if he loses, and not because of the loss (I think we all respect them for giving it a go), but because of the way he has approached things.

I think many people who would otherwise be extremely sympathetic towards the plight of the JCC owners are put off by StopVT7's arrogant, dismissive attitude.

[Artisan]

I think many people who would otherwise be extremely sympathetic towards the plight of the JCC owners are put off by StopVT7's arrogant, dismissive attitude.

Hello THEBOUNDER...................spot on. I agree with you. Check out Post #372

[thebounder]

I think many people who would otherwise be extremely sympathetic towards the plight of the JCC owners are put off by StopVT7's arrogant, dismissive attitude.

Hello THEBOUNDER...................spot on. I agree with you. Check out Post #372

Thanks Artisan. We are undoubtedly singing from the same hymn sheet and, judging by Binkie's recent post, I don't think we are alone.

StopVT7 should probably consider that if he is alienating those who would otherwise be behind him, what might he be doing to others. His behaviour is hardly likely to endear him and his cause to anyone.

[Artisan]

Don't be ridiculous. StopVT7 and the other 9 litigants AND their lawyer believe they can win. If they don't win what's to look stupid about?

We haven't heard anything on this topic from the "other 9 litigants and their lawyer". Have they gone dumb or are they contributing to this topic without identifying themselves as being in the same group as stopvt7. Perhaps they are of a more humble disposition than him or they aren't so irritatingly confident about the outcome. Let's hear it, people.

Of course they believe that they will win. Those readers who remember the "Tartan Army" will know what I mean.

[MarkBowling]

Don't be ridiculous. StopVT7 and the other 9 litigants AND their lawyer believe they can win. If they don't win what's to look stupid about?

We haven't heard anything on this topic from the "other 9 litigants and their lawyer". Have they gone dumb or are they contributing to this topic without identifying themselves as being in the same group as stopvt7. Perhaps they are of a more humble disposition than him or they aren't so irritatingly confident about the outcome. Let's hear it, people.

Of course they believe that they will win. Those readers who remember the "Tartan Army" will know what I mean.

I agree, I thought stopVT7 was posting your messages to gain public support for their cause. From what I see stopVT7 is counting his chickens before they are hatched and not only that, he's proclaiming what beautiful chicks they are too! No one likes a big head and public support appears to be on the downward spiral. Many people may have had sympathy for you at one time as was intended, but boorish and foolish comments are misplaced here. Lose lips sink ships!

[MarkBowling]

Don't be ridiculous. StopVT7 and the other 9 litigants AND their lawyer believe they can win. If they don't win what's to look stupid about?

We haven't heard anything on this topic from the "other 9 litigants and their lawyer". Have they gone dumb or are they contributing to this topic without identifying themselves as being in the same group as stopvt7. Perhaps they are of a more humble disposition than him or they aren't so irritatingly confident about the outcome. Let's hear it, people.

Of course they believe that they will win. Those readers who remember the "Tartan Army" will know what I mean.

Of course their lawyer thinks they can win, and of course he can expect a huge fee from representing them! T.I.T This is Thailand

[Artisan]

I have a copy on issue 9 which set the limit of 14 meters in height are allowed to be built at 200 meters from sea level. I heard my lawyer talk about the 45 degree angle but I don’t have any info on issue? The 45 degee issue didn’t effect case against VT7?

You be smart to call Asia LawWorks Co., Ltd and talk with Markus Klemm.

Nor does he!!!! I contacted your lawyer according to your suggestion and this is the reply that I received from Markus Klemm (M.D. of Asia Law Works).

"Thank you very much for your Email dated 28th May 2007 and the trust you put in our law firm.

The information you were given is not to be found in one law or ministerial regulation. It is part of different laws (mainly the Building Control Act of 1978 and amendments). Moreover, you have to take a lot of specific points into consideration when it comes to determine the application of the 45 degree angle. For example, you need information about this specific plot of land which is in most cases archived at the Land Department. Please be advised, that there are a lot of things to be considered and even if the land in question is located close to Jomtien Complex is does not necessarily means that the same regulations will apply. This has to be carefully and in a time consuming manner researched before any proceedings are made. Therefore a general answer to your question is not possible."

Somehow, I have the feeling that this 45 degree building profile is just a lot of smoke and mirrors with no real substance or legal basis to it. I would have thought that it was a very easy parameter to confirm and I can't understand why it should be land or location dependent. On the face of it, it appears that a developer could build at any profile after 200 metres from mid-water mark!!!

[Tammi]

Like I say, I don't know what the outcome will be, but I think it is naive to count ones chickens as StopVT7 seems to be doing. After all his proclomations as to "Thailand being a country of laws" he is going to be in a difficult situation if he ends up losing the case. Has he never heard of the phrase "tempting fate"? I wish him and his fellow litigants the best of luck, but having been as outspoken as he has, he is going to look awfully stupid if they lose.

Don't be ridiculous. StopVT7 and the other 9 litigants AND their lawyer believe they can win. If they don't win what's to look stupid about?

And remember that Hua Hin City has stopped issuing building permits for buildings within the 200 m until the outcome of this case is known.

If Pattaya City Hall does not repond favourably to Jomthien Condotel it will be interesting to see if the Admin Court also accepts Jomthien Condotel's case. We should know in a few more days.

Please explain how it is ridiculous to suggest that someone who engages in constant gloating about a future victory will look awfully stupid if he ends up losing. It is like a boxer boasting how he will dismantle a future opponent only to get well and truly beaten up. The expression to risk being left with egg on one's face refers to exactly this kind of behaviour. I rather think it is you being ridiculous to suggest he won't look stupid if he loses, and not because of the loss (I think we all respect them for giving it a go), but because of the way he has approached things.

I think many people who would otherwise be extremely sympathetic towards the plight of the JCC owners are put off by StopVT7's arrogant, dismissive attitude.

I get the feeling that this thread is kept going by some people who want to get up stopVT7's nose for some reason or other. StopVT7 should stop replying and wait for the Admin Courts decision in November when we shall all know what the future development of seaside land will be.

I expect that Jomthien Condotel's representative will post here in a few days regarding City Hall's decision whether or not to allow Regatta to go ahead. The representative has already said on this thread that if City Hall says Regatta can be built as planned that Jomthien Condotel will take the case to the Admin Court.

[thebounder]

Like I say, I don't know what the outcome will be, but I think it is naive to count ones chickens as StopVT7 seems to be doing. After all his proclomations as to "Thailand being a country of laws" he is going to be in a difficult situation if he ends up losing the case. Has he never heard of the phrase "tempting fate"? I wish him and his fellow litigants the best of luck, but having been as outspoken as he has, he is going to look awfully stupid if they lose.

Don't be ridiculous. StopVT7 and the other 9 litigants AND their lawyer believe they can win. If they don't win what's to look stupid about?

And remember that Hua Hin City has stopped issuing building permits for buildings within the 200 m until the outcome of this case is known.

If Pattaya City Hall does not repond favourably to Jomthien Condotel it will be interesting to see if the Admin Court also accepts Jomthien Condotel's case. We should know in a few more days.

Please explain how it is ridiculous to suggest that someone who engages in constant gloating about a future victory will look awfully stupid if he ends up losing. It is like a boxer boasting how he will dismantle a future opponent only to get well and truly beaten up. The expression to risk being left with egg on one's face refers to exactly this kind of behaviour. I rather think it is you being ridiculous to suggest he won't look stupid if he loses, and not because of the loss (I think we all respect them for giving it a go), but because of the way he has approached things.

I think many people who would otherwise be extremely sympathetic towards the plight of the JCC owners are put off by StopVT7's arrogant, dismissive attitude.

I get the feeling that this thread is kept going by some people who want to get up stopVT7's nose for some reason or other. StopVT7 should stop replying and wait for the Admin Courts decision in November when we shall all know what the future development of seaside land will be.

I expect that Jomthien Condotel's representative will post here in a few days regarding City Hall's decision whether or not to allow Regatta to go ahead. The representative has already said on this thread that if City Hall says Regatta can be built as planned that Jomthien Condotel will take the case to the Admin Court.

If you tell me my post is ridiculous when clearly it is not, please expect a reply. It had nothing to do with keeping the thread going or trying to get up StopVT7's nose.

[Artisan]

I get the feeling that this thread is kept going by some people who want to get up stopVT7's nose for some reason or other. StopVT7 should stop replying and wait for the Admin Courts decision in November when we shall all know what the future development of seaside land will be.

Tammi...that was a great post. I admire your perspicacity. Yes, stopvt7 should stop replying and then he won't get up everyone else's nose.

[lookat]

Is stopvt7 gloating because he thinks they are going to win? Is he gloating because he keeps saying “Thailand is a country of laws?” I don’t think so. Matter of fact I also agree that Thailand has laws. It takes special type individuals too stand-up and asks that they are enforced. So give some credit for standing up for the law of Thailand!

Stopvt7 don’t let my posting swell your head.

[Binkie]

Stop VT7 I admire you and the guys from JCC however keep the collective back patting until you get your ruling. Cos you do like a gloat and no one likes a gloater me boyo.

[stopvt7]

I’m amused about being call a gloat! I don’t wish misfortune on anyone but why shouldn’t I stand up for the JCC rights under Thai law. I don’t think I’m gloating but I feel confidence in the out come of the Admin Court decision. Of course thing could change but I don’t see any signs of it happening.

I shared with the blog information from conversation I had with others. Other info I received from attorneys and what happened in court. I post the courts decisions that all could read. And for this I’m call a gloat? OK you have your right to think what you want. But I find it amusing!

gloat >verb contemplate one's own success or another's misfortune with smugness or malignant pleasure

contemplate >verb 1 look at thoughtfully. 2 think about. 3 think profoundly and at length. 4 have as a probable intention.

probable >adjective likely to happen or be the case. >noun a person likely to become or do something