Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[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?

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

I don't think so. Across Thap Phraya Road is View Talay 2, not View Talay 5. But there is a nice piece of undeveloped land between VT 7 and VT 5. I wonder who owns it?

[lookat]

"I don't think so. Across Thap Phraya Road is View Talay 2, not View Talay 5. But there is a nice piece of undeveloped land between VT 7 and VT 5. I wonder who owns it?"

View Talay owns its!

[ThaiBob]

"I don't think so. Across Thap Phraya Road is View Talay 2, not View Talay 5. But there is a nice piece of undeveloped land between VT 7 and VT 5. I wonder who owns it?"

View Talay owns its!

Not clear to the exact plot of land people are referring. There is a long narrow plot directly adjacent to VT5 (south towards VT7) which would be ideal for another VT project. The official VT line is they do not own the land and the owner planned high-end homes. I don't believe it and thought like others that would be the site of buildings A and B. VT says that VT3 and VT5 were planned together and that buildings A and B are at VT3, and C and D are at VT5. I believe with costs the way they are ( and escalating) that high-density buldings (love them or hate them) are the future of this area of the beach.

[ThaiBob]

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.

Please don't point this out. The conspiracy theorists don't want to hear that City Hall may have consistently applied the law and not taken money to look the other way.

[lookat]

"I don't think so. Across Thap Phraya Road is View Talay 2, not View Talay 5. But there is a nice piece of undeveloped land between VT 7 and VT 5. I wonder who owns it?"

View Talay owns its!

Not clear to the exact plot of land people are referring. There is a long narrow plot directly adjacent to VT5 (south towards VT7) which would be ideal for another VT project. The official VT line is they do not own the land and the owner planned high-end homes. I don't believe it and thought like others that would be the site of buildings A and B. VT says that VT3 and VT5 were planned together and that buildings A and B are at VT3, and C and D are at VT5. I believe with costs the way they are ( and escalating) that high-density buldings (love them or hate them) are the future of this area of the beach.

They hauled dirt from vt7 around the corner to this land between vt7 and vt5. It is owned in the daughter’s name.

[Tammi]

"I don't think so. Across Thap Phraya Road is View Talay 2, not View Talay 5. But there is a nice piece of undeveloped land between VT 7 and VT 5. I wonder who owns it?"

View Talay owns its!

Not clear to the exact plot of land people are referring. There is a long narrow plot directly adjacent to VT5 (south towards VT7) which would be ideal for another VT project. The official VT line is they do not own the land and the owner planned high-end homes. I don't believe it and thought like others that would be the site of buildings A and B. VT says that VT3 and VT5 were planned together and that buildings A and B are at VT3, and C and D are at VT5. I believe with costs the way they are ( and escalating) that high-density buldings (love them or hate them) are the future of this area of the beach.

High end homes wedged between hideous VTs? I think not.

By the way, recently had a meal at the Avalon Hotel (in front of VT5, beachside) and was impressed.

[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?

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.

Please don't point this out. The conspiracy theorists don't want to hear that City Hall may have consistently applied the law and not taken money to look the other way.

On the contrary, the selective application of this law points to another conclusion. Why did the developers of so many other buildings place their towers more than two hundred meters from the sea when they owned plots that would have allowed them to build closer? I really haven't the faintest idea.

[ThaiBob]

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.

Here is visual confirmation taken yesterday.

[OhdLover]

Here is visual confirmation taken yesterday.

Thanks Bob, it wont be until november before I'm back so it's good to see some pictures of the work in progress!

[lookat]

Yes, I heard today a complaint was file at the Supreme Admin Court in Bangkok. It about vt7 construction is now in violation of their court order.

Now we wait and see what happens next. Is this going to be a three story condo?

[lookat]

Is this going to be a three story condo? Thier room for 3 storys but not 4 befor vt7 reach 14 meters, but the steel rod is over 14 meters in the air.

[ThaiBob]

Is this going to be a three story condo? Thier room for 3 storys but not 4 befor vt7 reach 14 meters, but the steel rod is over 14 meters in the air.

Just a reminder that the lower level is a sunken parking garage so the height is probably less than 14 meters when measured from ground level and not the bottom of the garage. For perspective, there are 3 story buildings visible in the background and I suspect VT will go 3 stories and stop until the final court ruling. Speaking of which, does anyone know if the Court ordered MSL survey has been taken and if so when is the next court date?

[lookat]

The Issue 9 law states you can build a 14 meters high building from street level. For a measuring stick you can use a section of the crane stand. One section is equal to 1.25 meters.

Click on picture to enlarge.

[jpm76]

Is this going to be a three story condo? Thier room for 3 storys but not 4 befor vt7 reach 14 meters, but the steel rod is over 14 meters in the air.

Just a reminder that the lower level is a sunken parking garage so the height is probably less than 14 meters when measured from ground level and not the bottom of the garage. For perspective, there are 3 story buildings visible in the background and I suspect VT will go 3 stories and stop until the final court ruling. Speaking of which, does anyone know if the Court ordered MSL survey has been taken and if so when is the next court date?

ThaiBob, I think that the next court date is November 28 or something like that. This is the Rayong court date I believe, but i could be mistaken as I am basically following on what others are saying, and I don't pretend to know everything that is going on there, but after reading some of the posts and the articles attached, I, as a VT7 owner am at least seeing some chance here that this could still be built... seems that they have the support of professional opinions. Anyway, from reading the Supremem Court Amendment, it appears now that the argument may centre upon the height of the building. Fingers crossed VT7 may see the light of day yet, and my money will not be wasted away. Long way to go yet though.

[Tammi]

Is this going to be a three story condo? Thier room for 3 storys but not 4 befor vt7 reach 14 meters, but the steel rod is over 14 meters in the air.

Just a reminder that the lower level is a sunken parking garage so the height is probably less than 14 meters when measured from ground level and not the bottom of the garage. For perspective, there are 3 story buildings visible in the background and I suspect VT will go 3 stories and stop until the final court ruling. Speaking of which, does anyone know if the Court ordered MSL survey has been taken and if so when is the next court date?

ThaiBob, I think that the next court date is November 28 or something like that. This is the Rayong court date I believe, but i could be mistaken as I am basically following on what others are saying, and I don't pretend to know everything that is going on there, but after reading some of the posts and the articles attached, I, as a VT7 owner am at least seeing some chance here that this could still be built... seems that they have the support of professional opinions. Anyway, from reading the Supremem Court Amendment, it appears now that the argument may centre upon the height of the building. Fingers crossed VT7 may see the light of day yet, and my money will not be wasted away. Long way to go yet though.

Steel rods will be cut - I shouldn't think VT will leave them sticking out when they are putting finishing touches to 14 meter high building.

Am sure you will get your money back but wonder how much interest VT will pay. Is there a clause re interest in your agreement?

[ThaiBob]

Is this going to be a three story condo? Thier room for 3 storys but not 4 befor vt7 reach 14 meters, but the steel rod is over 14 meters in the air.

Just a reminder that the lower level is a sunken parking garage so the height is probably less than 14 meters when measured from ground level and not the bottom of the garage. For perspective, there are 3 story buildings visible in the background and I suspect VT will go 3 stories and stop until the final court ruling. Speaking of which, does anyone know if the Court ordered MSL survey has been taken and if so when is the next court date?

ThaiBob, I think that the next court date is November 28 or something like that. This is the Rayong court date I believe, but i could be mistaken as I am basically following on what others are saying, and I don't pretend to know everything that is going on there, but after reading some of the posts and the articles attached, I, as a VT7 owner am at least seeing some chance here that this could still be built... seems that they have the support of professional opinions. Anyway, from reading the Supremem Court Amendment, it appears now that the argument may centre upon the height of the building. Fingers crossed VT7 may see the light of day yet, and my money will not be wasted away. Long way to go yet though.

... Is there a clause re interest in your agreement?

There is a clause in all VT project contracts that should the project be cancelled that interest is paid at the prevailing bank rate. That was the case for VT4.

[sharecropper]

I think one of the worst things about the View Talay buildings, including VT7, is that these aesthetics-free barbarians have desecrated what should have been a vibrant architectural environment with their ugly, lazily-designed and built constructions, guaranteeing the place will look like the Bronx for years to come.

[sharecropper]

All quiet on the site this morning, as I type at 9.30am (Thursday). Usually they have been working for a couple of hours by now. This might be related to the court application I read about just now, made yesterday, or it could simply be the rain! But if it was the latter I would expect to see workers lounging around under cover, and I can't see any, and anyway it has now stopped raining, and

I have just counted only 10 people down there, all seemingly concerned with erecting cranes.

No doubt they will be back in action in due course.

[Tammi]

I think one of the worst things about the View Talay buildings, including VT7, is that these aesthetics-free barbarians have desecrated what should have been a vibrant architectural environment with their ugly, lazily-designed and built constructions, guaranteeing the place will look like the Bronx for years to come.

And could very easily become 'slummy'. Co-owners have kitchens on their balconies - nothing worse looking than a pot-bellied old farang in his knickers frying eggs.

The Thais do have the skills to design beautiful hi-rises - what a pity VT doesn't, they didn't even angle the windows on VT5.

[sharecropper]

PS - I don't want to get anyone's hopes up, but the workers are now back in force, and the late start WAS due to the rain after all, and not the result of a court order!

[jpm76]

Is this going to be a three story condo? Thier room for 3 storys but not 4 befor vt7 reach 14 meters, but the steel rod is over 14 meters in the air.

Just a reminder that the lower level is a sunken parking garage so the height is probably less than 14 meters when measured from ground level and not the bottom of the garage. For perspective, there are 3 story buildings visible in the background and I suspect VT will go 3 stories and stop until the final court ruling. Speaking of which, does anyone know if the Court ordered MSL survey has been taken and if so when is the next court date?

ThaiBob, I think that the next court date is November 28 or something like that. This is the Rayong court date I believe, but i could be mistaken as I am basically following on what others are saying, and I don't pretend to know everything that is going on there, but after reading some of the posts and the articles attached, I, as a VT7 owner am at least seeing some chance here that this could still be built... seems that they have the support of professional opinions. Anyway, from reading the Supremem Court Amendment, it appears now that the argument may centre upon the height of the building. Fingers crossed VT7 may see the light of day yet, and my money will not be wasted away. Long way to go yet though.

... Is there a clause re interest in your agreement?

There is a clause in all VT project contracts that should the project be cancelled that interest is paid at the prevailing bank rate. That was the case for VT4.

Yes, I have been carefully reading the contracts as well and I see that we should get money back if the project is cancelled, but I am more concerned about any thoughts of winding the company bankrupt and leaving investors in the mess. Our contracts also state that it was supposed to be built by 2007 and if there were any changes to that, they were to inform us in writing. I never received anything, and doubt anything was sent. ThaiBob, are you still making payments on your contract??? VT7 said to me that I could suspend them, but I am just wondering if it may be a ploy to trip out my contract through non-payment for 3 months. I wrote to a thai lawyer in bangkok yesterday, but have yet to get a response. I want to get some lawyers onto this to see how this could go.

If there are any VT7 investors out there who may be interested in putting together for a thorough look at this form the point of law, write to me. I do not htink Thailand allows the corporate veil to be pulled back on these companies. At least VT7 still seem committed to building. They can keep their profits, I would just like my condo...no disrespect to Jomtien Condo investors or stopvt7.(sympathise with you to the extent that my bank balance says that I can).

Anyway, this has been a learning curve/experience!!! No more pre-construction deals for me in Thailand.

[ThaiBob]

Is this going to be a three story condo? Thier room for 3 storys but not 4 befor vt7 reach 14 meters, but the steel rod is over 14 meters in the air.

Just a reminder that the lower level is a sunken parking garage so the height is probably less than 14 meters when measured from ground level and not the bottom of the garage. For perspective, there are 3 story buildings visible in the background and I suspect VT will go 3 stories and stop until the final court ruling. Speaking of which, does anyone know if the Court ordered MSL survey has been taken and if so when is the next court date?

ThaiBob, I think that the next court date is November 28 or something like that. This is the Rayong court date I believe, but i could be mistaken as I am basically following on what others are saying, and I don't pretend to know everything that is going on there, but after reading some of the posts and the articles attached, I, as a VT7 owner am at least seeing some chance here that this could still be built... seems that they have the support of professional opinions. Anyway, from reading the Supremem Court Amendment, it appears now that the argument may centre upon the height of the building. Fingers crossed VT7 may see the light of day yet, and my money will not be wasted away. Long way to go yet though.

... Is there a clause re interest in your agreement?

There is a clause in all VT project contracts that should the project be cancelled that interest is paid at the prevailing bank rate. That was the case for VT4.

Yes, I have been carefully reading the contracts as well and I see that we should get money back if the project is cancelled, but I am more concerned about any thoughts of winding the company bankrupt and leaving investors in the mess. Our contracts also state that it was supposed to be built by 2007 and if there were any changes to that, they were to inform us in writing. I never received anything, and doubt anything was sent. ThaiBob, are you still making payments on your contract??? VT7 said to me that I could suspend them, but I am just wondering if it may be a ploy to trip out my contract through non-payment for 3 months. I wrote to a thai lawyer in bangkok yesterday, but have yet to get a response. I want to get some lawyers onto this to see how this could go.

If there are any VT7 investors out there who may be interested in putting together for a thorough look at this form the point of law, write to me. I do not htink Thailand allows the corporate veil to be pulled back on these companies. At least VT7 still seem committed to building. They can keep their profits, I would just like my condo...no disrespect to Jomtien Condo investors or stopvt7.(sympathise with you to the extent that my bank balance says that I can).

Anyway, this has been a learning curve/experience!!! No more pre-construction deals for me in Thailand.

I sent you an email.

[jpm76]

Is this going to be a three story condo? Thier room for 3 storys but not 4 befor vt7 reach 14 meters, but the steel rod is over 14 meters in the air.

Just a reminder that the lower level is a sunken parking garage so the height is probably less than 14 meters when measured from ground level and not the bottom of the garage. For perspective, there are 3 story buildings visible in the background and I suspect VT will go 3 stories and stop until the final court ruling. Speaking of which, does anyone know if the Court ordered MSL survey has been taken and if so when is the next court date?

ThaiBob, I think that the next court date is November 28 or something like that. This is the Rayong court date I believe, but i could be mistaken as I am basically following on what others are saying, and I don't pretend to know everything that is going on there, but after reading some of the posts and the articles attached, I, as a VT7 owner am at least seeing some chance here that this could still be built... seems that they have the support of professional opinions. Anyway, from reading the Supremem Court Amendment, it appears now that the argument may centre upon the height of the building. Fingers crossed VT7 may see the light of day yet, and my money will not be wasted away. Long way to go yet though.

... Is there a clause re interest in your agreement?

There is a clause in all VT project contracts that should the project be cancelled that interest is paid at the prevailing bank rate. That was the case for VT4.

Yes, I have been carefully reading the contracts as well and I see that we should get money back if the project is cancelled, but I am more concerned about any thoughts of winding the company bankrupt and leaving investors in the mess. Our contracts also state that it was supposed to be built by 2007 and if there were any changes to that, they were to inform us in writing. I never received anything, and doubt anything was sent. ThaiBob, are you still making payments on your contract??? VT7 said to me that I could suspend them, but I am just wondering if it may be a ploy to trip out my contract through non-payment for 3 months. I wrote to a thai lawyer in bangkok yesterday, but have yet to get a response. I want to get some lawyers onto this to see how this could go.

If there are any VT7 investors out there who may be interested in putting together for a thorough look at this form the point of law, write to me. I do not htink Thailand allows the corporate veil to be pulled back on these companies. At least VT7 still seem committed to building. They can keep their profits, I would just like my condo...no disrespect to Jomtien Condo investors or stopvt7.(sympathise with you to the extent that my bank balance says that I can).

Anyway, this has been a learning curve/experience!!! No more pre-construction deals for me in Thailand.

I sent you an email.

Thanks ThaiBob. Just want to correct my last posting. I was reading the generic English contract rather than the specific VT7 contract and the contract date is 2010. I am still interested in hearing frmo VT7 investors who just want to get a handle on the legal consequences of some of the recent events. I have had a few replies already from interested people, but looking to get more. hopefully all will be fine and it will go ahead but best covering all angles. Will look for a lawyer from the capital, Bangkok to get impartiality. Just send me a personal email and I get there sent to my personal email account.

[lookat]

A great new posting on http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/ . Which gives good information for understanding concerning the measuring 200 meters from MSL?

After reading the posting I would not want to be a purchaser of a condo at vt7.

Also a new blog in Thai at http://stopvt7thai.blogspot.com/ . I can’t read Thai but the pictures are different.

[brooklynbridge]

A great new posting on http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/ . Which gives good information for understanding concerning the measuring 200 meters from MSL?

After reading the posting I would not want to be a purchaser of a condo at vt7.

Also a new blog in Thai at http://stopvt7thai.blogspot.com/ . I can't read Thai but the pictures are different.

WOW!

This is impressive and well worth the read. I wonder how the City Hall/VT7 attorneys will respond. Amnat's arguments seem irrefutable.

Does anyone know if the Administrative Court is required to justify its final judgment? Does the court hand down an opinion or just say yes or no?

If VT7 construction goes over 14 meters, will the Jomtien Complex lawyers seek to reinstate the injunction that the Supreme Court lifted?

Edited September 21, 2007 by brooklynbridge

[Irene]

A great new posting on http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/ . Which gives good information for understanding concerning the measuring 200 meters from MSL?

After reading the posting I would not want to be a purchaser of a condo at vt7.

Also a new blog in Thai at http://stopvt7thai.blogspot.com/ . I can't read Thai but the pictures are different.

WOW!

This is impressive and well worth the read. I wonder how the City Hall/VT7 attorneys will respond. Amnat's arguments seem irrefutable.

Does anyone know if the Administrative Court is required to justify its final judgment? Does the court hand down an opinion or just say yes or no?

If VT7 construction goes over 14 meters, will the Jomtien Complex lawyers seek to reinstate the injunction that the Supreme Court lifted?

The Court has to give reasons for its judgment.

[stopvt7]

A great new posting on http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/ . Which gives good information for understanding concerning the measuring 200 meters from MSL?

After reading the posting I would not want to be a purchaser of a condo at vt7.

Also a new blog in Thai at http://stopvt7thai.blogspot.com/ . I can't read Thai but the pictures are different.

WOW!

This is impressive and well worth the read. I wonder how the City Hall/VT7 attorneys will respond. Amnat's arguments seem irrefutable.

Does anyone know if the Administrative Court is required to justify its final judgment? Does the court hand down an opinion or just say yes or no?

If VT7 construction goes over 14 meters, will the Jomtien Complex lawyers seek to reinstate the injunction that the Supreme Court lifted?

The Court has to give reasons for its judgment.

Like the law says you can not build over 14 meters high building above road level until you are 200 meters from MSL. Your building permit is revoked.

[ThaiBob]

A great new posting on http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/ . Which gives good information for understanding concerning the measuring 200 meters from MSL?

After reading the posting I would not want to be a purchaser of a condo at vt7.

Also a new blog in Thai at http://stopvt7thai.blogspot.com/ . I can’t read Thai but the pictures are different.

I understand why you used the question mark.

This court filing is much more that the titled "Explanations". The key is the underlined in the last paragraph. It is implied that the Court has already issued an order that the measurement be made 100 meter from MSL. This filing was 3 weeks ago (August 31st). Has the court modified the order to 200 meters? Has the "to be named expert witness" performed the survey?

[stopvt7]

A great new posting on http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/ . Which gives good information for understanding concerning the measuring 200 meters from MSL?

After reading the posting I would not want to be a purchaser of a condo at vt7.

Also a new blog in Thai at http://stopvt7thai.blogspot.com/ . I can't read Thai but the pictures are different.

I understand why you used the question mark.

This court filing is much more that the titled "Explanations". The key is the underlined in the last paragraph. It is implied that the Court has already issued an order that the measurement be made 100 meter from MSL. This filing was 3 weeks ago (August 31st). Has the court modified the order to 200 meters? Has the "to be named expert witness" performed the survey?

The only definable point on the map is Mean Sea Level or MSL. Issue 9 states to measure 200 meter before you can build over 14 meters from road level. So the stopvt7 group claims you measure from the only definable point on the map MSL 200 meters onto the land then VT7 could build over 14 meters from the road height.

But city hall claims and VT7 claims the one arrow which notes “100 meter” mean you must measure 100 meter into the sea, before measure onto the land 200 meters or measure 300 meters.

The “100 meter” only define where the “Borderline of the construction restricted area” can be found from the only definable point MSL. Two arrow pointing at each other with a dimension on one arrow means only the distance between the arrow points.

It doesn’t mean measure into the sea!

[Tammi]

Somebody wrote earlier on this topic that a case has been filed to have VT5 removed. Can this be verified?