Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[stopvt7]

The EIA (Environment Report) states all workers must have had hard hats and safety shoes. What a joke! This was a conditions for a building permit! Pattaya city hall must enforce these hard hat and safety shoe requirements.

Check the 4th floor poor.

[ThaiBob]

I think we can all agree that the View Talays are not going to win any architectural awards but there are few if any high-rises in Pattaya that will. Ok, maybe the some of the newer projects, Ocean Tower or North Pointe might qualify but these are 5* projects. I have friends in almost all the View Talays buildings and they seem quite happy and satisfied.

We can all speculate as to how the Court may rule (200 meters Vs 100 meters) but I find it interesting that a 200 meter survey was not perfomed as requested by the VT7 opponents. My take is the Court wants a clear definition of the MSL marker and the survey was done at 100 meters.

Saturday we have finished two and a half days watching the Rayong Administrative Court ordered survey by a Bangkok surveyor from the Ministry of the Interior. It was witnessed by Pattaya City Hall officials and representative of our condo. It started at the Pattaya Meteorological Station where a Mean Sea Level (MSL) reference pin is located. This pin is approximately 60 meters above sea level. Starting at this pin, measurements had to be made down to the sea by using surveying instruments to establish MSL in front of VT7.

From the international standard, which is at +1.448 meter elevation for MSL, the location of the VT7 building starts about 87 meters from MSL and the entire building is inside the 200 meter which is stated in Issue 9 as the limit for construction that is to be no more than 14 meters high. We now wait for the official report to the court by the Bangkok surveyor group.

So Stop VT doesn't state for SURE wether a 200 or 100 meter survey was done. Seems to me, my interpretation of his statement that MSL was measured. The distance to VT7 from MSL was measured and the 200 meter mark from MSL was measured - otherwise how would they know "The entire building is inside the 200 meter"

Still all the bickering over 100 or 200 meter doesn't seem to matter as much as whatever law you look at VT7 is buggered

87 is the magic number - whoops!!!!!!!!!!

You could be right but there was more to the VT7 opponents request in late September than just the 200 meter measurement. They requested quote "the 10 litigants request the court to revoke the construction permit No. 162/2007" which obviously didn't happen. One could conclude a 200 meter measurement was not performed.

Did the surveyors confirm City Hall's original VT7 measurement (104 meters?) from the old MSL? There is no mention of it. Was that done accurately? What we have now is a new MSL which the Court may decide as the new standard for future projects. BTW, the official line from the VT office yesterday is "they are going ahead with the construction and that all went well with the measurement". Go figure.

[soihok]

I thought that the whole View Talay thing was controlled by a Russian guy.What a contribution to the Pattaya community and Thailand.

Cant wait for the next one,,

Som nam na

Edited November 18, 2007 by soihok

[soihok]

Or should I say Thai Company

[OneMikeInBangkok]

I think we can all agree that the View Talays are not going to win any architectural awards but there are few if any high-rises in Pattaya that will. Ok, maybe the some of the newer projects, Ocean Tower or North Pointe might qualify but these are 5* projects. I have friends in almost all the View Talays buildings and they seem quite happy and satisfied.

We can all speculate as to how the Court may rule (200 meters Vs 100 meters) but I find it interesting that a 200 meter survey was not perfomed as requested by the VT7 opponents. My take is the Court wants a clear definition of the MSL marker and the survey was done at 100 meters.

Saturday we have finished two and a half days watching the Rayong Administrative Court ordered survey by a Bangkok surveyor from the Ministry of the Interior. It was witnessed by Pattaya City Hall officials and representative of our condo. It started at the Pattaya Meteorological Station where a Mean Sea Level (MSL) reference pin is located. This pin is approximately 60 meters above sea level. Starting at this pin, measurements had to be made down to the sea by using surveying instruments to establish MSL in front of VT7.

From the international standard, which is at +1.448 meter elevation for MSL, the location of the VT7 building starts about 87 meters from MSL and the entire building is inside the 200 meter which is stated in Issue 9 as the limit for construction that is to be no more than 14 meters high. We now wait for the official report to the court by the Bangkok surveyor group.

So Stop VT doesn't state for SURE wether a 200 or 100 meter survey was done. Seems to me, my interpretation of his statement that MSL was measured. The distance to VT7 from MSL was measured and the 200 meter mark from MSL was measured - otherwise how would they know "The entire building is inside the 200 meter"

Still all the bickering over 100 or 200 meter doesn't seem to matter as much as whatever law you look at VT7 is buggered

87 is the magic number - whoops!!!!!!!!!!

You could be right but there was more to the VT7 opponents request in late September than just the 200 meter measurement. They requested quote "the 10 litigants request the court to revoke the construction permit No. 162/2007" which obviously didn't happen. One could conclude a 200 meter measurement was not performed.

Did the surveyors confirm City Hall's original VT7 measurement (104 meters?) from the old MSL? There is no mention of it. Was that done accurately? What we have now is a new MSL which the Court may decide as the new standard for future projects. BTW, the official line from the VT office yesterday is "they are going ahead with the construction and that all went well with the measurement". Go figure.

Measurment of MSL in front of View Talay

"they are going ahead with construction" - Thais have never been, are not so and probably will never be that good at the English Language.

So maybe the use of the present continuous tense is a grammatical error rather than an error in fact.

Right now (And for the last two weeks) construction is certainly not "going ahead"

They stopped at 14 meters as the Supreme Court ordered.

White protective paint has been applied to the exposed rebar jutting out from the TOP floor. (4th floor) or future penthouse floor if you want to stretch it that far

A decision may come this year - I seriously doubt that and then will inevitably come the appeals either from VT7 or JCC whoever wins. Those appeals could well take many many months or even years.

[OhdLover]

It seems to me that a great deal of this thread should be titled "GOTCHA SUCKER"

A few months ago the VT7's were mocking the JCC's saying "You idiots – you bought a unit that you thought would always look out to sea! Well, screw you. TIT Your lawyer was wrong. There is no such thing as a guaranteed sea view no matter what the Thai law says. HA HA HA GOTCHA SUCKER!"

Now, the JCC's are chortling "You idiots – you put down money on a building that will never get built!!! You thought you would be drinking beer on a high balcony looking out to sea! Well, screw you. TIT. Your lawyer was wrong. There is no such thing as a guaranteed construction permit no matter what the developer says. HAHAHA. GOTCHA SUCKER!"

Prediction: more schadenfreude to come.

I have never called the JCC-people idiots. If you care to read my contributions I stand that we are just on different sides.

If I were a JCC-owner I would sure encourage stopVT to go on with his fight against the city hall.

Let's not forget this is not a personal issue, it's just people trying to take care of their investments, either built or to be built.

I have no problem wit stopvt, as he will probably not have with me, because, again, this is not personal.

As for Mike, the fact you didn't mention the number of children that were officially reported to have died on the construction area of VT7, tells me that number is equal to zero, right?

The guy who makes this thing personal is OneMikeInBKK, I call that immature behavior.

Whoever wins this case, there's no reason to accuse people of things they couldn't reasonably know about.

How would I be able to know in advance that people are not wearing safety caps ot that there are children playing on the site??

How could you possibly accuse me of being responsable for that?

That's just a sick appeal.

Besides, what would you want me to do??

Go to the site and correct people's behavior?

So, to take this out of the personal issue, I won't react on OneMikeInBKK (his nick is a lie apparantly, since he seems to live in Jomtien) anymore and stick to the facts.

[brooklynbridge]

It seems to me that a great deal of this thread should be titled "GOTCHA SUCKER"

A few months ago the VT7's were mocking the JCC's saying "You idiots – you bought a unit that you thought would always look out to sea! Well, screw you. TIT Your lawyer was wrong. There is no such thing as a guaranteed sea view no matter what the Thai law says. HA HA HA GOTCHA SUCKER!"

Now, the JCC's are chortling "You idiots – you put down money on a building that will never get built!!! You thought you would be drinking beer on a high balcony looking out to sea! Well, screw you. TIT. Your lawyer was wrong. There is no such thing as a guaranteed construction permit no matter what the developer says. HAHAHA. GOTCHA SUCKER!"

Prediction: more schadenfreude to come.

I have never called the JCC-people idiots. If you care to read my contributions I stand that we are just on different sides.

If I were a JCC-owner I would sure encourage stopVT to go on with his fight against the city hall.

Let's not forget this is not a personal issue, it's just people trying to take care of their investments, either built or to be built.

I have no problem wit stopvt, as he will probably not have with me, because, again, this is not personal.

As for Mike, the fact you didn't mention the number of children that were officially reported to have died on the construction area of VT7, tells me that number is equal to zero, right?

The guy who makes this thing personal is OneMikeInBKK, I call that immature behavior.

Whoever wins this case, there's no reason to accuse people of things they couldn't reasonably know about.

How would I be able to know in advance that people are not wearing safety caps ot that there are children playing on the site??

How could you possibly accuse me of being responsable for that?

That's just a sick appeal.

Besides, what would you want me to do??

Go to the site and correct people's behavior?

So, to take this out of the personal issue, I won't react on OneMikeInBKK (his nick is a lie apparantly, since he seems to live in Jomtien) anymore and stick to the facts.

I'll just quote one of your previous missives:

I'm still convinced that with some delay, I will be opening my high-floor-door in VT7 in 2010, drink a beer, and think about OneMikeInBKK with a "sorry-dude-but-your-bigtalk-didn't-work-out"-smile on my face.

To me, that seems very personal, not to mention immature. It also is a prime example of the kind of "gotcha" talk I was referring to.

So don't be disingenuous.

Dream on about your beer on the balcony.

By the way, I'm not in Brooklyn.

Edited November 19, 2007 by brooklynbridge

[OneMikeInBangkok]

It seems to me that a great deal of this thread should be titled "GOTCHA SUCKER"

A few months ago the VT7's were mocking the JCC's saying "You idiots – you bought a unit that you thought would always look out to sea! Well, screw you. TIT Your lawyer was wrong. There is no such thing as a guaranteed sea view no matter what the Thai law says. HA HA HA GOTCHA SUCKER!"

Now, the JCC's are chortling "You idiots – you put down money on a building that will never get built!!! You thought you would be drinking beer on a high balcony looking out to sea! Well, screw you. TIT. Your lawyer was wrong. There is no such thing as a guaranteed construction permit no matter what the developer says. HAHAHA. GOTCHA SUCKER!"

Prediction: more schadenfreude to come.

I have never called the JCC-people idiots. If you care to read my contributions I stand that we are just on different sides.

If I were a JCC-owner I would sure encourage stopVT to go on with his fight against the city hall.

Let's not forget this is not a personal issue, it's just people trying to take care of their investments, either built or to be built.

I have no problem wit stopvt, as he will probably not have with me, because, again, this is not personal.

As for Mike, the fact you didn't mention the number of children that were officially reported to have died on the construction area of VT7, tells me that number is equal to zero, right?

The guy who makes this thing personal is OneMikeInBKK, I call that immature behavior.

Whoever wins this case, there's no reason to accuse people of things they couldn't reasonably know about.

How would I be able to know in advance that people are not wearing safety caps ot that there are children playing on the site??

How could you possibly accuse me of being responsable for that?

That's just a sick appeal.

Besides, what would you want me to do??

Go to the site and correct people's behavior?

So, to take this out of the personal issue, I won't react on OneMikeInBKK (his nick is a lie apparantly, since he seems to live in Jomtien) anymore and stick to the facts.

OneMikeInBangkok is my handle

It could be OneMikeInAmsterdam

Of course I live in Jomtien - I made that very clear. If I didn't how could I possibly give al the reports about the shenannigans on the VT site.

Am I a liar by using OneMikeInBangkok? Now who is throwing the personal insults?

Did you ever hear the song "One Night in Bangkok" this is where the name comes from

I have spent over 5,000 nights in Bangkok over the last few years and over 2,000 nights in Pattaya/Jomtien so I think that qualifies me to pass a few coments/opinions on what goes down here.

Right now I am getting ready to go to a meeting in Bangkok and will probably notch up just one more "Night in Bangkok' tonight in my Bangkok residence.

Children

Where oh where did I state children had been killed?

I stated quite clearly that on numerous occasions I had seen or heard children on site. I gave one example that shocked and scared me.

I will however ask this question of you Mr. Ohd

How will you feel if in a few days or weeks you read of a child being killed on YOUR site?

Will YOU have any remorse for your innaction in reporting this to the management of View Talay. There is of course only a small chance, very small chance that this could happen about the same chance of you enjoying a beer onthe 27th floor

StopVT knows much more about the legalities of this than me.

As he previously stated

the NON wearing of safety hats

Alowing young children on the site is not only against the law but in direct violation of the BUILDING PERMIT that View Talay hold as the Holy Grail

There are many many many more violations of this building permit for example starting work not just before the 8am deadline but delivery on site at 2am 3am 4am 5am etc

and many many more

Many of these violations have been noted and recorded and I am sure WILL be used in court as evidence to support having this building permit REVOKED

There is more - I repeat MUCH MORE evidence that I will not discuss, that StopVT will not discuss at this stage.

It should be enough, especially as the survey has been done now, to show VT7 is not only illegal to the 200 Meter Law but also Illegal to the 100 Meter Law

Am I running a personal vendetta against you Mr. Ohd - NO WAY

What I do want to do is keep people informed.

If you want to keep your head stuffed in the sand and wait for your investment to go up the spout then so be it "up to you" as they say here in Thailand.

If I was an owner/investor in VT7 I would be asking VT some serious questions at this time about their ethics, their behaviour and the quality of their lawyers.

[OneMikeInBangkok]

It seems to me that a great deal of this thread should be titled "GOTCHA SUCKER"

A few months ago the VT7's were mocking the JCC's saying "You idiots – you bought a unit that you thought would always look out to sea! Well, screw you. TIT Your lawyer was wrong. There is no such thing as a guaranteed sea view no matter what the Thai law says. HA HA HA GOTCHA SUCKER!"

Now, the JCC's are chortling "You idiots – you put down money on a building that will never get built!!! You thought you would be drinking beer on a high balcony looking out to sea! Well, screw you. TIT. Your lawyer was wrong. There is no such thing as a guaranteed construction permit no matter what the developer says. HAHAHA. GOTCHA SUCKER!"

Prediction: more schadenfreude to come.

I have never called the JCC-people idiots. If you care to read my contributions I stand that we are just on different sides.

If I were a JCC-owner I would sure encourage stopVT to go on with his fight against the city hall.

Let's not forget this is not a personal issue, it's just people trying to take care of their investments, either built or to be built.

I have no problem wit stopvt, as he will probably not have with me, because, again, this is not personal.

As for Mike, the fact you didn't mention the number of children that were officially reported to have died on the construction area of VT7, tells me that number is equal to zero, right?

The guy who makes this thing personal is OneMikeInBKK, I call that immature behavior.

Whoever wins this case, there's no reason to accuse people of things they couldn't reasonably know about.

How would I be able to know in advance that people are not wearing safety caps ot that there are children playing on the site??

How could you possibly accuse me of being responsable for that?

That's just a sick appeal.

Besides, what would you want me to do??

Go to the site and correct people's behavior?

So, to take this out of the personal issue, I won't react on OneMikeInBKK (his nick is a lie apparantly, since he seems to live in Jomtien) anymore and stick to the facts.

I'll just quote one of your previous missives:

I'm still convinced that with some delay, I will be opening my high-floor-door in VT7 in 2010, drink a beer, and think about OneMikeInBKK with a "sorry-dude-but-your-bigtalk-didn't-work-out"-smile on my face.

To me, that seems very personal, not to mention immature. It also is a prime example of the kind of "gotcha" talk I was referring to.

So don't be disingenuous.

Dream on about your beer on the balcony.

By the way, I'm not in Brooklyn.

Just one of those mysterious connections or coincidences. I am travelling to Bangkok today - so tonight I will be OneMikeInBangkok - I will be meeting a client flying in from Newy York who lives in Brooklyn.

My English not so good - I am not English I am a Yorkshireman.

Can you please explain that long word disingenuous. Is this a word used in the game of Skittles per chance.

You better reply quick cause this may be deemed off topic

[brooklynbridge]

It seems to me that a great deal of this thread should be titled "GOTCHA SUCKER"

A few months ago the VT7's were mocking the JCC's saying "You idiots – you bought a unit that you thought would always look out to sea! Well, screw you. TIT Your lawyer was wrong. There is no such thing as a guaranteed sea view no matter what the Thai law says. HA HA HA GOTCHA SUCKER!"

Now, the JCC's are chortling "You idiots – you put down money on a building that will never get built!!! You thought you would be drinking beer on a high balcony looking out to sea! Well, screw you. TIT. Your lawyer was wrong. There is no such thing as a guaranteed construction permit no matter what the developer says. HAHAHA. GOTCHA SUCKER!"

Prediction: more schadenfreude to come.

I have never called the JCC-people idiots. If you care to read my contributions I stand that we are just on different sides.

If I were a JCC-owner I would sure encourage stopVT to go on with his fight against the city hall.

Let's not forget this is not a personal issue, it's just people trying to take care of their investments, either built or to be built.

I have no problem wit stopvt, as he will probably not have with me, because, again, this is not personal.

As for Mike, the fact you didn't mention the number of children that were officially reported to have died on the construction area of VT7, tells me that number is equal to zero, right?

The guy who makes this thing personal is OneMikeInBKK, I call that immature behavior.

Whoever wins this case, there's no reason to accuse people of things they couldn't reasonably know about.

How would I be able to know in advance that people are not wearing safety caps ot that there are children playing on the site??

How could you possibly accuse me of being responsable for that?

That's just a sick appeal.

Besides, what would you want me to do??

Go to the site and correct people's behavior?

So, to take this out of the personal issue, I won't react on OneMikeInBKK (his nick is a lie apparantly, since he seems to live in Jomtien) anymore and stick to the facts.

I'll just quote one of your previous missives:

I'm still convinced that with some delay, I will be opening my high-floor-door in VT7 in 2010, drink a beer, and think about OneMikeInBKK with a "sorry-dude-but-your-bigtalk-didn't-work-out"-smile on my face.

To me, that seems very personal, not to mention immature. It also is a prime example of the kind of "gotcha" talk I was referring to.

So don't be disingenuous.

Dream on about your beer on the balcony.

By the way, I'm not in Brooklyn.

Just one of those mysterious connections or coincidences. I am travelling to Bangkok today - so tonight I will be OneMikeInBangkok - I will be meeting a client flying in from Newy York who lives in Brooklyn.

My English not so good - I am not English I am a Yorkshireman.

Can you please explain that long word disingenuous. Is this a word used in the game of Skittles per chance.

You better reply quick cause this may be deemed off topic

Disingenuous means, according to Webster's

1. Not straightforward or candid; insincere or calculating: "an ambitious, disingenuous, philistine, and hypocritical operator, who ... exemplified ... the most disagreeable traits of his time" (David Cannadine).
   
2. Pretending to be unaware or unsophisticated; faux-naïf.
   

A good example of someone who is disingenuous is Mr. Skittles. He is also "smarmy"

1

:

revealing or marked by a smug, ingratiating, or false earnestness <a tone of

smarmy

self-satisfaction —

New Yorker

>

2

:

of low sleazy taste or quality <

smarmy

eroticism>

But I don't want to dwell on Mr. Skittles or Mr. Shaft. That will attract the ire of those in power.

To bring this thread back to View Talay 7, I'm sure many buildings in Pattaya and Jomtien, including the one I live in, were built by workers who did not wear helmets. Many laws are not enforced here, including ones that many of are happy are not enforced, if you know what I mean.

The developer of VT 7 is probably counting on the fact that the court will not want to rule on the 200 meter measurement issue and allow the same building to go up with a revision in the current building design -- i.e. that the front floors above 14 meters be set back. That would cost VT7 a few units, but be much preferable to tearing the building down. However, the original lawsuit was against City Hall for issuing the permit. That means the court should order that the permit be revoked and the process should start from scratch, this time with the eyes of the public and press on the whole process. Should that happen, there would probably be an huge amount of publicity, even in the national press. The JCC people would have to go back and fight once more for the 200 meter rule.

If I were looking to invest in property here, one thing is for sure. I would not put down a cent on anything close to the sea that has not gone up already. There is huge uncertainty which will not soon go away about too many issues. That includes properties offered by Mr. S and Mr. S. Their vision of "progress" may have to be put on hold.

Edited November 19, 2007 by brooklynbridge

[AsiaCheese]

You could be right but there was more to the VT7 opponents request in late September than just the 200 meter measurement. They requested quote "the 10 litigants request the court to revoke the construction permit No. 162/2007" which obviously didn't happen. One could conclude a 200 meter measurement was not performed.

Did the surveyors confirm City Hall's original VT7 measurement (104 meters?) from the old MSL? There is no mention of it. Was that done accurately? What we have now is a new MSL which the Court may decide as the new standard for future projects. BTW, the official line from the VT office yesterday is "they are going ahead with the construction and that all went well with the measurement". Go figure.

I at one point stubled over something in the stopVT7 website that said: not only is there a 14 meters height limit up to 200 meters from the waterline, but that there is a "receding" hight limit from the 200 meters point onwards, raising at a 45° angle! It that were true, there would be numerous buildings in non-compliance...! Anyone has details on the 45° thing [if it exists at all]?

The latest rumour has it that the 4 floors/14 meters will be used for a "luxury hotel". If there's even a grain of truth to that, it would imply that VT7 buyers with a contract are getting their downpayments/monthly payments back... anyone heard about something like that? From the VT 1999 company's point of view, turning it into a hotel would actually make sense, as there probably would be a lot more money to be fetched from a "luxury hotel" (over time) than from selling a measly number of low-level condos...

[JaiDeeFarang]

However one thing he does get over is that the View Talay 7 Project would be a big joke if it was not for the fact that the results of this clearly illegal folly will mean a lot of folks losing a lot of money

If VT goes bankrupt I will feel sorry for these folks if they don't get their money back. I will feel happy that we won't have to see anymore 'cereal boxes' which have the potential for becoming slummy and are eyesores.

Oh you are such a snob Tammi

I visited the "Comedians" site also this morning - he has a new posting basically repeating the same stuff about VT7 and MSL but also some disturbing observations about

Children on site, no safety helmets, no safety netting, all par for the course here in Pattaya/Jomthien. One would think that Building Construction Safety Standards are lawful nationwide.

And it's not just the danger to children from debris, tools, etc.; they are at risk of sexual molestation while parent(s) are working.

As regards being a snob: I reiterate that VT's are eyesores and have the potential to become slummy. I add that this is especially when kitchens are set up on balconies.

Snob being a term of affection in this case Tammi

O suspect the kids are open to abuse even more when the parents, unles, cousins, bloke next door comes home

As to being off topic - Replying to Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

We are exploring the moral and business ethics of one of the parties in this case and calling into question wether VT7 is legal or not

If View Talay cannot be arsed to follow the law about safety helmets, kids on site then how can we expect them to follow simple, clearly defined land restriction laws

Do the owners/investors of VT7 and other projects care a toss how their money is spent.

In Europe and of course The States consumers are increasingly voting with their dollars in favour of goods manufactured in an ethical way.

So a couple of question for VT7 speculators - we know you don't give a toss about Jomtien Complex owners losing their sea views or losing millions of Baht in condo values.

1. How does it feel to have blood on your hands of workers killed on YOUR site because of a total disregard for safety standards.

2. How does it feel that young kids are allowed to wander unsupervised in and out of dangerous construction zones.

And Finally

How does it feel to coming one step closer to LOSING YOUR MONEY?

Do you think safety was an issue so many years ago when Jomtien Complex was built? Do you think there were no child workers, do you think they used stell scaffolding? Do you think they wore hard hats? You're nothing but a hypocrite!

[OneMikeInBangkok]

You could be right but there was more to the VT7 opponents request in late September than just the 200 meter measurement. They requested quote "the 10 litigants request the court to revoke the construction permit No. 162/2007" which obviously didn't happen. One could conclude a 200 meter measurement was not performed.

Did the surveyors confirm City Hall's original VT7 measurement (104 meters?) from the old MSL? There is no mention of it. Was that done accurately? What we have now is a new MSL which the Court may decide as the new standard for future projects. BTW, the official line from the VT office yesterday is "they are going ahead with the construction and that all went well with the measurement". Go figure.

I at one point stubled over something in the stopVT7 website that said: not only is there a 14 meters height limit up to 200 meters from the waterline, but that there is a "receding" hight limit from the 200 meters point onwards, raising at a 45° angle! It that were true, there would be numerous buildings in non-compliance...! Anyone has details on the 45° thing [if it exists at all]?

The latest rumour has it that the 4 floors/14 meters will be used for a "luxury hotel". If there's even a grain of truth to that, it would imply that VT7 buyers with a contract are getting their downpayments/monthly payments back... anyone heard about something like that? From the VT 1999 company's point of view, turning it into a hotel would actually make sense, as there probably would be a lot more money to be fetched from a "luxury hotel" (over time) than from selling a measly number of low-level condos...

Construction is continuing at the VT7 site - but not of course in an upwards direction

Construction HAS to continue as continued construction means that View Talay can insist on continued payment from the investors.

Now I realize why they dressed the structure in a 20 foot high black garbage bag. SO they can hide what is going on inside. Just imagine (This is pure fantasy) say ten workers paid to sit behind the screen and make a lot of noise every day just to suggest that construction is ongoing and that the farang have to keep paying their monthly installments - just fantasy - View Talay would NEVER stoop to anything underhand - now would they?

Insted of re-bar deliveries (In the mid of night) there are truck loads of concrete blocks for interior fitting being delivered (In the middle of the night)

I doubt seriously that a Luxury Hotel can be made unless they knock together 4 or 5 cubbyhole units to make a luxury suite. There are only two floors of condo units - not many luxury suites there.

The ORIGINAL plan before VT bought the land was for a luxury resort - there were plans and even a 3D mock up. That is history.

Multi storey car park is my guess. However that would need extensive alterations to the structure.

Or maybe that most Thai object of legend

A White Elephant

[OneMikeInBangkok]

However one thing he does get over is that the View Talay 7 Project would be a big joke if it was not for the fact that the results of this clearly illegal folly will mean a lot of folks losing a lot of money

If VT goes bankrupt I will feel sorry for these folks if they don't get their money back. I will feel happy that we won't have to see anymore 'cereal boxes' which have the potential for becoming slummy and are eyesores.

Oh you are such a snob Tammi

I visited the "Comedians" site also this morning - he has a new posting basically repeating the same stuff about VT7 and MSL but also some disturbing observations about

Children on site, no safety helmets, no safety netting, all par for the course here in Pattaya/Jomthien. One would think that Building Construction Safety Standards are lawful nationwide.

And it's not just the danger to children from debris, tools, etc.; they are at risk of sexual molestation while parent(s) are working.

As regards being a snob: I reiterate that VT's are eyesores and have the potential to become slummy. I add that this is especially when kitchens are set up on balconies.

Snob being a term of affection in this case Tammi

O suspect the kids are open to abuse even more when the parents, unles, cousins, bloke next door comes home

As to being off topic - Replying to Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

We are exploring the moral and business ethics of one of the parties in this case and calling into question wether VT7 is legal or not

If View Talay cannot be arsed to follow the law about safety helmets, kids on site then how can we expect them to follow simple, clearly defined land restriction laws

Do the owners/investors of VT7 and other projects care a toss how their money is spent.

In Europe and of course The States consumers are increasingly voting with their dollars in favour of goods manufactured in an ethical way.

So a couple of question for VT7 speculators - we know you don't give a toss about Jomtien Complex owners losing their sea views or losing millions of Baht in condo values.

1. How does it feel to have blood on your hands of workers killed on YOUR site because of a total disregard for safety standards.

2. How does it feel that young kids are allowed to wander unsupervised in and out of dangerous construction zones.

And Finally

How does it feel to coming one step closer to LOSING YOUR MONEY?

Do you think safety was an issue so many years ago when Jomtien Complex was built? Do you think there were no child workers, do you think they used stell scaffolding? Do you think they wore hard hats? You're nothing but a hypocrite!

Hypocrite I may be

I am talking about NOW

I am talking about a young life, young lives at risk

Please please read the posts again

I am NOT talking about "Child Workers" I am talking about a 5/6 year old kid swinging on the scaffoldaing at the base of the structure with pieces of concrete raining down on it's head - Khaw Jai Mai?????????

I would rather be called a hypocrite ALL my life that to be an owner/investor who FOREWARNED was involved in the nonaction that led to the death of an innocent child

So YOU dare to suggest that because this was allowed to occur in the past. That the Thai law says this is ILLEGAL. You dare to suggest this is OK now

HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! you heartless B*****D

My apologies moderators but I do feel justified in saying this - If you do not then feel to edit out Hearless B*****D and please leave the rest of the post intact

I at least made some actions by report these incidents.

I also called View Talay office

Of course their reaction was complete non-reaction

"Children are not allowed on the site" "You must be mistaken" "Thai people are very small"

This is what I was told

DISGUSTING

Edited November 19, 2007 by OneMikeInBangkok

[OhdLover]

I'll just quote one of your previous missives:

I'm still convinced that with some delay, I will be opening my high-floor-door in VT7 in 2010, drink a beer, and think about OneMikeInBKK with a "sorry-dude-but-your-bigtalk-didn't-work-out"-smile on my face.

To me, that seems very personal, not to mention immature. It also is a prime example of the kind of "gotcha" talk I was referring to.

So don't be disingenuous.

Dream on about your beer on the balcony.

By the way, I'm not in Brooklyn.

As I said before (reading and comprehending is obviously a very difficult skill) I have nothing against stopvt.

As I said before, the other guy here (O*********K) (now why is this being blanked out??), who cares to pick up the joke in my reply about his name and starts to defend it in a hilarious way, was attacking me personally, so it's permitted to reply in a personal way.

That may be immature.

It's only that I don't like to be accused of things that I'm not guilty of. I'm sure this guy doesn't have a problem living in an appartment where probably also children have been playing around and workers may have died during contruction.

I just bought some property at a location that is subject to a lot of things now.

Those things happen. If I lose, I lose. If I win, I win. That's all there is to it.

Making me responsible for the safety situation at the construction site is way out of line.

As I said before (nobody cared to answer that), the jeans you wear are probably stone-washed by small children under circumstanced that you can only imagine. Now... did you check these things when you bought your jeans?

Are you gonna check your garderobe on these things?

Yes, you should, in fact, you should be aware BEFORE you bought it.

But you didn't.

Which makes you responsible for the child labor in the world, right?

Put it that way and I agree, we are all responsible.

But don't act like an angel without blood on your hands.

O**********K is just a hypocrite of the first degree, trying to appeal to false sentiments.

Edited November 19, 2007 by OhdLover

[marekm1]

I think this discussion is going too much off topic. Surely you cannot blame all the investors in VT7 for what’s happening on the building side. I am sure that’s not the case only on VT7’s side.

I am sure none of us want to see children and any workers to get killed. Making that sort of comments is a bit too far. How do you know what we all do in our private lives. Because we invested in VT7 it doesn’t make us heartless bastards. Some of us helping another people in more way than just making the phone calls.

Give us some ideas and we all might join. But it is a subject for another topic.

[Pattaya_Fox]

Yesterday I deleted off topic remarks and made a post to that effect.

Developing news on this topic is of interest to quite a number of people not least the people who have made financial investments in the area. I would not like to see it spoiled or even closed because a few members have decided to start throwing verbal abuse at each other.

So to those members and they who know who they are I am going to say this...If you contravene the forum rules again and try to divert this topic...or if you comment on this moderation then you will be suspended in order that this thread can proceed in an orderly manner.

So lets all please act like adults and post only information which will enable this thread to develop.

Thanks.

[JaiDeeFarang]

I'll just quote one of your previous missives:

I'm still convinced that with some delay, I will be opening my high-floor-door in VT7 in 2010, drink a beer, and think about OneMikeInBKK with a "sorry-dude-but-your-bigtalk-didn't-work-out"-smile on my face.

To me, that seems very personal, not to mention immature. It also is a prime example of the kind of "gotcha" talk I was referring to.

So don't be disingenuous.

Dream on about your beer on the balcony.

By the way, I'm not in Brooklyn.

As I said before (reading and comprehending is obviously a very difficult skill) I have nothing against stopvt.

As I said before, the other guy here (O*********K) (now why is this being blanked out??), who cares to pick up the joke in my reply about his name and starts to defend it in a hilarious way, was attacking me personally, so it's permitted to reply in a personal way.

That may be immature.

It's only that I don't like to be accused of things that I'm not guilty of. I'm sure this guy doesn't have a problem living in an appartment where probably also children have been playing around and workers may have died during contruction.

I just bought some property at a location that is subject to a lot of things now.

Those things happen. If I lose, I lose. If I win, I win. That's all there is to it.

Making me responsible for the safety situation at the construction site is way out of line.

As I said before (nobody cared to answer that), the jeans you wear are probably stone-washed by small children under circumstanced that you can only imagine. Now... did you check these things when you bought your jeans?

Are you gonna check your garderobe on these things?

Yes, you should, in fact, you should be aware BEFORE you bought it.

But you didn't.

Which makes you responsible for the child labor in the world, right?

Put it that way and I agree, we are all responsible.

But don't act like an angel without blood on your hands.

O**********K is just a hypocrite of the first degree, trying to appeal to false sentiments.

I agree with you totally! What has the past and the present got to do with it? It would be very interesting to find out how many deaths or injuries occured during the construction of Jomtien Complex, when no doubt health and safety issue were totally unheard of. I remember 18 years ago seeing buildings in that area beign built with nothing more than bamboo scaffolding, safety nets? You're having a laugh! Does O**************K turn a blind eye to child exploitation if it's not there in full view from his balcony? What the eye doesn't see the heart doesn't grieve? Do not blame the VT investors for something that occurs all over third world countries and get on your high horse claiming you are above that. O**************K it is hypocrites like you who are the scum of th earth.

[marekm1]

Thanks again Pattaya_Fox

[plasticpig]

Yesterday I deleted off topic remarks and made a post to that effect.

Developing news on this topic is of interest to quite a number of people not least the people who have made financial investments in the area. I would not like to see it spoiled or even closed because a few members have decided to start throwing verbal abuse at each other.

So to those members and they who know who they are I am going to say this...If you contravene the forum rules again and try to divert this topic...or if you comment on this moderation then you will be suspended in order that this thread can proceed in an orderly manner.

So lets all please act like adults and post only information which will enable this thread to develop.

Thanks.

[OneMikeInBangkok]

I'll just quote one of your previous missives:

I'm still convinced that with some delay, I will be opening my high-floor-door in VT7 in 2010, drink a beer, and think about OneMikeInBKK with a "sorry-dude-but-your-bigtalk-didn't-work-out"-smile on my face.

To me, that seems very personal, not to mention immature. It also is a prime example of the kind of "gotcha" talk I was referring to.

So don't be disingenuous.

Dream on about your beer on the balcony.

By the way, I'm not in Brooklyn.

As I said before (reading and comprehending is obviously a very difficult skill) I have nothing against stopvt.

As I said before, the other guy here (O*********K) (now why is this being blanked out??), who cares to pick up the joke in my reply about his name and starts to defend it in a hilarious way, was attacking me personally, so it's permitted to reply in a personal way.

That may be immature.

It's only that I don't like to be accused of things that I'm not guilty of. I'm sure this guy doesn't have a problem living in an appartment where probably also children have been playing around and workers may have died during contruction.

I just bought some property at a location that is subject to a lot of things now.

Those things happen. If I lose, I lose. If I win, I win. That's all there is to it.

Making me responsible for the safety situation at the construction site is way out of line.

As I said before (nobody cared to answer that), the jeans you wear are probably stone-washed by small children under circumstanced that you can only imagine. Now... did you check these things when you bought your jeans?

Are you gonna check your garderobe on these things?

Yes, you should, in fact, you should be aware BEFORE you bought it.

But you didn't.

Which makes you responsible for the child labor in the world, right?

Put it that way and I agree, we are all responsible.

But don't act like an angel without blood on your hands.

O**********K is just a hypocrite of the first degree, trying to appeal to false sentiments.

I agree with you totally! What has the past and the present got to do with it? It would be very interesting to find out how many deaths or injuries occured during the construction of Jomtien Complex, when no doubt health and safety issue were totally unheard of. I remember 18 years ago seeing buildings in that area beign built with nothing more than bamboo scaffolding, safety nets? You're having a laugh! Does O**************K turn a blind eye to child exploitation if it's not there in full view from his balcony? What the eye doesn't see the heart doesn't grieve? Do not blame the VT investors for something that occurs all over third world countries and get on your high horse claiming you are above that. O**************K it is hypocrites like you who are the scum of th earth.

So on top of being a hypocit I am now - "scum of the Earth" for pointing out that I saw a 5 year old child close to being killed on the View Talay 7 site

Up to you

Let me point out for one last and final time because obviously you either cannot or choose not to read

I am NOT talking about child WORKERS

I was talking about a 5 year old child allowed on site and allowed to play on the scaffolding at the base of the building.

Can you understand that simple statement?

I DID NOT reply to your rants about child workers because I never mentioned child workers whatsoever

Edited November 19, 2007 by OneMikeInBangkok

[marekm1]

Hey Mike, How you can leave in the country where kids selling goods for you after hours when you drink your bear. How you can see your friends taking advantage from Thai people because they have more money. If you are so goodie old shoes you should come back to your country, where you are from and preach from there.

[OneMikeInBangkok]

Hey Mike, How you can leave in the country where kids selling goods for you after hours when you drink your bear. How you can see your friends taking advantage from Thai people because they have more money. If you are so goodie old shoes you should come back to your country, where you are from and preach from there.

Obviously you cannot read English also

See previous post

[jpm76]

Hey Mike, How you can leave in the country where kids selling goods for you after hours when you drink your bear. How you can see your friends taking advantage from Thai people because they have more money. If you are so goodie old shoes you should come back to your country, where you are from and preach from there.

Obviously you cannot read English also

See previous post

Mike,

I am in investor is VT7 also, and I was shocked to learn what was going on in this investment. I am international investor, and I admit that I did not do my extensive research into the overall company building VT7. I took it that the fact that they were doing a 7th project was good indication that they were successful in what they do. Funnily enough, some of the other countries I have invested in in Central America also have Mariners Law issues (what I call the set backs for building from ocean front). I have two points to make.

Point 1 is that I expect that most VT7 investors had little knowledge of the full background picture of this investment either, and not the part that seems to largely affect JCC owners (we mostly know more when it directly affects us personally). Contrary to what personal attitudes you seem to hold, I doubt that VT7 investors are of the type that seek out investments irregardless of the effects upon the local community (given the importance of tourism in revenues to developing countries such as Thailand, I would argue that our investments also have positive effects). It was with sympathy for JCC investors (and the fact that their agreements with VT7 management were not honoured it appears to be) that I learned about the whole situation here, and in your position I would have fought the same, but hopefully POint 2 will also show the differences between us. I therefore would like to exclude myself from your judgments that VT7 investors should suffer the consequences of being heartless and greedy pigs only seeking personal profit at the expense of others.

Point 2 is that you seem to put so much weight upon the immorality of VT7 investors (whom I have already argued were most likely unaware of the full situation with JCC at the time of purchase), and yet as has been pointed out by another writer earlier, the greatness of your character does seem marred by the apparent pleasure that you seem to take in knowing that VT7 now run a higher risk of losing their money (which most have probabaly worked hard for somewhere along the line and possibly dreamed of one day having a vacation or retirement home in beautiful Thailand), and hence why you have been called a hypocrite by one or two. Now, I understand that this case has caused some personal issues to arise, but I hope that you think next time before you write, because it does not seem that your reason is completely in accord with some of the statements that you have made, nor the virtues that you seem to hold so dear (and so I must assume that you exemplify them in your own personal behaviour).

If StopVT7 happens to succeed here, and it was true that VT7 had breached an agreement with JCC owners, then I congratulate you on preserving your seaviews, because you then had a moral principle behind you. VT7 will not suffer too greatly in this though, and we all know who will take the hit. Your seaviews will come at a great cost to many others, and so I hope that you really enjoy them. I just hope that you realise that making remarks such as those posted by you does not do this situation any fair justice. There was always going to be a loser in this battle (for investment, whether of monetary value or personal value), and it was unfortunate that the VT7 investment proposal did not have a big sign on it that stated "Please be aware investor that we are proposing this development in order to stick it to JCC owners who will lose their seaviews through this" because then your judgment of us all would probably bear more resemblence to the truth of the type of people that we may, or may not be.

Personally I hope that VT7 goes ahead because I have a financial interest in the project, but if it does go ahead, do not expect that most VT7 owners will adopt the same attitude to "winning" that you have decided to take. I hope that my potential neighbours would be better people than that. I just wonder if JCC was welcomed with open arms by "ALL" Thais when it was first proposed, because I expect that the old adage of "You cannot please all of the people all of the time" would be partly true.

Whatever, it will be interesting to see how it progresses from here, but I think it is time that I start to get some legal advice regarding this investment, because I hope that VT7 investors do not lose money here, because I think that you may actually agree if you think about it hard enough, that your grudge should be against the people who really wronged you (if they did actually in fact), and not against the people who thought that would be sharing you in the vision of living/vacationing (and yes, I am sure there were speculators also) in the beautiful country that Thailand is. It was an unfortunate situation all around, and at this point in time, still is, because we are all still waiting to see how this turns out. Surely though, there is going to be "losers" in this battle, but I have to question whether the real "loser" may be Thailand because I do believe in the economic development that projects such as VT7 do propose, even if people make their judgments against them, and hold them out to be akin to a social menace or eyesore. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I would still like to enjoy the investment that I thought that I was buying into. Time will tell, and if I remember correctly, at one point, the chips were certainly against the StopVT7 protesters, and yet the tide turned. When the lady sings against us, I will agree that it certainly was a bad investment, and a learning experience to match.

[bmanly]

jpm76, nice to hear a report from how the other side feel. I know exactly what you are talking about as a very good friend of mine put down a deposit and several subsequent other payments on VT7. He was buying this condo for his eventual retirement, this dream is not looking too good for him now. As you say, if he knew that these problems with JCC were going to occur he most likely never would have entered into this contract, it was not his fault. Thanks for sharing your situation and point of you with us.

[tropiccapricorn]

Of course I consider it a joke to assume the buyers of VT7 condos did not know the impact

VT7 would make on JCC and for that matter VT5 also except of course the ones

who never visited the site.

But since they are consumers rather than judges they most likely didn’t mind to inherit the

sea view from JCC. If there is a law which should prevent VT7 then somebody (not VT7 with its

‘lawful construction’) violated it and should be made really accountable.

As for the money of those investors off plan if 14 m would really be the end of the line,

one could only wish them good luck.

Jomtien is full of empty plots up and down. So why the hel_l exactly in the middle of a built up area

which jeopardizes so many peoples view. Anybody coming to LOS as those having been here long

time would certainly prefer a sea view to that of a neighbours balcony.

[Tammi]

VT7 as planned is completely within the 200 meters setback and is therefore illegal as is VT5. VT5 got built because nobody complained or were given wrong information and therefore didn't complain. As 'stopVT7' has said time and time again (and been ridiculed by many posters for saying so) Thailand does have Laws. I have heard that the Administrative Court was set up to look at complaints against government offices who did not follow the Law.

I do hope that the Law wins, that VT7 investors get their money back, and that, in future, developers and City Halls know the Laws pertaining to whatever is to be constructed.

I am presently in the process of losing quite a bit of money on what looked like a good investment now turned sour - not because Laws were broken but because nobody wants to live there until things settle down, and that could be forever. You win some and lose some. At least VT7 investors have a very good chance of getting their money back from the big, respected, and well known company, that builds VTs.

So we can stop slanging and hope for the best which is that Laws are upheld, that investors get their money back, and that such building does not happen again.

[JaiDeeFarang]

Hey Mike, How you can leave in the country where kids selling goods for you after hours when you drink your bear. How you can see your friends taking advantage from Thai people because they have more money. If you are so goodie old shoes you should come back to your country, where you are from and preach from there.

Obviously you cannot read English also

See previous post

Mike,

I am in investor is VT7 also, and I was shocked to learn what was going on in this investment. I am international investor, and I admit that I did not do my extensive research into the overall company building VT7. I took it that the fact that they were doing a 7th project was good indication that they were successful in what they do. Funnily enough, some of the other countries I have invested in in Central America also have Mariners Law issues (what I call the set backs for building from ocean front). I have two points to make.

Point 1 is that I expect that most VT7 investors had little knowledge of the full background picture of this investment either, and not the part that seems to largely affect JCC owners (we mostly know more when it directly affects us personally). Contrary to what personal attitudes you seem to hold, I doubt that VT7 investors are of the type that seek out investments irregardless of the effects upon the local community (given the importance of tourism in revenues to developing countries such as Thailand, I would argue that our investments also have positive effects). It was with sympathy for JCC investors (and the fact that their agreements with VT7 management were not honoured it appears to be) that I learned about the whole situation here, and in your position I would have fought the same, but hopefully POint 2 will also show the differences between us. I therefore would like to exclude myself from your judgments that VT7 investors should suffer the consequences of being heartless and greedy pigs only seeking personal profit at the expense of others.

Point 2 is that you seem to put so much weight upon the immorality of VT7 investors (whom I have already argued were most likely unaware of the full situation with JCC at the time of purchase), and yet as has been pointed out by another writer earlier, the greatness of your character does seem marred by the apparent pleasure that you seem to take in knowing that VT7 now run a higher risk of losing their money (which most have probabaly worked hard for somewhere along the line and possibly dreamed of one day having a vacation or retirement home in beautiful Thailand), and hence why you have been called a hypocrite by one or two. Now, I understand that this case has caused some personal issues to arise, but I hope that you think next time before you write, because it does not seem that your reason is completely in accord with some of the statements that you have made, nor the virtues that you seem to hold so dear (and so I must assume that you exemplify them in your own personal behaviour).

If StopVT7 happens to succeed here, and it was true that VT7 had breached an agreement with JCC owners, then I congratulate you on preserving your seaviews, because you then had a moral principle behind you. VT7 will not suffer too greatly in this though, and we all know who will take the hit. Your seaviews will come at a great cost to many others, and so I hope that you really enjoy them. I just hope that you realise that making remarks such as those posted by you does not do this situation any fair justice. There was always going to be a loser in this battle (for investment, whether of monetary value or personal value), and it was unfortunate that the VT7 investment proposal did not have a big sign on it that stated "Please be aware investor that we are proposing this development in order to stick it to JCC owners who will lose their seaviews through this" because then your judgment of us all would probably bear more resemblence to the truth of the type of people that we may, or may not be.

Personally I hope that VT7 goes ahead because I have a financial interest in the project, but if it does go ahead, do not expect that most VT7 owners will adopt the same attitude to "winning" that you have decided to take. I hope that my potential neighbours would be better people than that. I just wonder if JCC was welcomed with open arms by "ALL" Thais when it was first proposed, because I expect that the old adage of "You cannot please all of the people all of the time" would be partly true.

Whatever, it will be interesting to see how it progresses from here, but I think it is time that I start to get some legal advice regarding this investment, because I hope that VT7 investors do not lose money here, because I think that you may actually agree if you think about it hard enough, that your grudge should be against the people who really wronged you (if they did actually in fact), and not against the people who thought that would be sharing you in the vision of living/vacationing (and yes, I am sure there were speculators also) in the beautiful country that Thailand is. It was an unfortunate situation all around, and at this point in time, still is, because we are all still waiting to see how this turns out. Surely though, there is going to be "losers" in this battle, but I have to question whether the real "loser" may be Thailand because I do believe in the economic development that projects such as VT7 do propose, even if people make their judgments against them, and hold them out to be akin to a social menace or eyesore. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I would still like to enjoy the investment that I thought that I was buying into. Time will tell, and if I remember correctly, at one point, the chips were certainly against the StopVT7 protesters, and yet the tide turned. When the lady sings against us, I will agree that it certainly was a bad investment, and a learning experience to match.

Well Said! Have faith and remember it isn't over til the fat lady sings!

[OneMikeInBangkok]

Hey Mike, How you can leave in the country where kids selling goods for you after hours when you drink your bear. How you can see your friends taking advantage from Thai people because they have more money. If you are so goodie old shoes you should come back to your country, where you are from and preach from there.

Obviously you cannot read English also

See previous post

Mike,

I am in investor is VT7 also, and I was shocked to learn what was going on in this investment. I am international investor, and I admit that I did not do my extensive research into the overall company building VT7. I took it that the fact that they were doing a 7th project was good indication that they were successful in what they do. Funnily enough, some of the other countries I have invested in in Central America also have Mariners Law issues (what I call the set backs for building from ocean front). I have two points to make.

Point 1 is that I expect that most VT7 investors had little knowledge of the full background picture of this investment either, and not the part that seems to largely affect JCC owners (we mostly know more when it directly affects us personally). Contrary to what personal attitudes you seem to hold, I doubt that VT7 investors are of the type that seek out investments irregardless of the effects upon the local community (given the importance of tourism in revenues to developing countries such as Thailand, I would argue that our investments also have positive effects). It was with sympathy for JCC investors (and the fact that their agreements with VT7 management were not honoured it appears to be) that I learned about the whole situation here, and in your position I would have fought the same, but hopefully POint 2 will also show the differences between us. I therefore would like to exclude myself from your judgments that VT7 investors should suffer the consequences of being heartless and greedy pigs only seeking personal profit at the expense of others.

Point 2 is that you seem to put so much weight upon the immorality of VT7 investors (whom I have already argued were most likely unaware of the full situation with JCC at the time of purchase), and yet as has been pointed out by another writer earlier, the greatness of your character does seem marred by the apparent pleasure that you seem to take in knowing that VT7 now run a higher risk of losing their money (which most have probabaly worked hard for somewhere along the line and possibly dreamed of one day having a vacation or retirement home in beautiful Thailand), and hence why you have been called a hypocrite by one or two. Now, I understand that this case has caused some personal issues to arise, but I hope that you think next time before you write, because it does not seem that your reason is completely in accord with some of the statements that you have made, nor the virtues that you seem to hold so dear (and so I must assume that you exemplify them in your own personal behaviour).

If StopVT7 happens to succeed here, and it was true that VT7 had breached an agreement with JCC owners, then I congratulate you on preserving your seaviews, because you then had a moral principle behind you. VT7 will not suffer too greatly in this though, and we all know who will take the hit. Your seaviews will come at a great cost to many others, and so I hope that you really enjoy them. I just hope that you realise that making remarks such as those posted by you does not do this situation any fair justice. There was always going to be a loser in this battle (for investment, whether of monetary value or personal value), and it was unfortunate that the VT7 investment proposal did not have a big sign on it that stated "Please be aware investor that we are proposing this development in order to stick it to JCC owners who will lose their seaviews through this" because then your judgment of us all would probably bear more resemblence to the truth of the type of people that we may, or may not be.

Personally I hope that VT7 goes ahead because I have a financial interest in the project, but if it does go ahead, do not expect that most VT7 owners will adopt the same attitude to "winning" that you have decided to take. I hope that my potential neighbours would be better people than that. I just wonder if JCC was welcomed with open arms by "ALL" Thais when it was first proposed, because I expect that the old adage of "You cannot please all of the people all of the time" would be partly true.

Whatever, it will be interesting to see how it progresses from here, but I think it is time that I start to get some legal advice regarding this investment, because I hope that VT7 investors do not lose money here, because I think that you may actually agree if you think about it hard enough, that your grudge should be against the people who really wronged you (if they did actually in fact), and not against the people who thought that would be sharing you in the vision of living/vacationing (and yes, I am sure there were speculators also) in the beautiful country that Thailand is. It was an unfortunate situation all around, and at this point in time, still is, because we are all still waiting to see how this turns out. Surely though, there is going to be "losers" in this battle, but I have to question whether the real "loser" may be Thailand because I do believe in the economic development that projects such as VT7 do propose, even if people make their judgments against them, and hold them out to be akin to a social menace or eyesore. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I would still like to enjoy the investment that I thought that I was buying into. Time will tell, and if I remember correctly, at one point, the chips were certainly against the StopVT7 protesters, and yet the tide turned. When the lady sings against us, I will agree that it certainly was a bad investment, and a learning experience to match.

Well Said! Have faith and remember it isn't over til the fat lady sings!

I agree

A sensible fair and balanced post (Unlike Mine) - good luck with your investments - now where is the fat lady when you really need her?

[jpm76]

Of course I consider it a joke to assume the buyers of VT7 condos did not know the impact

VT7 would make on JCC and for that matter VT5 also except of course the ones

who never visited the site.

But since they are consumers rather than judges they most likely didn't mind to inherit the

sea view from JCC. If there is a law which should prevent VT7 then somebody (not VT7 with its

'lawful construction') violated it and should be made really accountable.

As for the money of those investors off plan if 14 m would really be the end of the line,

one could only wish them good luck.

Jomtien is full of empty plots up and down. So why the hel_l exactly in the middle of a built up area

which jeopardizes so many peoples view. Anybody coming to LOS as those having been here long

time would certainly prefer a sea view to that of a neighbours balcony.

To be honest with you Tropic, my fiancee actually did comment when we were in Jomtein that JCC would probably lose some of their views, so I cannot argue that I had no idea about this point (I would instead argue that it is quite common for people to lose their seaviews as people in front build in front of them, and it is not usually illegal to do this). I just had no idea about the situation between JCC and VT7 and the history relating to the sale of the land from JCC to VT7 (and the inherent agreement), nor the laws relating to developments near the beach (which funnily enough has surfaced now in several of my potential investments in Thailand and other countries). I did not do enough due diligence here. I just hope that justice is served somewhere here, which I believe is VT7 investors getting their money back, JCC keeping their seaviews, and whoever is really responsible here being made to foot the bill. VT7 did receive approval for its development application, so unless they were bribing illegally, they probably should not be the ones to foot the losses either, but I expect that JCC investors will disagree, and I would like to just state that I am quite in the dark about the real situation there, so i probabaly should not comment. If you do win, congratulations, but I hope that VT7 are compensated like their contracts allow for, else, I forsee litigation here against the responsible parties, and then I too will be hoping wholeheartedly for a country of Laws.