Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[lookat]

Sorry but can someone just spell it out in black and white without refernece to 100 lines of various rulings, codes, links etc.

So the court says you have to go out to sea 100m then come back in 200m ? Yes or no ?

So why not just say from MSL inland 100m as it is the same thing ?

Obviously a tea money judgement but is that the end ?

Thanks.

More black and white! The expert witness testified you measure 100 meters into the sea from MSL and 100 meters onto the land from MSL which equals 200 meters. The regulation issue 9 said “to fix 200 meters measured from the construction control line” which is at MSL on the map. So much for expert witness! So much for the Rayong admin court who duties are to investigate corruption in government!

[JaiDeeFarang]

Sorry but can someone just spell it out in black and white without refernece to 100 lines of various rulings, codes, links etc.

So the court says you have to go out to sea 100m then come back in 200m ? Yes or no ?

So why not just say from MSL inland 100m as it is the same thing ?

Obviously a tea money judgement but is that the end ?

Thanks.

More black and white! The expert witness testified you measure 100 meters into the sea from MSL and 100 meters onto the land from MSL which equals 200 meters. The regulation issue 9 said "to fix 200 meters measured from the construction control line" which is at MSL on the map. So much for expert witness! So much for the Rayong admin court who duties are to investigate corruption in government!

What makes you think a Thai court will do anything to help a farang? Even in a minor traffic accident it is always the farang at fault, so what makes you think the admin court would side with you? Get real, don't you know that there is corruption at every level of Thai society regardless of which court you take your case to. Why not take your fight to the court of human rights (If it is a human right to have a sea view ) in Strasbourg or where ever it is, they may take more notice of you than a Thai court will.

[jpm76]

Black and white appears to me to be that VT7 is now able to continue building above the 14m mark because it is no longer under an injunction not to do so... the previous injunction has been thrown out. The court order has been removed, and thus StopVT7's efforts have been sidelined (at least temporarily). All personal judgements aside, it is a current victory for VT7 that allows them to continue building for now.

I will not claim to know the legal system of Thailand as to whether StopVT7 have a right of appeal in a "Supreme" or any other court. If so, that will be for StopVT7 to consider further....a choice that I am glad that I do not have to make. I do not know what StopVT7 have invested to date in fighting this through the courts, but ordinarily, Appeal courts get far more expensive, and I tend to agree that there is far more than legal arguments at stake here.

[dkstoney]

Very happy to see that someone is standing up for themselves as it's apparent on this forum that many others would do it for him. I always love to see new precedents set.

[Tammi]

Black and white appears to me to be that VT7 is now able to continue building above the 14m mark because it is no longer under an injunction not to do so... the previous injunction has been thrown out. The court order has been removed, and thus StopVT7's efforts have been sidelined (at least temporarily). All personal judgements aside, it is a current victory for VT7 that allows them to continue building for now.

I will not claim to know the legal system of Thailand as to whether StopVT7 have a right of appeal in a "Supreme" or any other court. If so, that will be for StopVT7 to consider further....a choice that I am glad that I do not have to make. I do not know what StopVT7 have invested to date in fighting this through the courts, but ordinarily, Appeal courts get far more expensive, and I tend to agree that there is far more than legal arguments at stake here.

I think that the case is not yet complete and VT can not build over 14 metres until such time as the case is complete and in VT's favour.

[beginner]

I think that the case is not yet complete and VT can not build over 14 metres until such time as the case is complete and in VT's favour.

The Court, therefore, revokes its provisional order or measure before judgment to the Second Prosecuted Person to suspend the construction of its building over 14 meter above road surface with effective immediately.

[JaiDeeFarang]

Black and white appears to me to be that VT7 is now able to continue building above the 14m mark because it is no longer under an injunction not to do so... the previous injunction has been thrown out. The court order has been removed, and thus StopVT7's efforts have been sidelined (at least temporarily). All personal judgements aside, it is a current victory for VT7 that allows them to continue building for now.

I will not claim to know the legal system of Thailand as to whether StopVT7 have a right of appeal in a "Supreme" or any other court. If so, that will be for StopVT7 to consider further....a choice that I am glad that I do not have to make. I do not know what StopVT7 have invested to date in fighting this through the courts, but ordinarily, Appeal courts get far more expensive, and I tend to agree that there is far more than legal arguments at stake here.

I think that the case is not yet complete and VT can not build over 14 metres until such time as the case is complete and in VT's favour.

What you "think" is irrelevant! You should face "Facts".

[lookat]

Add to stopvt7 blog posting tell use alot. It looks they clearly understand to law on thier side.

Thoughts on Administrative Court Order 16^th January 2008!

Expert witness: The expert witness testified you measure 100 meters into the sea from MSL and 100 meters onto the land from MSL which equals 200 meters. The regulation in issue 9 said "to fix 200 meters measured from the construction control line" which is at MSL on the map. The expert witness divides the "fix 200 meter measurement" in half and applies on each side on MSL. The expert witness never addresses the fact in Issue9. They miss represented the meaning of arrows on a map. How could this happen?

Arrows: · Arrows on the map are used only to point and give you information. · One arrow pointed to the construction control line and said (at the sea shore mean sea level MSL). That is why, Bangkok City Planning in their June letter to the court said in Issue 9 it specifies you measure from MSL. · One arrow points to the boundary line and said "100 meters". This arrow pointing on the map is the reason the court expert witness testified you measure 100 meters into the sea and 100 meters onto the land which equals 200 meters. · Arrows are not used to divide ask any draftsman or someone who have taken a high school class in mechanical drawing. Issue 9 regulation and the maps. 1) The map show where the boundaries of the law are applied. 2) Where from you make the measure. (Answer is MSL which is the construction control Line) 3) The law tells you to make a measure of 200 meters. What are the facts in Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B. E. 2521)

A) to fix the 200 meters measuredfrom the construction control line

C) at the sea shore

D) following constructions shall not be built (Building of 14 meters higher than road level)

Keeping it simple!

The legal sup-committee thanks all co-owner which support action to stop VT7. We think the above facts are clear!

JaiDeeFarang needs to face the facts that he may not see his new condo at vt7?

Edited January 24, 2008 by lookat

[stopvt7]

I see lookat cut and pasted our committee thoughts on Administrative Court Order decision of 16^th January 2008!

You need to see our graphic presentation to help you understand.

The real question is where do you find any info that tells you to measure into the sea 100 meters and than onto the land 200 meters? Read the regulation and No where will you find such wording which the so called expert said! So what does that tell you?

Issue 9 “to fix the 200 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map at the sea shore that building of the following types are not permitted for construction. Building of 14 meters higher than road level.

Then go read the reason for writing Issue 8 and 9 and read the Parliament debate minutes. It is very clear the expert need to answer some question. Our lawyer never asked.

The first question would be can you read Thai?

Where is it written in Issue 9 regulation that tell you to measure from MSL into the sea a 100 meters to a borderline of construction control area? (Area >noun 1 a part of an expanse or surface. 2 a space allocated for a specific use) Our lawyer never asked.

Where is it written in Issue 9 regulation that tell you to divide a fixed measurement of 200 meters inyo half and apply 100 meters on each side of MSL? Our lawyer never asked.

Do you get influenced to make confusing claims at a Tea party? (tea >noun 1 a hot drink made by infusing the dried, crushed leaves of the tea plant in boiling water)

[Tammi]

You keep saying above that your lawyer never asked. Are you saying that you are not happy with your lawyer?

[OneMikeInBangkok]

For goodness sake Why didn't the lawyers ask?

Did they join the tea party too?

[prospero]

VT7 has a very big teapot, and lots of seaview units to distribute.

[Sir Burr]

Obviously StopVT7's lawyer has been bought and paid for by VT7.

[JaiDeeFarang]

Not neccesarily, he knew the law all along but decided to milk it and get as much money as possible from the stopVT7 gang would be my guess.

[OneMikeInBangkok]

Talking about milking for money - are you and the other VT owners going to contribute to a milk fund to feed the children playing on the VT7 site?

If so do you have another fund to pay for funeral rites when the first toddler fatality occurs?

I say WHEN not IF because the number of toddlers and small chiildren playing around the site has increased since they re-started.

Or do you still have the I COULDN'T CARE LESS attitude you have expressed in previous posts

[Pattaya_Fox]

I have deleted some unsubstantiated criminal accusations and edited some quotes.

Accusing one party or the other of criminal activities without proof cannot be allowed.

[lookat]

Where do is the statement measure into the sea measure onto the land come from? It's not in Issue 8 or 9.

I heard it was used in court. Who first used it in court?

[marekm1]

Where do is the statement measure into the sea measure onto the land come from? It's not in Issue 8 or 9.

I heard it was used in court. Who first used it in court?

If we didn’t have that law and View Talay or any other developer would decide in the future to build a high rise building 1 meter from MSL into the sea that would be perfect legal for them to do it. That law prevent any developer to do it. I am sure it makes a perfect sense for people, who want to protect the environment and not only their sea view.

The other thing is that, if the law was like Jomtien Complex people claim, there would make about 30 or 50 buildings in Pattaya not legal and in danger to be demolished.

Pattaya City Hall has been consistent in applying that law in the last 30 or 40 years. So just accept it, there was no tea party for VT7. VT7 is perfect legal according to Thai law.

Thailand is country of law.

[Sir Burr]

Talking about milking for money - are you and the other VT owners going to contribute to a milk fund to feed the children playing on the VT7 site?

If so do you have another fund to pay for funeral rites when the first toddler fatality occurs?

I say WHEN not IF because the number of toddlers and small chiildren playing around the site has increased since they re-started.

Or do you still have the I COULDN'T CARE LESS attitude you have expressed in previous posts

Why do you hold responsible the people who have bought into VT7 for the welfare of construction worker's children? It is the construction company's responsibility.

Would you hold a taxi passenger responsible for the road-worthiness of the taxi they're riding in?

[OneMikeInBangkok]

Talking about milking for money - are you and the other VT owners going to contribute to a milk fund to feed the children playing on the VT7 site?

If so do you have another fund to pay for funeral rites when the first toddler fatality occurs?

I say WHEN not IF because the number of toddlers and small chiildren playing around the site has increased since they re-started.

Or do you still have the I COULDN'T CARE LESS attitude you have expressed in previous posts

Why do you hold responsible the people who have bought into VT7 for the welfare of construction worker's children? It is the construction company's responsibility.

Would you hold a taxi passenger responsible for the road-worthiness of the taxi they're riding in?

The issue of children playing on site and their lives being seriously at risk has been brought to the attention of View Talay - They choose to ignore and deny that this happens. At this VERY moment I can look out my balcony and see this STILL happening.

It is not only ILLEGAL it is also inhumane.

View Talay flount the law in many ways. They have flounted the building permit in so many ways. View Talay IS RESPONSIBLE legally and moraraly for the actions of their contractors and sub contractors.

This has been brought to the attention of members of this board. Some of the members are investors in this project. It is THEIR money which is financing this project. It is THEIR money that is buying the concrete and rebar which is being transported over the heads of these toddlers.

Some of these members have expressed their opinions on THIS FORUM that they DON'T CARE what happens to these kids.

Have they made just ONE call to express their concerns to View Talay?

They are investors in View Talay 7

They know kids are playing on site during construction (I am not talking about child workers - that is a different issue)

Could they be held responsible as investors if one of these kids lives is snuffed out. I doubt it, this is Thailand.

But I tell you one thing, If this does happen and I forcast that there is a very very good chance it will. Then I will hold them responsible for their pathetic, heartless scum bag inaction attitude.

This seems to echo the attitude of so many of the sexpats and I can't afford to live in faranglandpats. As long as I can make a few bucks on my investment and get lots of cheap pussy - then I don't give a damned sh**

I call them heartless B****** but they just laugh. They are the scum of the Earth

[Ungabunga]

Mike - Whilst I agree that children on construction sites is wrong, I'm sure no-one on the forum would want to see anyone hurt or even worse, whether they be children or adult.

[Sir Burr]

Could they be held responsible as investors if one of these kids lives is snuffed out. I doubt it, this is Thailand.

They wouldn't be held responsible in a first world country, never mind Thailand. This is coming across as a severe case of sour grapes on your part.

Calling everyone that has invested in VT7 a sexpat and scum? Get a grip. Even better, get a life.

Edited January 26, 2008 by Sir Burr

[OneMikeInBangkok]

Could they be held responsible as investors if one of these kids lives is snuffed out. I doubt it, this is Thailand.

They wouldn't be held responsible in a first world country, never mind Thailand. This is coming across as a severe case of sour grapes on your part.

Calling everyone that has invested in VT7 a sexpat and scum? Get a grip. Even better, get a life.

NO I am not refering to every investor in VT

I am refering specifically to the members of this board, investors in this project, who have expressed these heartless attitudes - I call them scum

As to sexpats well - have you ever been to Pattaya??????

Why should I need to get a life? I have a erfectly pleasant life thank you

It is the innocent kids lives that I am concerned about - not mine

And I am 100% sure that in the west if this story got out that investors in a project knew that kids lives were in danger and the investors did NOTHING about it that the press would be all over it in seconds.

But this is not the west

And these folks are not human beings

[OneMikeInBangkok]

Mike - Whilst I agree that children on construction sites is wrong, I'm sure no-one on the forum would want to see anyone hurt or even worse, whether they be children or adult.

Sorry I disagree

There are members - who have expressed this attitude already

Not that they want ANYONE to be hurt but they frankly don't care and are not interested in the consequences even though it is their money that is financing the project.

Do you think that is OK?

[OneMikeInBangkok]

I apologize if I offend anybody

I am having a bad day

It's just that I smoke and I have to go on the balcony cause my wife complains if I smoke in the condo.

My heart misses a beat every time I see one of these kids playing on the scaffolding with concrete raining down.

I know - the answer is - I should give up smoking

[Sir Burr]

.....or, take the trousers away from your wife and wear them yourself.

[tropiccapricorn]

Maybe I am not informed enough but this discussion around 200 m seems funny.

If this law were meant as it is applied now, shouldn't it have been written 100 m on either side of MSL?

The law might have been breached many times without opposition.

It still is a violation. So maybe LOS is afterall a country of (tea laws).

[OhdLover]

Moderator,

I refuse to be accused by OneMikeInBangkok of all these things he is writing above.

I would like a moderator to take care of this post / poster, since it is highly offensive to all the people who bought a condo in VT7.

His jumping to conclusions without any prove maybe a spinoff of his anger to have lost a case he wasn't even part of.

However, nobody has to accept being insulted this way.

Consider these quoted lines:

attitude of so many of the sexpats

I call them heartless B****** but they just laugh. They are the scum of the Earth

Some of these members have expressed their opinions on THIS FORUM that they DON'T CARE what happens to these kids.

Then I will hold them responsible for their pathetic, heartless scum bag inaction attitude.

And these folks are not human beings

Needless to say I am not going to defend myself against this guy who is just eager to upset people.

I won't reply on anything this guy says from now on, I think I made my point more than clear.

Edited January 26, 2008 by OhdLover

[OneMikeInBangkok]

Moderator,

I refuse to be accused by OneMikeInBangkok of all these things he is writing above.

I would like a moderatore take care of this post / poster, since it is highly offensive to all the people who bought a condo in VT7.

His jumping to conclusions without any prove maybe a spinoff of his anger to have lost a case he wasn't even part of.

However, nobody has to accept being insulted this way.

Consider these quoted lines:

attitude of so many of the sexpats

I call them heartless B****** but they just laugh. They are the scum of the Earth

Some of these members have expressed their opinions on THIS FORUM that they DON'T CARE what happens to these kids.

Then I will hold them responsible for their pathetic, heartless scum bag inaction attitude.

And these folks are not human beings

Needless to say I am not going to defend myself against this guy who is just eager to upset people.

I won't reply on anything this guy says from now on, I think I made my point more than clear.

Now why on Earth would you think I was talking about you?

Something prick your concience?

[Tammi]

Mike - Whilst I agree that children on construction sites is wrong, I'm sure no-one on the forum would want to see anyone hurt or even worse, whether they be children or adult.

I have heard about construction workers falling to their deaths.