Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[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.

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?

Thanks Mike. I understand that this has been a battle that has become personal at times, and things have just been written in the heat of the moment. There was always a lot at stake, but I hope that the consumers in this scenario (JCC and VT7) do not lose out, as it is not the fault of consumers in this case, but rather one that relates to developers and governments, as I see it, because they should really know the laws. Just hope that the song the fat lady sings has something about "VT7 investors get their money back whilst JCC admire their once-threatened ocean views". I have received a few personal emails from VT7 investors and I am quite convinced that most VT7 investors also wish for Thailand to be a country of laws also, and that many feel that the personal investment should not be illegally gained. So we are not that bad after all. Best wishes.

[jpm76]

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.

With you all the way Tammi. And I hope that you are right about the company behind VT7 being a good company after all this. Hopefully they can salvage this investment to still make their investment a good one also, albeit from a re-structured four story high building. I am not in Thailand, so not really sure of the full story on this one, but if VT7 is illegal, then it seems unjust that others should suffer from it. So lets just wait to see what happens from here, but hopefully, it will be sorted for all involved in the JCC-VT7 debate, but also for all the other projects around. Then we may have assisted Thailand in this landmark case.

[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.

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

In light of the whole situation, if VT7 is illegal, then I would probably prefer my money back. It seems the fairest solution to all. So whilst she has not sung yet, if she is warming up in the back room, I cannot see why, given the measurement of 87m, she would be preparing to sing anything but a tune unsympathetic to VT7 investors. An earlier post suggested that VT7 had interpreted the survey report in a favourable light, but if 87m is the determined distance, I am not sure how they could get around this one legally. Maybe VT7 can come up with a better solution...who knows, but hopefully this will be sorted soon, and not dragged out over years as I cannot see any real hope of appealing the matter. It would be a disservice to VT7 investors I would think, if it just delayed the return of money.

[jpm76]

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.

Hi Bmanly. Needless to say, I wish your friend and all VT7 all my luck in this case. Thanks for your supportive feedback. Regards Justin

[stopvt7]

The new 200 location from MSL

[stopvt7]

The new 200 location from MSL

This measurements for MSL at +1.448 as claimed by the Bangkok surveyor and was established by the Thai Royal Navy as and average of all of Thailand. But if the local MSL of 2.45 meters from Sattahip Navy Base would be used the maker would be much higher onto the shore. MSL is a determined using a 19 year average of the sea levels.

The argument in court is between Issue 8 (100 meters) and Issue 9 (200 meters) and VT7 building failing both Issue 8 and 9. It is expected VT7 will lose their building permit or receive a new permit for only a 14 meter (4 stories) building? Now their could be and other argument! Is it not a local Issue?

[JaiDeeFarang]

The new 200 location from MSL

This measurements for MSL at +1.448 as claimed by the Bangkok surveyor and was established by the Thai Royal Navy as and average of all of Thailand. But if the local MSL of 2.45 meters from Sattahip Navy Base would be used the maker would be much higher onto the shore. MSL is a determined using a 19 year average of the sea levels.

The argument in court is between Issue 8 (100 meters) and Issue 9 (200 meters) and VT7 building failing both Issue 8 and 9. It is expected VT7 will lose their building permit or receive a new permit for only a 14 meter (4 stories) building? Now their could be and other argument! Is it not a local Issue?

I would have thought it would be a local issue, except for the fact that all court hearings to date have been heard in Bangkok and Rayong, as the JCC committee wanted to fight VT7 outside of Pattaya, which unless I'm very much mistaken means they have taken their fight out of the locality.

[lookat]

The new 200 location from MSL

This measurements for MSL at +1.448 as claimed by the Bangkok surveyor and was established by the Thai Royal Navy as and average of all of Thailand. But if the local MSL of 2.45 meters from Sattahip Navy Base would be used the maker would be much higher onto the shore. MSL is a determined using a 19 year average of the sea levels.

The argument in court is between Issue 8 (100 meters) and Issue 9 (200 meters) and VT7 building failing both Issue 8 and 9. It is expected VT7 will lose their building permit or receive a new permit for only a 14 meter (4 stories) building? Now their could be and other argument! Is it not a local Issue?

Is this not a local question? Yes! Issue 8 and 9 were written only for Pattaya area. Check the maps they are of Pattaya. So the local +2.45 MSL should apply. This is almost one meter higher and that could move MSL and other 50 meters onto the land... This would stop The Regatta on Dongton Beach!

[lookat]

The new 200 location from MSL

This measurements for MSL at +1.448 as claimed by the Bangkok surveyor and was established by the Thai Royal Navy as and average of all of Thailand. But if the local MSL of 2.45 meters from Sattahip Navy Base would be used the maker would be much higher onto the shore. MSL is a determined using a 19 year average of the sea levels.

The argument in court is between Issue 8 (100 meters) and Issue 9 (200 meters) and VT7 building failing both Issue 8 and 9. It is expected VT7 will lose their building permit or receive a new permit for only a 14 meter (4 stories) building? Now their could be and other argument! Is it not a local Issue?

I would have thought it would be a local issue, except for the fact that all court hearings to date have been heard in Bangkok and Rayong, as the JCC committee wanted to fight VT7 outside of Pattaya, which unless I'm very much mistaken means they have taken their fight out of the locality.

The Admin Court is located in Rayong. VT7 file an appeal at the Supreme Court which is located in Bangkok. the Supreme Court upheld Issue 9 as the governing regulation and then allowed VT7 to build a 14 meters building. What you point?

[JaiDeeFarang]

The new 200 location from MSL

This measurements for MSL at +1.448 as claimed by the Bangkok surveyor and was established by the Thai Royal Navy as and average of all of Thailand. But if the local MSL of 2.45 meters from Sattahip Navy Base would be used the maker would be much higher onto the shore. MSL is a determined using a 19 year average of the sea levels.

The argument in court is between Issue 8 (100 meters) and Issue 9 (200 meters) and VT7 building failing both Issue 8 and 9. It is expected VT7 will lose their building permit or receive a new permit for only a 14 meter (4 stories) building? Now their could be and other argument! Is it not a local Issue?

I would have thought it would be a local issue, except for the fact that all court hearings to date have been heard in Bangkok and Rayong, as the JCC committee wanted to fight VT7 outside of Pattaya, which unless I'm very much mistaken means they have taken their fight out of the locality.

The Admin Court is located in Rayong. VT7 file an appeal at the Supreme Court which is located in Bangkok. the Supreme Court upheld Issue 9 as the governing regulation and then allowed VT7 to build a 14 meters building. What you point?

Why is stopVT7 asking if it "Is not a local issue?" You've just answered that question too.

[Ground Engineer]

The new 200 location from MSL

This measurements for MSL at +1.448 as claimed by the Bangkok surveyor and was established by the Thai Royal Navy as and average of all of Thailand. But if the local MSL of 2.45 meters from Sattahip Navy Base would be used the maker would be much higher onto the shore. MSL is a determined using a 19 year average of the sea levels.

The argument in court is between Issue 8 (100 meters) and Issue 9 (200 meters) and VT7 building failing both Issue 8 and 9. It is expected VT7 will lose their building permit or receive a new permit for only a 14 meter (4 stories) building? Now their could be and other argument! Is it not a local Issue?

Is this not a local question? Yes! Issue 8 and 9 were written only for Pattaya area. Check the maps they are of Pattaya. So the local +2.45 MSL should apply. This is almost one meter higher and that could move MSL and other 50 meters onto the land... This would stop The Regatta on Dongton Beach!

Am I missing something here but shouldnt mean sea level be 0 meters above datum. Datum being mean sean level. And as such VT& is probably well within the 100m mark.

[Ground Engineer]

The new 200 location from MSL

I think its pretty obvious from the aerial photo that local mean sea level cannot possible be + 2.5m. That would mean half of Pattaya would be washed away during high tide. I think there is an error in the units here. It should be 2.5mm not 2.5m. Maybe the THai surveyor has got a problem with his units.

[OneMikeInBangkok]

The new 200 location from MSL

I think its pretty obvious from the aerial photo that local mean sea level cannot possible be + 2.5m. That would mean half of Pattaya would be washed away during high tide. I think there is an error in the units here. It should be 2.5mm not 2.5m. Maybe the THai surveyor has got a problem with his units.

The concept of a "mean sea level" is in itself rather artificial, because it is not possible to determine a figure for mean sea level for the entire planet, and it varies quite a lot even on a much smaller scale. This is because the sea is in constant motion, affected by the high and low pressure zones above it, the tides, local gravitational differences, and so forth. - Wikipedia

MSL varies from location to location

Seas and oceans are not flat - they tend to bulge upwards in the middle of oceans.

Example THe MSL along the east coast of the UK is different to the west coast

THe MSL at Sattahip is different to that at Jomtien

[lookat]

The new 200 location from MSL

I think its pretty obvious from the aerial photo that local mean sea level cannot possible be + 2.5m. That would mean half of Pattaya would be washed away during high tide. I think there is an error in the units here. It should be 2.5mm not 2.5m. Maybe the THai surveyor has got a problem with his units.

The 2.45meters is above 0.00 which is located in Portsmouth, England. It is Meters! Not mm! You need to use the internet to learn not just to show your stupidly.

Pattaya City Hall want the world to make Pattaya 0.00. They will need to position the UN to make the change not claim the change.

“The concept of a "mean sea level" is in itself rather artificial, because it is not possible to determine a figure for mean sea level for the entire planet, and it varies quite a lot even on a much smaller scale. This is because the sea is in constant motion, affected by the high and low pressure zones above it, the tides, local gravitational differences, and so forth. The best one can do is to pick a spot and calculate the mean sea level at that point and use it as a datum.”

So Issue 9 needs should use the local MSL.

Traditionally, one had to process sea-level measurements to take into account the effect of the 228-month Metonic cycle and the 223-month eclipse cycle on the tides. Mean sea level does not remain constant over the surface of the entire earth.

[Taijitu]

It is Meters! Not mm! You need to use the internet to learn not just to show your stupidly.

I don't intend to be rude and I realise the risk of sounding over-pedantic but...No, it is not Meters, it Metres.

A "meter" is a device or apparatus for measuring something e.g. thermometer, barometer, altimeter. A "metre" is a unit of length e.g. millimetre, centimetre, kilometre.

[rak sa_ngop]

It is Meters! Not mm! You need to use the internet to learn not just to show your stupidly.

I don't intend to be rude and I realise the risk of sounding over-pedantic but...No, it is not Meters, it Metres.

A "meter" is a device or apparatus for measuring something e.g. thermometer, barometer, altimeter. A "metre" is a unit of length e.g. millimetre, centimetre, kilometre.

Meter is the American spelling.

Not sure if "stupidly' is American for 'stupidity" though!

[OneMikeInBangkok]

It is Meters! Not mm! You need to use the internet to learn not just to show your stupidly.

I don't intend to be rude and I realise the risk of sounding over-pedantic but...No, it is not Meters, it Metres.

A "meter" is a device or apparatus for measuring something e.g. thermometer, barometer, altimeter. A "metre" is a unit of length e.g. millimetre, centimetre, kilometre.

Meter is the American spelling.

Not sure if "stupidly' is American for 'stupidity" though!

You are being rude - you are being over-pedantic and you are WRONG

Meter is a common spelling for a unit of length and anyways who gives a dam_n apart from yourself - or maybe that makes me rude and over-pedantic

I hate this type of nitpicking on an Internet Forum

Do you think folks spend hours composing messages and then more hours running a spell check and grammar check.

Let's just appreciate posters who spend their time to add a post to a debate, answer a question or whatever.

Remember that English is NOT the native language of all people in the world. Especially The Yanks who generally speak and write a completely differnt language that I admit did have a base in the Real English language but nowadays bears little resemblance and is often little understood outside Little Rock Arkansas

The metre or meter[1](symbol: m) is the fundamental unit of length in the International System of Units (SI). The metre was originally defined by a prototype object meant to represent........ Wikipedia

[OneMikeInBangkok]

It is Meters! Not mm! You need to use the internet to learn not just to show your stupidly.

I don't intend to be rude and I realise the risk of sounding over-pedantic but...No, it is not Meters, it Metres.

A "meter" is a device or apparatus for measuring something e.g. thermometer, barometer, altimeter. A "metre" is a unit of length e.g. millimetre, centimetre, kilometre.

Meter is the American spelling.

Not sure if "stupidly' is American for 'stupidity" though!

You are being rude - you are being over-pedantic and you are WRONG

Meter is a common spelling for a unit of length and anyways who gives a dam_n apart from yourself - or maybe that makes me rude and over-pedantic

I hate this type of nitpicking on an Internet Forum

Do you think folks spend hours composing messages and then more hours running a spell check and grammar check.

Let's just appreciate posters who spend their time to add a post to a debate, answer a question or whatever.

Remember that English is NOT the native language of all people in the world. Especially The Yanks who generally speak and write a completely differnt language that I admit did have a base in the Real English language but nowadays bears little resemblance and is often little understood outside Little Rock Arkansas

The metre or meter[1](symbol: m) is the fundamental unit of length in the International System of Units (SI). The metre was originally defined by a prototype object meant to represent........ Wikipedia

Before I get ANY MORE pm's

Obviously another thing lacking in the Yanks is a sense of humour

[lookat]

You VT7 and The Regatta buyers look at the information.

The local MSL is +2.45 meters is above 0.00 which is located in Portsmouth, England. It is meters or metres! Not mm! The Bangkok surveyor used +1.448 not the local. Why?

“The concept of a "mean sea level" is in itself rather artificial, because it is not possible to determine a figure for mean sea level for the entire planet, and it varies quite a lot even on a much smaller scale. This is because the sea is in constant motion,. The best one can do is to pick a spot and calculate the mean sea level at tha affected by the high and low pressure zones above it, the tides, local gravitational differences, and so forth t point and use it as a datum.”

Issue 9 needs should use the local MSL. The court needs to protect the local community which the law applies not the whole of Thailand where the law doesn’t apply. A meter difference from the Thailand average MSL and the local MSL is a BIG difference.

Walk down tho the beach and check what a meter more height would mean?

[Ground Engineer]

You VT7 and The Regatta buyers look at the information.

The local MSL is +2.45 meters is above 0.00 which is located in Portsmouth, England. It is meters or metres! Not mm! The Bangkok surveyor used +1.448 not the local. Why?

“The concept of a "mean sea level" is in itself rather artificial, because it is not possible to determine a figure for mean sea level for the entire planet, and it varies quite a lot even on a much smaller scale. This is because the sea is in constant motion,. The best one can do is to pick a spot and calculate the mean sea level at tha affected by the high and low pressure zones above it, the tides, local gravitational differences, and so forth t point and use it as a datum.”

Issue 9 needs should use the local MSL. The court needs to protect the local community which the law applies not the whole of Thailand where the law doesn’t apply. A meter difference from the Thailand average MSL and the local MSL is a BIG difference.

Walk down tho the beach and check what a meter more height would mean?

Shouldnt local mean sea level be somewhere between local high and low tide. Even using +1.4m seems to put the line above high tide level. So if for example the land in front of VT7 falls at a gradient of 1 vert in 20 horizontal then the MSL line would be another 20m futher up the shore line.

[lookat]

You VT7 and The Regatta buyers look at the information.

The local MSL is +2.45 meters is above 0.00 which is located in Portsmouth, England. It is meters or metres! Not mm! The Bangkok surveyor used +1.448 not the local. Why?

"The concept of a "mean sea level" is in itself rather artificial, because it is not possible to determine a figure for mean sea level for the entire planet, and it varies quite a lot even on a much smaller scale. This is because the sea is in constant motion,. The best one can do is to pick a spot and calculate the mean sea level at tha affected by the high and low pressure zones above it, the tides, local gravitational differences, and so forth t point and use it as a datum."

Issue 9 needs should use the local MSL. The court needs to protect the local community which the law applies not the whole of Thailand where the law doesn't apply. A meter difference from the Thailand average MSL and the local MSL is a BIG difference.

Walk down tho the beach and check what a meter more height would mean?

Shouldnt local mean sea level be somewhere between local high and low tide. Even using +1.4m seems to put the line above high tide level. So if for example the land in front of VT7 falls at a gradient of 1 vert in 20 horizontal then the MSL line would be another 20m futher up the shore line.

Amazing! Your miss understanding of the MSL and the other issues on this blog. I counld of said this with one word but I wont.

[stopvt7]

Why did Bangkok use the average MSL (+1.45m) for Thailand? I don’t know because this information was filed with the court in city hall information packet when explained MSL in their survey. But they used 0.0 on the deed (chanoot) when placing the building on the land. Maybe it was to draw the attention away from the facts that the local MSL is +2.45m above 0.0 which is located in Portsmouth, England. I’m sure this will be discussed!

We (or the court) didn’t know that the local MSL was +2.45 until a Thai navy person came forward with this information. This is a local issue and local MSL needs to be used in making a survey.

[Ground Engineer]

Why did Bangkok use the average MSL (+1.45m) for Thailand? I don’t know because this information was filed with the court in city hall information packet when explained MSL in their survey. But they used 0.0 on the deed (chanoot) when placing the building on the land. Maybe it was to draw the attention away from the facts that the local MSL is +2.45m above 0.0 which is located in Portsmouth, England. I’m sure this will be discussed!

We (or the court) didn’t know that the local MSL was +2.45 until a Thai navy person came forward with this information. This is a local issue and local MSL needs to be used in making a survey.

On issue 8 and issue 9, where does it say that local MSL (+2.45) is used or where does it say MSL(+1.45) be used, in fact where does it say MSL be used as you initally told everyone it should be high tide level. This is the problem with both requlations they are not specific and there are no clear guide lines. Why isnt the required MSL shown on the drawing?

[stopvt7]

Why did Bangkok use the average MSL (+1.45m) for Thailand? I don't know because this information was filed with the court in city hall information packet when explained MSL in their survey. But they used 0.0 on the deed (chanoot) when placing the building on the land. Maybe it was to draw the attention away from the facts that the local MSL is +2.45m above 0.0 which is located in Portsmouth, England. I'm sure this will be discussed!

We (or the court) didn't know that the local MSL was +2.45 until a Thai navy person came forward with this information. This is a local issue and local MSL needs to be used in making a survey.

On issue 8 and issue 9, where does it say that local MSL (+2.45) is used or where does it say MSL(+1.45) be used, in fact where does it say MSL be used as you initally told everyone it should be high tide level. This is the problem with both requlations they are not specific and there are no clear guide lines. Why isnt the required MSL shown on the drawing?

I think the court should use high tide because the regulation said to measure from shoreline. We found definitions for shoreline in Thai law which means high tide. But "MSL at shoreline" is showen on Issue 9 map. Is this the drawing your asking about?

[Ground Engineer]

Why did Bangkok use the average MSL (+1.45m) for Thailand? I don't know because this information was filed with the court in city hall information packet when explained MSL in their survey. But they used 0.0 on the deed (chanoot) when placing the building on the land. Maybe it was to draw the attention away from the facts that the local MSL is +2.45m above 0.0 which is located in Portsmouth, England. I'm sure this will be discussed!

We (or the court) didn't know that the local MSL was +2.45 until a Thai navy person came forward with this information. This is a local issue and local MSL needs to be used in making a survey.

On issue 8 and issue 9, where does it say that local MSL (+2.45) is used or where does it say MSL(+1.45) be used, in fact where does it say MSL be used as you initally told everyone it should be high tide level. This is the problem with both requlations they are not specific and there are no clear guide lines. Why isnt the required MSL shown on the drawing?

I think the court should use high tide because the regulation said to measure from shoreline. We found definitions for shoreline in Thai law which means high tide. But "MSL at shoreline" is showen on Issue 9 map. Is this the drawing your asking about?

Great MSL is shown on Issue 9. Well which line does it correspond to then, MSL +2.45, MSL +1.45 or MSL.

[stopvt7]

Why did Bangkok use the average MSL (+1.45m) for Thailand? I don't know because this information was filed with the court in city hall information packet when explained MSL in their survey. But they used 0.0 on the deed (chanoot) when placing the building on the land. Maybe it was to draw the attention away from the facts that the local MSL is +2.45m above 0.0 which is located in Portsmouth, England. I'm sure this will be discussed!

We (or the court) didn't know that the local MSL was +2.45 until a Thai navy person came forward with this information. This is a local issue and local MSL needs to be used in making a survey.

On issue 8 and issue 9, where does it say that local MSL (+2.45) is used or where does it say MSL(+1.45) be used, in fact where does it say MSL be used as you initally told everyone it should be high tide level. This is the problem with both requlations they are not specific and there are no clear guide lines. Why isnt the required MSL shown on the drawing?

I think the court should use high tide because the regulation said to measure from shoreline. We found definitions for shoreline in Thai law which means high tide. But "MSL at shoreline" is showen on Issue 9 map. Is this the drawing your asking about?

Great MSL is shown on Issue 9. Well which line does it correspond to then, MSL +2.45, MSL +1.45 or MSL.

It doesn’t say. MSL is a 19 year average so I would not expect to give a number. It’s a local issued regulation so I think local MSL would apply when measuring! It called common sense. But I understand why city hall would try to draw are attention away from the local MSL. Local MSL is not good for VT7.

[Ground Engineer]

You VT7 and The Regatta buyers look at the information.

The local MSL is +2.45 meters is above 0.00 which is located in Portsmouth, England. It is meters or metres! Not mm! The Bangkok surveyor used +1.448 not the local. Why?

"The concept of a "mean sea level" is in itself rather artificial, because it is not possible to determine a figure for mean sea level for the entire planet, and it varies quite a lot even on a much smaller scale. This is because the sea is in constant motion,. The best one can do is to pick a spot and calculate the mean sea level at tha affected by the high and low pressure zones above it, the tides, local gravitational differences, and so forth t point and use it as a datum."

Issue 9 needs should use the local MSL. The court needs to protect the local community which the law applies not the whole of Thailand where the law doesn't apply. A meter difference from the Thailand average MSL and the local MSL is a BIG difference.

Walk down tho the beach and check what a meter more height would mean?

Shouldnt local mean sea level be somewhere between local high and low tide. Even using +1.4m seems to put the line above high tide level. So if for example the land in front of VT7 falls at a gradient of 1 vert in 20 horizontal then the MSL line would be another 20m futher up the shore line.

Amazing! Your miss understanding of the MSL and the other issues on this blog. I counld of said this with one word but I wont.

I think the court should use high tide because the regulation said to measure from shoreline. We found definitions for shoreline in Thai law which means high tide. But "MSL at shoreline" is showen on Issue 9 map. Is this the drawing your asking about?

So there you have it "Lookat"...... MSL at shoreline or high tide is shown on Issue 9 map. So my question about MSL being somewhere between high tide and low tide doesnt seem that stupid after all. I think you should be reserving that "one word" for youself mate!

[Ground Engineer]

Why did Bangkok use the average MSL (+1.45m) for Thailand? I don't know because this information was filed with the court in city hall information packet when explained MSL in their survey. But they used 0.0 on the deed (chanoot) when placing the building on the land. Maybe it was to draw the attention away from the facts that the local MSL is +2.45m above 0.0 which is located in Portsmouth, England. I'm sure this will be discussed!

We (or the court) didn't know that the local MSL was +2.45 until a Thai navy person came forward with this information. This is a local issue and local MSL needs to be used in making a survey.

On issue 8 and issue 9, where does it say that local MSL (+2.45) is used or where does it say MSL(+1.45) be used, in fact where does it say MSL be used as you initally told everyone it should be high tide level. This is the problem with both requlations they are not specific and there are no clear guide lines. Why isnt the required MSL shown on the drawing?

I think the court should use high tide because the regulation said to measure from shoreline. We found definitions for shoreline in Thai law which means high tide. But "MSL at shoreline" is showen on Issue 9 map. Is this the drawing your asking about?

Great MSL is shown on Issue 9. Well which line does it correspond to then, MSL +2.45, MSL +1.45 or MSL.

It doesn’t say. MSL is a 19 year average so I would not expect to give a number. It’s a local issued regulation so I think local MSL would apply when measuring! It called common sense. But I understand why city hall would try to draw are attention away from the local MSL. Local MSL is not good for VT7.

So why draw the MSL line on the Issue 9 map if its going to move all the time. Or why isnt the map updated every time the MSL line changes. Or why doesnt it say on the map which MSL it is. YOu can still check what the MSL line refers to (MSL +2.45, MSL +1.45 or MSL) on Issue 9 map by using the MSL level that was relevant when the map was issued. And by the way common sense is open to interpretation, thats why building regulations have to be very specific.

[JaiDeeFarang]

Why did Bangkok use the average MSL (+1.45m) for Thailand? I don't know because this information was filed with the court in city hall information packet when explained MSL in their survey. But they used 0.0 on the deed (chanoot) when placing the building on the land. Maybe it was to draw the attention away from the facts that the local MSL is +2.45m above 0.0 which is located in Portsmouth, England. I'm sure this will be discussed!

We (or the court) didn't know that the local MSL was +2.45 until a Thai navy person came forward with this information. This is a local issue and local MSL needs to be used in making a survey.

On issue 8 and issue 9, where does it say that local MSL (+2.45) is used or where does it say MSL(+1.45) be used, in fact where does it say MSL be used as you initally told everyone it should be high tide level. This is the problem with both requlations they are not specific and there are no clear guide lines. Why isnt the required MSL shown on the drawing?

I think the court should use high tide because the regulation said to measure from shoreline. We found definitions for shoreline in Thai law which means high tide. But "MSL at shoreline" is showen on Issue 9 map. Is this the drawing your asking about?

Great MSL is shown on Issue 9. Well which line does it correspond to then, MSL +2.45, MSL +1.45 or MSL.

It doesn't say. MSL is a 19 year average so I would not expect to give a number. It's a local issued regulation so I think local MSL would apply when measuring! It called common sense. But I understand why city hall would try to draw are attention away from the local MSL. Local MSL is not good for VT7.

All we seem to read these days are contradictions from stopvt7. Initially he was saying it was 200m from the high tide, then 200m from the MSL, now it seems he can't make up his mind if it is regulation 8 or 9, he also continues to say that "Thailand is a country of laws", yet he now understands that these laws differ from location to location. Sometime ago on this thread people were asking why buildings could be built so close to the sea in Na Jomtien, it was said that this area comes under a different regulation, which everyone disregarded. Now it seems that one good thing has come out of this thread, it has educated people to some extent, yet there is still so much uncertainty with laws being distorted to suit individual agendas. I see little point in debating anything on this forum, whatever is said, someone who thinks they're smarter will come along and spout absolute garble. What about the big issue of Hua Hin? nothing being built within 200m. Do you now see that what happens in Hua Hin has absolutely no affect of what happens in Pattaya? No blue roofing allowed on Samui, yet you see the god awful stuff everywhere else. Everywhere is different and as I said previously it ain't over til the now obese lady sings.

[stopvt7]

Why did Bangkok use the average MSL (+1.45m) for Thailand? I don't know because this information was filed with the court in city hall information packet when explained MSL in their survey. But they used 0.0 on the deed (chanoot) when placing the building on the land. Maybe it was to draw the attention away from the facts that the local MSL is +2.45m above 0.0 which is located in Portsmouth, England. I'm sure this will be discussed!

We (or the court) didn't know that the local MSL was +2.45 until a Thai navy person came forward with this information. This is a local issue and local MSL needs to be used in making a survey.

On issue 8 and issue 9, where does it say that local MSL (+2.45) is used or where does it say MSL(+1.45) be used, in fact where does it say MSL be used as you initally told everyone it should be high tide level. This is the problem with both requlations they are not specific and there are no clear guide lines. Why isnt the required MSL shown on the drawing?

I think the court should use high tide because the regulation said to measure from shoreline. We found definitions for shoreline in Thai law which means high tide. But "MSL at shoreline" is showen on Issue 9 map. Is this the drawing your asking about?

Great MSL is shown on Issue 9. Well which line does it correspond to then, MSL +2.45, MSL +1.45 or MSL.

It doesn't say. MSL is a 19 year average so I would not expect to give a number. It's a local issued regulation so I think local MSL would apply when measuring! It called common sense. But I understand why city hall would try to draw are attention away from the local MSL. Local MSL is not good for VT7.

All we seem to read these days are contradictions from stopvt7. Initially he was saying it was 200m from the high tide, then 200m from the MSL, now it seems he can't make up his mind if it is regulation 8 or 9, he also continues to say that "Thailand is a country of laws", yet he now understands that these laws differ from location to location. Sometime ago on this thread people were asking why buildings could be built so close to the sea in Na Jomtien, it was said that this area comes under a different regulation, which everyone disregarded. Now it seems that one good thing has come out of this thread, it has educated people to some extent, yet there is still so much uncertainty with laws being distorted to suit individual agendas. I see little point in debating anything on this forum, whatever is said, someone who thinks they're smarter will come along and spout absolute garble. What about the big issue of Hua Hin? nothing being built within 200m. Do you now see that what happens in Hua Hin has absolutely no affect of what happens in Pattaya? No blue roofing allowed on Samui, yet you see the god awful stuff everywhere else. Everywhere is different and as I said previously it ain't over til the now obese lady sings.

You must be a buyer of VT7!