Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[ZZZ]

I looked up the standards for boundary datums and according to them MHW is common law datum for land boundary. It is also frequently used as the coastal limit on topographical charts, the heights on these charts may still be referenced to MSL.

MHW: The average of all high waters observed over a sufficiently long period.

[sharecropper]

Don't forget that Thai law will always go in favour of Thai people, we're just here by their tolerance and goodwill. The jobs and the money created by VT benefit Thai people and the local economy.

When I see all those people on the building site of VT7 filling in concrete and iron I wonder where the big money goes.

Does anyone know how much thai this view talay firm really is?

Looking at the workforce I would have said 100% Cambodian! But I know it's not. I believe 100% Thai.

[OhdLover]

This Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 does not apply to all of Thailand. It applies to few specific tourist beach areas. When you view the map it dose not affect all of Jomthien Beach. The south end of Jomthien Beach is not covered by Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 and you see condos being built rights next to the road.

That's a real interesting posting. Maybe the others can take some time to dispute this one?? I've seen some picks out of your posting regarding the MSL, but nobody cared to say anything about the first part, which makes, if it's correct, any discussion on the second part, needless.

[OneMikeInBangkok]

This Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 does not apply to all of Thailand. It applies to few specific tourist beach areas. When you view the map it dose not affect all of Jomthien Beach. The south end of Jomthien Beach is not covered by Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 and you see condos being built rights next to the road.

That's a real interesting posting. Maybe the others can take some time to dispute this one?? I've seen some picks out of your posting regarding the MSL, but nobody cared to say anything about the first part, which makes, if it's correct, any discussion on the second part, needless.

Well it is all perfectly clear now - here is the View Talay submission to the Supreme Court and explains very clearly and clears up all the points that us mere mortal farangs have been concerned and worried about

View Talay 7 is perfectly legal - in accordance with every Thai law, International law, Muphy's Law blah blah...

So read it and become the enlightened one.

End of story

<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 100%"><SPAN lang=EN-GB>Petition No. 286/2550

[OneMikeInBangkok]

OK try again

<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 100%"><SPAN lang=EN-GB>Petition No. 286/2550

[OneMikeInBangkok]

Having a bad night

Here is the link read it here - the definitive proof that View Talay was correct all along

Appeal to the Supreme court.

Everyone clear now?

[JR Texas]

Having a bad night

Here is the link read it here - the definitive proof that View Talay was correct all along

Appeal to the Supreme court.

Everyone clear now?

About four years ago, I told a couple of real estate hounds who just purchased sea view condos in Jomtien (and who were new to Thailand) that it likely that another condo would be built right in front of them, thus obstructing their view. The laughed and basically said I was "nuts." They argued that Thai law would prevent that from happening. I told them that Thai law is always changing and that if influential Thais decide to build a condo in front of them, the law would change to allow the construction to take place. Now, I do not have time to read all of these threads. Is this what just happened in Jomtien? Did Thai law not protect them? Will the new construction take place? Thanks.

[lookat]

Stopvt7 group 200 meter from MSL compared to city hall and vt7 200 meters from MSL

Go to http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

Then click on the picture. You can see clearly what the arguments about. someone needs to send city hall back to math school.

Thanks for the new picture

[laurus77]

So Vt7 comes to be built. that was the laws of in Thailand.....

[lookat]

So Vt7 comes to be built. that was the laws of in Thailand.....

Thailand was about corruption, sleazy politics and shady real estate developments?

This will be the first time the law will be enforced in Pattaya! Vt7 needs to follow the law!

[Tammi]

If the law is as you say it is then why are so many high rise condos in Pattaya built less than 200 metres away from the MSL? Surely they can't all be condemed and knocked down?

Please excuse me if somebody has already answered this. It is my understanding that anything completed in the past 5 years can be condemned and knocked down if somebody with some guts (and money) will hire a (good) lawyer and take to Admin Court. Jomtien Complex was asked if they wanted to include VT5 in their case but decided not to. And it seems the folks at Grand Condotel are a bunch of wimps. I know that one co-owner at Grand Condotel was told by the manager that it had been looked into and that the Law could be revised every 5 years so VT was within its rights to build 50 meters (100 metres?) more towards the seashore than Grand Condotel. What a load of codswallop that turned out to be.

[lookat]

If the law is as you say it is then why are so many high rise condos in Pattaya built less than 200 metres away from the MSL? Surely they can't all be condemed and knocked down?

Please excuse me if somebody has already answered this. It is my understanding that anything completed in the past 5 years can be condemned and knocked down if somebody with some guts (and money) will hire a (good) lawyer and take to Admin Court. Jomtien Complex was asked if they wanted to include VT5 in their case but decided not to. And it seems the folks at Grand Condotel are a bunch of wimps. I know that one co-owner at Grand Condotel was told by the manager that it had been looked into and that the Law could be revised every 5 years so VT was within its rights to build 50 meters (100 metres?) more towards the seashore than Grand Condotel. What a load of codswallop that turned out to be.

At the JCC do you understand why 10 co-owners filed and not the old elected JCC committee to stop vt7? I understand it was because they were being control by outside forces?

Was the Grand Condotel committee controlled by outside forces? I don’t know but they say action speaks louder then words. What is this P.S. “that the Law could be revised every 5 years”?

[brooklynbridge]

If the law is as you say it is then why are so many high rise condos in Pattaya built less than 200 metres away from the MSL? Surely they can't all be condemed and knocked down?

Please excuse me if somebody has already answered this. It is my understanding that anything completed in the past 5 years can be condemned and knocked down if somebody with some guts (and money) will hire a (good) lawyer and take to Admin Court. Jomtien Complex was asked if they wanted to include VT5 in their case but decided not to. And it seems the folks at Grand Condotel are a bunch of wimps. I know that one co-owner at Grand Condotel was told by the manager that it had been looked into and that the Law could be revised every 5 years so VT was within its rights to build 50 meters (100 metres?) more towards the seashore than Grand Condotel. What a load of codswallop that turned out to be.

At the JCC do you understand why 10 co-owners filed and not the old elected JCC committee to stop vt7? I understand it was because they were being control by outside forces?

Was the Grand Condotel committee controlled by outside forces? I don't know but they say action speaks louder then words. What is this P.S. "that the Law could be revised every 5 years"?

Can someone clarify what is meant by "the old elected JCC committee ... was being controlled by outsiders"? How could that be?

[lookat]

If the law is as you say it is then why are so many high rise condos in Pattaya built less than 200 metres away from the MSL? Surely they can't all be condemed and knocked down?

Please excuse me if somebody has already answered this. It is my understanding that anything completed in the past 5 years can be condemned and knocked down if somebody with some guts (and money) will hire a (good) lawyer and take to Admin Court. Jomtien Complex was asked if they wanted to include VT5 in their case but decided not to. And it seems the folks at Grand Condotel are a bunch of wimps. I know that one co-owner at Grand Condotel was told by the manager that it had been looked into and that the Law could be revised every 5 years so VT was within its rights to build 50 meters (100 metres?) more towards the seashore than Grand Condotel. What a load of codswallop that turned out to be.

At the JCC do you understand why 10 co-owners filed and not the old elected JCC committee to stop vt7? I understand it was because they were being control by outside forces?

Was the Grand Condotel committee controlled by outside forces? I don't know but they say action speaks louder then words. What is this P.S. "that the Law could be revised every 5 years"?

Can someone clarify what is meant by "the old elected JCC committee ... was being controlled by outsiders"? How could that be?

Money?

[OneMikeInBangkok]

View Talay have added a second post to their blog "openVT" Curious that they feel they need to open a Blog to defend themselves and call it openVT and not startVT. Almost as curious that they erected a sign outside the building site with giant copies of their building permit to show they are "legal"

The posting is the SUPREME Court ruling - I reckon those are the big guy judges or we could say big wigs if jusges wear wigs in Thailand

This section is highlighted in Yellow

The Supreme Court, therefore, gives an order to amend the order of the Administrative Court of First Instance. That the Defendant No. 2 shall cease the construction performed, under the Work Permit No. 162/2007 dated

[OneMikeInBangkok]

View Talay have added a second post to their blog "openVT" Curious that they feel they need to open a Blog to defend themselves and call it openVT and not startVT. Almost as curious that they erected a sign outside the building site with giant copies of their building permit to show they are "legal"

The posting is the SUPREME Court ruling - I reckon those are the big guy judges or we could say big wigs if jusges wear wigs in Thailand

This section is highlighted in Yellow

The Supreme Court, therefore, gives an order to amend the order of the Administrative Court of First Instance. That the Defendant No. 2 shall cease the construction performed, under the Work Permit No. 162/2007 dated

Curious for some reason my post was truncated

So

The Defendant No,2 shall cease the construction performed ......on the part exceeding 14 meter in height. On a temporary basis until the court has ordered otherwise.

This is the SUPREME Court ruling.

This weekend they erected steelwork that is now clearly higher than 14 meters. Perhaps steelwork for the concrete columns is not construction. Maybe they are not aiming to pour concrete around this steelwork but to mount dozens of Thai flags on the top

Are they choosing to ignore the Supreme Court or do they have further problems in measuring things.

You know 200 meters from the sea is 100 meters to the sea and 100 meters back again - hey not my words this was the explanation given by the View Talay guy to the Admin Court.

Oh I got it now!!

14 meters high is really 28 meters in VT measuring - 14 meters to the top and 14 meters back down again - now I am really confused.

[lookat]

Interesting Supreme Court ruling! “Defendant No. 2 (vt7) should appear to be unlawful against the Ministerial Regulation thereto as being claimed by the ten plaintiffs, the Court of First Instance should have sentenced this point of being unlawful, i.e. the judgment shall be focused on the of construction the building exceeding height limit by the Defendant No. 2.”

[brooklynbridge]

Interesting Supreme Court ruling! "Defendant No. 2 (vt7) should appear to be unlawful against the Ministerial Regulation thereto as being claimed by the ten plaintiffs, the Court of First Instance should have sentenced this point of being unlawful, i.e. the judgment shall be focused on the of construction the building exceeding height limit by the Defendant No. 2."

Some are saying that construction at VT7 has already crossed the 14 meter mark. I have know way of measuring this myself, but, if true, they would be in direct violation of Supreme Administrative Court.

[OneMikeInBangkok]

Interesting Supreme Court ruling! "Defendant No. 2 (vt7) should appear to be unlawful against the Ministerial Regulation thereto as being claimed by the ten plaintiffs, the Court of First Instance should have sentenced this point of being unlawful, i.e. the judgment shall be focused on the of construction the building exceeding height limit by the Defendant No. 2."

Some are saying that construction at VT7 has already crossed the 14 meter mark. I have know way of measuring this myself, but, if true, they would be in direct violation of Supreme Administrative Court.

Supreme Court in Bangkok

Administrative Court in Rayong

They have laid the ground floor, first floor and second floor and steel work for the next two floors. This is on the section close to the sea the rear wings are behind this schedule.

I estimate second floor is about 10 meters. They are just about to pour columns for next floor. However steel work gone up already for next two floors. This appears to be maybe 16 meters on this section.

[marekm1]

Thank you stopvt7 for providing the map regarding VT7. All I see from that map that the law has been applied consistently for many years. When you look at the left there is a building(I think it’s called Jomtien Condominium) 30 stories over 20 years old well within 200m. And now if you look at the right is the another building within the same distance. Some recon is no legal. But have a walk along Pataya beach and you can see plenty of building over 14m. just completed or already being completed within 200m.

So why VT7 should be stopped? It fits nicely within all the buildings built for the last 20 years. Do you think that the group of farangs can challenge the law, which applied constantly for 20 years. I don’t think so.

[OneMikeInBangkok]

Thank you stopvt7 for providing the map regarding VT7. All I see from that map that the law has been applied consistently for many years. When you look at the left there is a building(I think it's called Jomtien Condominium) 30 stories over 20 years old well within 200m. And now if you look at the right is the another building within the same distance. Some recon is no legal. But have a walk along Pataya beach and you can see plenty of building over 14m. just completed or already being completed within 200m.

So why VT7 should be stopped? It fits nicely within all the buildings built for the last 20 years. Do you think that the group of farangs can challenge the law, which applied constantly for 20 years. I don't think so.

Why should they be stopped?

Ask the hundreds of owners in Jomtien Complex who will lose not only their beautiful sea views, cooling sea breezes but also 1 or 2 million Baht each. I think those are good enough reasons to ask for an upholding of the existing law.

Do you think they should just stand back, keep their mouths shut and say mai pen rai

when some company like View Talay try to break the law and take away their rights?

Well this may be your opinion but you are not in that position are you?

So up to them. If they are unsuccesful then VT7 gets built and all the other condos in Pattaya/Thailand who have built 200 meters back according to the Thai law face the same threat of having a high rise built in front of them.

If they are succesful well to put it quite simply you will be WRONG

[brooklynbridge]

Thank you stopvt7 for providing the map regarding VT7. All I see from that map that the law has been applied consistently for many years. When you look at the left there is a building(I think it's called Jomtien Condominium) 30 stories over 20 years old well within 200m. And now if you look at the right is the another building within the same distance. Some recon is no legal. But have a walk along Pataya beach and you can see plenty of building over 14m. just completed or already being completed within 200m.

So why VT7 should be stopped? It fits nicely within all the buildings built for the last 20 years. Do you think that the group of farangs can challenge the law, which applied constantly for 20 years. I don't think so.

I think if you take a more careful look at buildings built along Dongtarn and Jomtien beaches over the past twenty years, you will see that the 200 meter law was adhered to for a very long time. Jomtien Condotel, Grand Condotel, Jomtien Complex, Jomtien Plaza, Jomtien Condominium, Pattaya Park, and many others were all built more than 200 meters from the shore. Any of these buildings could have been built smack on the beach if there was no 200 meter regulation. Why weren't they?

Then came the attack of the Killer Talays: huge boring white slabs that were constructed with only one thing in mind -- monster profit. The Talays were fine when they kept their place across Thappraya Road. But then VT 5 barged in on Dongtarn Beach, clearly violating the 200 meter line. Now, VT 7 looms and blocks -- not only the views of Jomtien Complex, but also the southerly views of View Talay 5.

Soon other inappropriate and illegal buildings will follow and the quality of the Jomtien-Dongtarn seaside environmnent will be ruined forever. Just take a look at the worst parts of the Costa del Sol or Miami Beach. That will be the future here.

By the way, the current blocks of VT 5 are named "C" and "D". Where do you think "A" and "B" will be built?

[OneMikeInBangkok]

Thank you stopvt7 for providing the map regarding VT7. All I see from that map that the law has been applied consistently for many years. When you look at the left there is a building(I think it's called Jomtien Condominium) 30 stories over 20 years old well within 200m. And now if you look at the right is the another building within the same distance. Some recon is no legal. But have a walk along Pataya beach and you can see plenty of building over 14m. just completed or already being completed within 200m.

So why VT7 should be stopped? It fits nicely within all the buildings built for the last 20 years. Do you think that the group of farangs can challenge the law, which applied constantly for 20 years. I don't think so.

I think if you take a more careful look at buildings built along Dongtarn and Jomtien beaches over the past twenty years, you will see that the 200 meter law was adhered to for a very long time. Jomtien Condotel, Grand Condotel, Jomtien Complex, Jomtien Plaza, Jomtien Condominium, Pattaya Park, and many others were all built more than 200 meters from the shore. Any of these buildings could have been built smack on the beach if there was no 200 meter regulation. Why weren't they?

Then came the attack of the Killer Talays: huge boring white slabs that were constructed with only one thing in mind -- monster profit. The Talays were fine when they kept their place across Thappraya Road. But then VT 5 barged in on Dongtarn Beach, clearly violating the 200 meter line. Now, VT 7 looms and blocks -- not only the views of Jomtien Complex, but also the southerly views of View Talay 5.

Soon other inappropriate and illegal buildings will follow and the quality of the Jomtien-Dongtarn seaside environmnent will be ruined forever. Just take a look at the worst parts of the Costa del Sol or Miami Beach. That will be the future here.

By the way, the current blocks of VT 5 are named "C" and "D". Where do you think "A" and "B" will be built?

Thankyou BB - those were exactly the points I had on the tip of my tongue. You saved me time regurgitating the same ols reasons again and again that have been posted in this thread and others.

Just a small addition - Jomtien Plaza - The tall curved condo building just to the south accross the street from VT7 is built illegally close to the sea. Why? no one complained

The building just to the north of VT7 is of course VT5 Why - someone did complain but the frighteners were put on them. Why should someone (VT) need to put the frighteners on if they were 100% legal? Of course if VT7 is stopped then this will then not stop someone complaining against VT5. I am told a legal case has already been prepared against VT5. This must be done before the 5 year mark after completion. Hence Jomtien Plaza is safe now.

As you point out BB - just look line of sight along Pattaya bay in particular and you would be hard pushed to see a building too close to MSL. Even VT6 (I think I got the number right) is to the inch 200 meters back. Now why is this? why should VT park their concrete cornflake packet 200 meters back when there is loads of room to the beachside of their building line? I guess because it would stick out like the concrete sore thumb it is.

A previous poster asked - why did Jomtien Complex not build closer to the sea when they owned the land?

Two good reasons here. 1. They were not allowed to unless they got special permission (nudge nudge wink wink) 2. They actually did exploratory drilling and found the site was UNSUITABLE for building a tall structure. Strange how VT didn't have this problem

[Tammi]

Thankyou BB - those were exactly the points I had on the tip of my tongue. You saved me time regurgitating the same ols reasons again and again that have been posted in this thread and others.

Just a small addition - Jomtien Plaza - The tall curved condo building just to the south accross the street from VT7 is built illegally close to the sea. Why? no one complained

The building just to the north of VT7 is of course VT5 Why - someone did complain but the frighteners were put on them. Why should someone (VT) need to put the frighteners on if they were 100% legal? Of course if VT7 is stopped then this will then not stop someone complaining against VT5. I am told a legal case has already been prepared against VT5. This must be done before the 5 year mark after completion. Hence Jomtien Plaza is safe now.

As you point out BB - just look line of sight along Pattaya bay in particular and you would be hard pushed to see a building too close to MSL. Even VT6 (I think I got the number right) is to the inch 200 meters back. Now why is this? why should VT park their concrete cornflake packet 200 meters back when there is loads of room to the beachside of their building line? I guess because it would stick out like the concrete sore thumb it is.

A previous poster asked - why did Jomtien Complex not build closer to the sea when they owned the land?

Two good reasons here. 1. They were not allowed to unless they got special permission (nudge nudge wink wink) 2. They actually did exploratory drilling and found the site was UNSUITABLE for building a tall structure. Strange how VT didn't have this problem

By whom? My co-owner contacts at Grand Condotel haven't heard anything, Surely the Committee would have informed the co-owners. But again maybe not. Grand Condo co-owners were told at the last AGM that they had no right to see the accounting books. And one of the Committee Members at Grand Condo is also on Jomthien Condotel Committee and Jomthien Condotel's accounting is displayed in the lobby every month for EVERYBODY, co-owners and visitors, to peruse. Go figure!

[Tammi]

I think if you take a more careful look at buildings built along Dongtarn and Jomtien beaches over the past twenty years, you will see that the 200 meter law was adhered to for a very long time. Jomtien Condotel, Grand Condotel, Jomtien Complex, Jomtien Plaza, Jomtien Condominium, Pattaya Park, and many others were all built more than 200 meters from the shore. Any of these buildings could have been built smack on the beach if there was no 200 meter regulation. Why weren't they?

Then came the attack of the Killer Talays: huge boring white slabs that were constructed with only one thing in mind -- monster profit. The Talays were fine when they kept their place across Thappraya Road. But then VT 5 barged in on Dongtarn Beach, clearly violating the 200 meter line. Now, VT 7 looms and blocks -- not only the views of Jomtien Complex, but also the southerly views of View Talay 5.

Soon other inappropriate and illegal buildings will follow and the quality of the Jomtien-Dongtarn seaside environmnent will be ruined forever. Just take a look at the worst parts of the Costa del Sol or Miami Beach. That will be the future here.

By the way, the current blocks of VT 5 are named "C" and "D". Where do you think "A" and "B" will be built?

I didn't know the already built cereal box and the one under construction are "C" and "D". And I didn't know that VT bought that whole block of land. If this is the case then I would think that VT is planning to build "A" and "B" right next door to "C" and "D".

Interesting to go on www.viewtalaycondo.com and look at the picture of VT7. Grand Condotel and VT5 have been erased.

[brooklynbridge]

I think if you take a more careful look at buildings built along Dongtarn and Jomtien beaches over the past twenty years, you will see that the 200 meter law was adhered to for a very long time. Jomtien Condotel, Grand Condotel, Jomtien Complex, Jomtien Plaza, Jomtien Condominium, Pattaya Park, and many others were all built more than 200 meters from the shore. Any of these buildings could have been built smack on the beach if there was no 200 meter regulation. Why weren't they?

Then came the attack of the Killer Talays: huge boring white slabs that were constructed with only one thing in mind -- monster profit. The Talays were fine when they kept their place across Thappraya Road. But then VT 5 barged in on Dongtarn Beach, clearly violating the 200 meter line. Now, VT 7 looms and blocks -- not only the views of Jomtien Complex, but also the southerly views of View Talay 5.

Soon other inappropriate and illegal buildings will follow and the quality of the Jomtien-Dongtarn seaside environmnent will be ruined forever. Just take a look at the worst parts of the Costa del Sol or Miami Beach. That will be the future here.

By the way, the current blocks of VT 5 are named "C" and "D". Where do you think "A" and "B" will be built?

I didn't know the already built cereal box and the one under construction are "C" and "D". And I didn't know that VT bought that whole block of land. If this is the case then I would think that VT is planning to build "A" and "B" right next door to "C" and "D".

Interesting to go on www.viewtalaycondo.com and look at the picture of VT7. Grand Condotel and VT5 have been erased.

I think your constant comparison of VT buildings to cereal boxes gives cereal boxes a bad name. They, after all, contain corn-flakes which are tasty and nutritious!

The Views Talay remind me of massive Stalinist housing projects. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the developer hired soviet architects who lwere out of work once the cold war ended.

View Talay 7 does represent a breakthrough, however. The architects have learned to draw something other than a ninety-degree angle.

Edited September 14, 2007 by brooklynbridge

[OneMikeInBangkok]

I think your constant comparison of VT buildings to cereal boxes gives cereal boxes a bad name. They, after all, contain corn-flakes which are tasty and nutritious!

The Views Talay remind me of massive Stalinist housing projects. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the developer hired soviet architects who lwere out of work once the cold war ended.

View Talay 7 does represent a breakthrough, however. The architects have learned to draw something other than a ninety-degree angle.

The reason for this digression from the normal cereal box "My apologies Kellogs" is of course the shape of the land. There was just no room to build it square on to the sea as usual. Plus they wanted I believe out of pure spite to f*** the views of Jomtien Complex.

I understand that a market survey of future owners was done before the plans were finalized. The most popular design chosen by future owners was a quadrangle shape that was to feature a central exercise yard and four tall "security towers" with security guards armed with rifles.

This was rejected as View Talay thought the residents should enjoy a different type of accommodation to what they were used to back home.

[OhdLover]

The lack of informations pushes the topic once again into the direction where wannabee standup comedians try their luck.

What do you guys think about the excellent design of JCC, this modern piece of art needs to be protected, so people can faint from admiration, when they walk on the beach discovering Jomtien?

C'mon.... Jomtien is just a tourist spot, go to Greece if you want to see what you want Jomtien to be.

I've got a house in Holland, ugly view outside, but great once you enter. I don't care, it's about the best spot in town.

My appartment in VT7 (11th floor) will be the same in 2010, not the most beautiful building, but great once you open the appartment's frontdoor.

I will spend more time inside than watching the building from the outside.

And the Y-shape isn't that ugly at all, compared to the former VT's.

However, I would have expected VT been willing to make a deal with the JCC-people, get rid of the Y-shape and build a rectangle like the other VT's. This way there wouldnt have been any legal procedures (JCC would keep most of there view) and VT would have been able to sell the appartments on the backside, since nobody seems to be interested in these, because of the way they are designed.

This would have been the perfect deal, don't know why they didnt take the chance. Probably because they will win this way as well.

[marekm1]

Thank you stopvt7 for providing the map regarding VT7. All I see from that map that the law has been applied consistently for many years. When you look at the left there is a building(I think it's called Jomtien Condominium) 30 stories over 20 years old well within 200m. And now if you look at the right is the another building within the same distance. Some recon is no legal. But have a walk along Pataya beach and you can see plenty of building over 14m. just completed or already being completed within 200m.

So why VT7 should be stopped? It fits nicely within all the buildings built for the last 20 years. Do you think that the group of farangs can challenge the law, which applied constantly for 20 years. I don't think so.

I think if you take a more careful look at buildings built along Dongtarn and Jomtien beaches over the past twenty years, you will see that the 200 meter law was adhered to for a very long time. Jomtien Condotel, Grand Condotel, Jomtien Complex, Jomtien Plaza, Jomtien Condominium, Pattaya Park, and many others were all built more than 200 meters from the shore. Any of these buildings could have been built smack on the beach if there was no 200 meter regulation. Why weren't they?

Then came the attack of the Killer Talays: huge boring white slabs that were constructed with only one thing in mind -- monster profit. The Talays were fine when they kept their place across Thappraya Road. But then VT 5 barged in on Dongtarn Beach, clearly violating the 200 meter line. Now, VT 7 looms and blocks -- not only the views of Jomtien Complex, but also the southerly views of View Talay 5.

Soon other inappropriate and illegal buildings will follow and the quality of the Jomtien-Dongtarn seaside environmnent will be ruined forever. Just take a look at the worst parts of the Costa del Sol or Miami Beach. That will be the future here.

By the way, the current blocks of VT 5 are named "C" and "D". Where do you think "A" and "B" will be built?

Thankyou BB - those were exactly the points I had on the tip of my tongue. You saved me time regurgitating the same ols reasons again and again that have been posted in this thread and others.

Just a small addition - Jomtien Plaza - The tall curved condo building just to the south accross the street from VT7 is built illegally close to the sea. Why? no one complained

The building just to the north of VT7 is of course VT5 Why - someone did complain but the frighteners were put on them. Why should someone (VT) need to put the frighteners on if they were 100% legal? Of course if VT7 is stopped then this will then not stop someone complaining against VT5. I am told a legal case has already been prepared against VT5. This must be done before the 5 year mark after completion. Hence Jomtien Plaza is safe now.

As you point out BB - just look line of sight along Pattaya bay in particular and you would be hard pushed to see a building too close to MSL. Even VT6 (I think I got the number right) is to the inch 200 meters back. Now why is this? why should VT park their concrete cornflake packet 200 meters back when there is loads of room to the beachside of their building line? I guess because it would stick out like the concrete sore thumb it is.

A previous poster asked - why did Jomtien Complex not build closer to the sea when they owned the land?

Two good reasons here. 1. They were not allowed to unless they got special permission (nudge nudge wink wink) 2. They actually did exploratory drilling and found the site was UNSUITABLE for building a tall structure. Strange how VT didn't have this problem

VT6, the one in Pattaya, which is just being completed is about 140 from the MSL. That’s according to the google earth. It’s not marked yet so you cannot see it, but it is well within 200m. From the older ones you can see Hard Rock Hotel well within 200m. There are many other Buildings, not so high as view talay but still over 14m. and well within 200m.

[Spaniel]

Thank you stopvt7 for providing the map regarding VT7. All I see from that map that the law has been applied consistently for many years. When you look at the left there is a building(I think it's called Jomtien Condominium) 30 stories over 20 years old well within 200m. And now if you look at the right is the another building within the same distance. Some recon is no legal. But have a walk along Pataya beach and you can see plenty of building over 14m. just completed or already being completed within 200m.

So why VT7 should be stopped? It fits nicely within all the buildings built for the last 20 years. Do you think that the group of farangs can challenge the law, which applied constantly for 20 years. I don't think so.

I think if you take a more careful look at buildings built along Dongtarn and Jomtien beaches over the past twenty years, you will see that the 200 meter law was adhered to for a very long time. Jomtien Condotel, Grand Condotel, Jomtien Complex, Jomtien Plaza, Jomtien Condominium, Pattaya Park, and many others were all built more than 200 meters from the shore. Any of these buildings could have been built smack on the beach if there was no 200 meter regulation. Why weren't they?

Then came the attack of the Killer Talays: huge boring white slabs that were constructed with only one thing in mind -- monster profit. The Talays were fine when they kept their place across Thappraya Road. But then VT 5 barged in on Dongtarn Beach, clearly violating the 200 meter line. Now, VT 7 looms and blocks -- not only the views of Jomtien Complex, but also the southerly views of View Talay 5.

Soon other inappropriate and illegal buildings will follow and the quality of the Jomtien-Dongtarn seaside environmnent will be ruined forever. Just take a look at the worst parts of the Costa del Sol or Miami Beach. That will be the future here.

By the way, the current blocks of VT 5 are named "C" and "D". Where do you think "A" and "B" will be built?

"A" and "B" have already been built. Arn't they the two View Talay buildings on the other side of Thap Phraya Road?