Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[Tammi]

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.

Nonsense. Jomthien Condotel, Grand Condotel, Jomthien Complex, were all built 200 meters back. Jomthien Condo and Grand Condo were the very first to be built if I am not mistaken and were built as per the Law. Jomthien Condotel was completed in 1986.

[OhdLover]

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.

Where in Thailand (or elsewhere) do you live? Have you been watching the place every day while it was built?

How certain are you that nobody got hurt or worse by building your place to live?

How about the jeans you wear? Probably some children have been working on it under very bad circumstances.

How about....?

Come on.....

I will not defend myself against Mike, but I will tell you I informed VT-office long ago about the possibility that children might be in danger over there, and I asked them to take care of this problem.

Last time I was in Jomtien (and it wasnt during the construction delay), I have visited the place a few times, and I didnt see any children enter or leave the construction site. I can't say they weren't there, because I am not allowed to enter the place.

I suggest that somebody who has prove for it (how difficult can it be to take a clear photo), puts the photo on this site, and,

if they're really so concerned, go to the police or go to court or whatever. Just writing about it on this forum is just a lazy way of avoiding your responsibilities. YOU see it, YOU take action. Not : YOU see it and tell others it's THEIR problem.

That's pathetic. YOU saw it, so if something happens, I hold YOU responsible for not taking action, for just complainting about it on a forum, comfortably sitting behind your laptop in your underwear !!!! BE REALLY CONCERNED, TAKE ACTION!!!!!

[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.

I have heard about construction workers falling to their deaths.

I have only heard about one death - when a load of re-bar fell on a workers head

Sadly construction workers carry a greater risk of injury and death than many other trades.

This is why Thailand like other countries have LAWS to try to minimuse these risks.

These laws are very specific and are written into a developers construction permit

View Talay have a construction permit - however they obtained this is another matter.

I have seen the construction permit for VT7. Amongst the laws and regulations stipulated in this document.

Workers should wear hard hats at all times when on site

Children not allowed on site

I can go on and on and on.......

Most of these laws are being flounted every minute of every working day

I have never seen a worker wear safety lines when erecting the tower cranes

I see workers joyriding around the site hung aloft tens of meters off the ground by the cranes.

Most of these infractions of the Thai Law and VT7 bilding permit have been documented and I presume will be used as evidence in further court cases.

Let's look at it another way

Maybe VT wins maybe this monstrocity gets built despite all the laws being broken.

Maybe - just maybe something good comes out of this and, (not new laws) there are plenty of laws in existance, but laws will be adhered to and less lives will be lost and less workers will be seriously injured.

I have visited many building projects in Thailand. In Bangkok it is rare VERY RARE to see a building site without workers wearing hard hats.

Why is Pattaya so different?

Is it doen to the attitude of the workers?

Is it down to the attitudes of the developers?

or

Is it down to the attitude of Pattaya City Hall who issues these construction permits and should be enforcing them?

But for God's sake - keep the children out of there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[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.

I have heard about construction workers falling to their deaths.

Where in Thailand (or elsewhere) do you live? Have you been watching the place every day while it was built?

How certain are you that nobody got hurt or worse by building your place to live?

How about the jeans you wear? Probably some children have been working on it under very bad circumstances.

How about....?

Come on.....

I will not defend myself against Mike, but I will tell you I informed VT-office long ago about the possibility that children might be in danger over there, and I asked them to take care of this problem.

Last time I was in Jomtien (and it wasnt during the construction delay), I have visited the place a few times, and I didnt see any children enter or leave the construction site. I can't say they weren't there, because I am not allowed to enter the place.

I suggest that somebody who has prove for it (how difficult can it be to take a clear photo), puts the photo on this site, and,

if they're really so concerned, go to the police or go to court or whatever. Just writing about it on this forum is just a lazy way of avoiding your responsibilities. YOU see it, YOU take action. Not : YOU see it and tell others it's THEIR problem.

That's pathetic. YOU saw it, so if something happens, I hold YOU responsible for not taking action, for just complainting about it on a forum, comfortably sitting behind your laptop in your underwear !!!! BE REALLY CONCERNED, TAKE ACTION!!!!!

I do watch this site EVERY day

I posted about the kids again because TODAY TODAY TODAY the kids were playing onsite at the base of the site.

Do you think I am blind?

Do you think I am lying?

for what?

GET THOSE KIDS OUT OF HARMS WAY

Hey man - I have complained to View Talay - nowt happened - they just denied it

Now what am I supposed to do - go down there with a hundred Thai construction workers around and make a complaint - call the police - do you think I'm daft or sumat?

Thanks OHD for taking some action and talking to VT - as you see they live in denial - of course they won't admit to breaking the law.

You want to see the kids - stand there at 7.30 am as the workers arrive

stand there at 5.00 pm as they leave

You may have a job spotting them as they will be packed like sardines in the pick ups.

Unfortunately I have a grandstand view of this. Not only can I see the kids I can hear them I can almost touch them.......

Now then getting myself all worked up again - I need a smoke - it's safe to go on the balcony now - the workers and the children have gone home

[Sir Burr]

Now then getting myself all worked up again - I need a smoke - it's safe to go on the balcony now - the workers and the children have gone home

Have a smoke sitting at your computer. Go on, you know you want to. If the missus complains, show her who's the boss.

[OneMikeInBangkok]

Now then getting myself all worked up again - I need a smoke - it's safe to go on the balcony now - the workers and the children have gone home

Have a smoke sitting at your computer. Go on, you know you want to. If the missus complains, show her who's the boss.

She's got a bad chest

Actualy I think her chest is pretty good

[Tammi]

I have visited many building projects in Thailand. In Bangkok it is rare VERY RARE to see a building site without workers wearing hard hats.

Why is Pattaya so different?

Is it doen to the attitude of the workers?

Is it down to the attitudes of the developers?

or

Is it down to the attitude of Pattaya City Hall who issues these construction permits and should be enforcing them?

But for God's sake - keep the children out of there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I also have seen many construction sites in Bangkok and have noticed hard hats being worn by everyone and proper safety netting put up so's nobody is injured by falling debris, construction materials, tools. You do see safety netting here in Pattaya but only place I have seen it properly maintained was at BP Hospital when the new building was going up. I heard that tenants moved out of the town houses next door to VT5 because of stuff falling on roofs.

The workers will do as they are told by the developer and the developer should do as he is told by City Hall inspectors.

[jpm76]

I have visited many building projects in Thailand. In Bangkok it is rare VERY RARE to see a building site without workers wearing hard hats.

Why is Pattaya so different?

Is it doen to the attitude of the workers?

Is it down to the attitudes of the developers?

or

Is it down to the attitude of Pattaya City Hall who issues these construction permits and should be enforcing them?

But for God's sake - keep the children out of there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I also have seen many construction sites in Bangkok and have noticed hard hats being worn by everyone and proper safety netting put up so's nobody is injured by falling debris, construction materials, tools. You do see safety netting here in Pattaya but only place I have seen it properly maintained was at BP Hospital when the new building was going up. I heard that tenants moved out of the town houses next door to VT5 because of stuff falling on roofs.

The workers will do as they are told by the developer and the developer should do as he is told by City Hall inspectors.

VT7 investors,

The best thing we can do with OneMike is completely ignore any posts that he makes. We are well aware that he has no real financial interest in this project and has admitted it. He has proven time and time again that he is only here to make ridiculous posts designed to rile people up, so why pay any attention to him. It is pointless and only eggs him on, so best we ignore anything that blurts out of his mouth-head because chances are (and do the math on his posts), that it will be nothing short of ill informed, idiotic and hypocritical to match.

I commend Sir Burr for pointing out the obvious fact that VT7 investors have no responsibility over the welfare of children onsite, construction workers or the politics of Thailand either, and any insinuations that VT7 are irresponsible scum do not properly represent the fact that I am quite sure the majority of us had no deep research upon VT's history (nor do I still), and have only entered this investment because we desire an oceanview condo in beautiful Thailand (preferably at a distance form Pattaya's seedier side may I add). I do not want to spoil the fun of anyone who still wants to hold that it is the fault of VT7 investors that this project is going forward, but facts seem to suggest that we are ordinary investors who buy on basic fundamentals and glossy marketing brochures are alluring. For my part, I saw that VT have a history of getting projects completed and the fact that they had completed a number of projects was good enough for me that they were not going ot go bankrupt ie I would not lose money in this way.

I have always held that I fully accept StopVT7's right to challenge VT7 in the courts, and whilst I understand their logic (much more than some of the posters in support of VT7) and see their points, I have to contend that no-one should be able to accuse anyone with corruption (without evidence), and that the courts decision that this project is legal is good enough for me. If they decide to take this further, and they find that the reasoning behind these court decisions is faulty, then I will also accept that. I am fully aware of such laws... in Nicaragua and Panama (where I am a developer), we have the same "Mariners Laws" that ensure distances between the beach and construction. It makes sense that there should be some kind of distance, but to have 200m back from the beach is overkill. 50m is sufficient in my opinion, and I believe that some judicial activism would be beneficial here ie where the courts will even go to the extent of overturning old "laws" (if they do exist as StopVT7 understands them) in order that a more sensible mark can be found.

I read with interest the efforts of StopVT7, and I even commend the lengths that Richard and party have gone to in order to defend their investments, and in a proper manner, so VT7 investors, I would ask that we not let the foolishness of posters not even with interests in either VT7 or JCC, get in the way of what StopVT7 are all about. It is unfortunate that we find ourselves on the other side of the fence from them, but in their position, we would consider the same actions (or at least I would).

Short of any evidence that VT7 "paid off" City Hall officials, then I would ask that some consideration be given to the fact that VT7 has obtained "legal" (at least to date) permissions to construct their buildings (regardless of how some seem to view the VT7 architectural style...it is irrelevant, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder). VT7, let alone VT7 investors, cannot be held responsible for the issuing of questionable building permits without any evidence of corruption or without a clear ruling that the whole 200m law is, beyond doubt, supports the StopVT7 claims (and I understand what there arguments are - also makes sense to me to a large degree). I also understand that the difficulty in obtaining such a measure requires a whole new measure and I would support a repeal of these laws to produce a more easily obtainable measure. Maybe this is what is happening, as 200m is quite ridiculously long, in my opinion, and perhaps, Thailand courts understand this better than we give them credit for.

On that note, we can all agree that this has been an unfortunate circumstance whereby someone has to lose out here, and depending upon your political, economic and personal issues (all of which should be irrelevant next to the law and the Rule of Law, however difficult to understand and interpret that can be), and whether you are a anti-capitalist of the Seattle WTO protesting type or a ruthless advocate of free market right wing ideology that gives rise to a hoard of conspiratist theories, you cannot argue that these things will not influence your positions and own thinking. Some people just make the error of thinking that they are so right that the rest of the world should adhere to their own standards, and that the law should even bow down to their conceptual framework and worldview. Fact is that laws are still developing in even the most developed countries, and that they are often complicated to understand... May I add that someone with the intelligence displayed by OneMike at times would have to, in my opinion, struggle with the underlying issues, and the underlying political streams that even influence countries in their construction of the law. Freedom of speech, for sure, and the right to be involved in the legal process (at least at the court level), but fortunately, StopVT7 is well aware that there is a process that needs to be respected. Of course, I am pushing forth my own ideas here (and realise the hypocrisy that I feel unavoidable by anyone), but hopefully they also respect the same process that we should all be bound to (as I respect how StopVT7 has followed it, even if I do not agree with them on other points).

Let us not forget that we have invested in a country still shaping itself, and we have to respect the laws that it holds (regardless of how they are interpreted at the judicial level). Fortunately, it gives right to challenges at several levels, and the point I am most interested in at present is whether StopVT7 are going to accept the court decision or decide to step up to the next level and challenge in the Supreme Court (or whereever it requires). I would think that that is perhaps the most important issue for all those who are actually really and financially involved in this dispute of the interpretation of the law (hence why a court process has occured). Any attempts to bring child labour, children on construction sites, worker compensation issues are really off topic, and need to be taken up with VT7 directly and perhaps the courts (if you are prepared to throw anything but useless comments at this forum ie take it to the courts), not here. This is about JCC and VT7's dispute about the legality of VT7, not for any other issues. Start your own post where you can address these points with those more interested in those issues because I do not think that StopVT7 is challenging these issues.

[OneMikeInBangkok]

I have visited many building projects in Thailand. In Bangkok it is rare VERY RARE to see a building site without workers wearing hard hats.

Why is Pattaya so different?

Is it doen to the attitude of the workers?

Is it down to the attitudes of the developers?

or

Is it down to the attitude of Pattaya City Hall who issues these construction permits and should be enforcing them?

But for God's sake - keep the children out of there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I also have seen many construction sites in Bangkok and have noticed hard hats being worn by everyone and proper safety netting put up so's nobody is injured by falling debris, construction materials, tools. You do see safety netting here in Pattaya but only place I have seen it properly maintained was at BP Hospital when the new building was going up. I heard that tenants moved out of the town houses next door to VT5 because of stuff falling on roofs.

The workers will do as they are told by the developer and the developer should do as he is told by City Hall inspectors.

VT7 investors,

The best thing we can do with OneMike is completely ignore any posts that he makes. We are well aware that he has no real financial interest in this project and has admitted it. He has proven time and time again that he is only here to make ridiculous posts designed to rile people up, so why pay any attention to him. It is pointless and only eggs him on, so best we ignore anything that blurts out of his mouth-head because chances are (and do the math on his posts), that it will be nothing short of ill informed, idiotic and hypocritical to match.

I commend Sir Burr for pointing out the obvious fact that VT7 investors have no responsibility over the welfare of children onsite, construction workers or the politics of Thailand either, and any insinuations that VT7 are irresponsible scum do not properly represent the fact that I am quite sure the majority of us had no deep research upon VT's history (nor do I still), and have only entered this investment because we desire an oceanview condo in beautiful Thailand (preferably at a distance form Pattaya's seedier side may I add). I do not want to spoil the fun of anyone who still wants to hold that it is the fault of VT7 investors that this project is going forward, but facts seem to suggest that we are ordinary investors who buy on basic fundamentals and glossy marketing brochures are alluring. For my part, I saw that VT have a history of getting projects completed and the fact that they had completed a number of projects was good enough for me that they were not going ot go bankrupt ie I would not lose money in this way.

I have always held that I fully accept StopVT7's right to challenge VT7 in the courts, and whilst I understand their logic (much more than some of the posters in support of VT7) and see their points, I have to contend that no-one should be able to accuse anyone with corruption (without evidence), and that the courts decision that this project is legal is good enough for me. If they decide to take this further, and they find that the reasoning behind these court decisions is faulty, then I will also accept that. I am fully aware of such laws... in Nicaragua and Panama (where I am a developer), we have the same "Mariners Laws" that ensure distances between the beach and construction. It makes sense that there should be some kind of distance, but to have 200m back from the beach is overkill. 50m is sufficient in my opinion, and I believe that some judicial activism would be beneficial here ie where the courts will even go to the extent of overturning old "laws" (if they do exist as StopVT7 understands them) in order that a more sensible mark can be found.

I read with interest the efforts of StopVT7, and I even commend the lengths that Richard and party have gone to in order to defend their investments, and in a proper manner, so VT7 investors, I would ask that we not let the foolishness of posters not even with interests in either VT7 or JCC, get in the way of what StopVT7 are all about. It is unfortunate that we find ourselves on the other side of the fence from them, but in their position, we would consider the same actions (or at least I would).

Short of any evidence that VT7 "paid off" City Hall officials, then I would ask that some consideration be given to the fact that VT7 has obtained "legal" (at least to date) permissions to construct their buildings (regardless of how some seem to view the VT7 architectural style...it is irrelevant, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder). VT7, let alone VT7 investors, cannot be held responsible for the issuing of questionable building permits without any evidence of corruption or without a clear ruling that the whole 200m law is, beyond doubt, supports the StopVT7 claims (and I understand what there arguments are - also makes sense to me to a large degree). I also understand that the difficulty in obtaining such a measure requires a whole new measure and I would support a repeal of these laws to produce a more easily obtainable measure. Maybe this is what is happening, as 200m is quite ridiculously long, in my opinion, and perhaps, Thailand courts understand this better than we give them credit for.

On that note, we can all agree that this has been an unfortunate circumstance whereby someone has to lose out here, and depending upon your political, economic and personal issues (all of which should be irrelevant next to the law and the Rule of Law, however difficult to understand and interpret that can be), and whether you are a anti-capitalist of the Seattle WTO protesting type or a ruthless advocate of free market right wing ideology that gives rise to a hoard of conspiratist theories, you cannot argue that these things will not influence your positions and own thinking. Some people just make the error of thinking that they are so right that the rest of the world should adhere to their own standards, and that the law should even bow down to their conceptual framework and worldview. Fact is that laws are still developing in even the most developed countries, and that they are often complicated to understand... May I add that someone with the intelligence displayed by OneMike at times would have to, in my opinion, struggle with the underlying issues, and the underlying political streams that even influence countries in their construction of the law. Freedom of speech, for sure, and the right to be involved in the legal process (at least at the court level), but fortunately, StopVT7 is well aware that there is a process that needs to be respected. Of course, I am pushing forth my own ideas here (and realise the hypocrisy that I feel unavoidable by anyone), but hopefully they also respect the same process that we should all be bound to (as I respect how StopVT7 has followed it, even if I do not agree with them on other points).

Let us not forget that we have invested in a country still shaping itself, and we have to respect the laws that it holds (regardless of how they are interpreted at the judicial level). Fortunately, it gives right to challenges at several levels, and the point I am most interested in at present is whether StopVT7 are going to accept the court decision or decide to step up to the next level and challenge in the Supreme Court (or whereever it requires). I would think that that is perhaps the most important issue for all those who are actually really and financially involved in this dispute of the interpretation of the law (hence why a court process has occured). Any attempts to bring child labour, children on construction sites, worker compensation issues are really off topic, and need to be taken up with VT7 directly and perhaps the courts (if you are prepared to throw anything but useless comments at this forum ie take it to the courts), not here. This is about JCC and VT7's dispute about the legality of VT7, not for any other issues. Start your own post where you can address these points with those more interested in those issues because I do not think that StopVT7 is challenging these issues.

What a load of verbose twaddle

[stopvt7]

Stopvt7 group has not challenge VT7!

The Stopvt7 group sued city hall for issuing a questionable building permit.

The following is Quotation from 16^th January Court Order: “The Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning followed the Court’s order and submitted its report which can be summarized that: Measurement must be started from the point of MSL having 0.00 meter. While measured from this point outward to sea at the distance of 100 meter, it shall be the construction control area as shown in the map annexed to aforesaid Royal Decree. And while measured from this point toward the land to reach the building by another 100 meter, it shall be the distance from construction control area of 200 meter referred in Article 3 under the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) amended by the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) which restricts the construction of building over 14 meter from road surface.”

Now read what the updated Regulation Issue 9 said: “ to fix the 200 meters measured from the construction control line (MSL) according to the annexed map to the Royal Decree …….at the sea shore (MSL) in which the following constructions shall not be built: Building of 14 meters higher than road level.”

Now read what the Regulation Issue 8 said: “ to fix the 100 meters measured from the construction control line (High Tide) according to the annexed map to the Royal Decree …….at the sea shore (High Tide) in which the following constructions shall not be built: Building of 14 meters higher than road level.”Now where does it say divide 200 meters in half and apply 100 meters on each side on the construction control line (MLS).

How could a Court Witness rewrite Issue 9? Who could the a court witness move tall building close to the sea than Issue 8 allowed?

Is this the meaning of Amazing Thailand?

Look at the graphic explanation attached or visit:

http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

http://stopvt7thai.blogspot.com/

[Tammi]

Stopvt7 group has not challenge VT7!

The Stopvt7 group sued city hall for issuing a questionable building permit.

The following is Quotation from 16^th January Court Order: “The Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning followed the Court’s order and submitted its report which can be summarized that: Measurement must be started from the point of MSL having 0.00 meter. While measured from this point outward to sea at the distance of 100 meter, it shall be the construction control area as shown in the map annexed to aforesaid Royal Decree. And while measured from this point toward the land to reach the building by another 100 meter, it shall be the distance from construction control area of 200 meter referred in Article 3 under the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) amended by the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) which restricts the construction of building over 14 meter from road surface.”

Now read what the updated Regulation Issue 9 said: “ to fix the 200 meters measured from the construction control line (MSL) according to the annexed map to the Royal Decree …….at the sea shore (MSL) in which the following constructions shall not be built: Building of 14 meters higher than road level.”

Now read what the Regulation Issue 8 said: “ to fix the 100 meters measured from the construction control line (High Tide) according to the annexed map to the Royal Decree …….at the sea shore (High Tide) in which the following constructions shall not be built: Building of 14 meters higher than road level.”Now where does it say divide 200 meters in half and apply 100 meters on each side on the construction control line (MLS).

How could a Court Witness rewrite Issue 9? Who could the a court witness move tall building close to the sea than Issue 8 allowed?

Is this the meaning of Amazing Thailand?

Look at the graphic explanation attached or visit:

http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

http://stopvt7thai.blogspot.com/

Dear StopVT7,

Please just tell us, in as few words as possible,

1. what the outcome of the admin court case was.

2. if the admin court ruling was not in your favour is your group at JCC going to appeal?

3. will you continue with Asia LawWorks as your lawyer?

[jpm76]

Stopvt7 group has not challenge VT7!

The Stopvt7 group sued city hall for issuing a questionable building permit.

The following is Quotation from 16^th January Court Order: "The Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning followed the Court's order and submitted its report which can be summarized that: Measurement must be started from the point of MSL having 0.00 meter. While measured from this point outward to sea at the distance of 100 meter, it shall be the construction control area as shown in the map annexed to aforesaid Royal Decree. And while measured from this point toward the land to reach the building by another 100 meter, it shall be the distance from construction control area of 200 meter referred in Article 3 under the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) amended by the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) which restricts the construction of building over 14 meter from road surface."

Now read what the updated Regulation Issue 9 said: " to fix the 200 meters measured from the construction control line (MSL) according to the annexed map to the Royal Decree …….at the sea shore (MSL) in which the following constructions shall not be built: Building of 14 meters higher than road level."

Now read what the Regulation Issue 8 said: " to fix the 100 meters measured from the construction control line (High Tide) according to the annexed map to the Royal Decree …….at the sea shore (High Tide) in which the following constructions shall not be built: Building of 14 meters higher than road level."Now where does it say divide 200 meters in half and apply 100 meters on each side on the construction control line (MLS).

How could a Court Witness rewrite Issue 9? Who could the a court witness move tall building close to the sea than Issue 8 allowed?

Is this the meaning of Amazing Thailand?

Look at the graphic explanation attached or visit:

http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

http://stopvt7thai.blogspot.com/

I apologise if I have it wrong but I thought that the court case brought VT in (perhaps indirectly) as a second defendant, hence why they had received an injunction against the construction of VT7. I know that you went after the building permit on questions of illegality, but I thought that you also charged VT as part of the court case??? Have I gotten it all wrong here?

I will not pretend to have spent any real time pouring over the technical engineering issues in this case, as I am not qualified to make any judgement, and whilst I follow your arguments, I can only assume that I am missing something through my lack of knowledge on MSL lines, high tide lines that chance etc etc, requiring averaging etc etc. I just find it hard to believe that the courts could be that off the mark here... there must be something that upholds the building permit, some substance of argument that could allow the courts to rule in a certain way. Corruption often works well until exposed, and then it usually folds its hand. I understand what you are saying with your postings and it seems reasonable to me, but as I have stated, I cannot pretend to understand what the VT side and engineers are arguing. I have to give more credit to the Thai law system than to think that they can rule against all that could be so plain as to what you are arguing, but then I am a VT7 investor, and one who has not studied Issue 8 or Issue 9. I leave that up to the courts. If there is something in Issue 8 or 9 that says something about a mark 100m out to sea, and then you measure 200m from that point, then that would be 100m from shore in my opinion, and VT7 would have to be very close to being inside this (depending upon exactly where it is measured from). My other point now is that I do not read Thai either, and therefore cannot rely upon English translations of it either when it is argued from the point of someone involved in the whole affair. I cannot swallow that the case is so black and white because it would not fool the courts, who would have to realise that they would be tried for corruption at some future time i would think. They must therefore have some argument that confuses the issue enough to make it "arguable" that the council did not issue the permit illegally. I do not pretend to understand it, nor have I really considered it.

If the status quo is as alleged by some (ie illegal developers, illegal court council, illegal judges etc), then it will not matter how strong your arguments are, because you are always doomed to fail against such opposition, as chances are that the powers above them are as corrupt to allow the lesser powers their ill discretions. If this is true, then you are just unlucky enough to find yourself on the wrong side of it, but there will be little you can do in such an environment, except save your money and do not throw it at them in the court system. I know it to be a possibility because I see similar "power structures" in other countries. In such a climate, laws do not rule, personalities do, under the guise of law. I know that his is what the StopVT7 supporters allege. Basically corruption... quite common in rapidly developing countries.

The question that I have to ask, as stated by Tammi, is "Are you going to appeal?". And also, How much is such an appeal going to cost you? Are you prepared to risk that sort fo money?

The Thai's, if I am informed correctly, are not about to be pushed over by foreign interests in the way that some other countries do to keep on the good side of Western powers. It is proud of the fact that it has managed to stay sovereign when other nations could not, and I do not see it needing to appease Western powers in the way that some other economies must.

I support your right to appeal, and believe that you have every right to do it, but I would have to question your sense if the situation is as some have described it, as it could only lead to a further loss of money for you. If the courts are judging fairly, then you would be at a high risk of losing under that scenario also. Your hope is only that they are not as corrupt as what some are alleging, and that you have a breakthrough landmark case. On such a likelihood, I have no idea how to gauge your chances of success as I do not know even if the Thai political system is crooked or not. I am just following the arguments of some who have posted to posit the stark reality of what you are doing. I would wish you all the luck if I did not have a condo at stake myself. So instead, best wishes, and know that I would have done the same as you (assuming that I felt that injustice was being done), but if you go further than this, you are braver than I am (or less concerned about the rest of your money). So again, the question is... Are you going to appeal the decision?

[JaiDeeFarang]

Stopvt7 group has not challenge VT7!

The Stopvt7 group sued city hall for issuing a questionable building permit.

The following is Quotation from 16^th January Court Order: "The Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning followed the Court's order and submitted its report which can be summarized that: Measurement must be started from the point of MSL having 0.00 meter. While measured from this point outward to sea at the distance of 100 meter, it shall be the construction control area as shown in the map annexed to aforesaid Royal Decree. And while measured from this point toward the land to reach the building by another 100 meter, it shall be the distance from construction control area of 200 meter referred in Article 3 under the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) amended by the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) which restricts the construction of building over 14 meter from road surface."

Now read what the updated Regulation Issue 9 said: " to fix the 200 meters measured from the construction control line (MSL) according to the annexed map to the Royal Decree …….at the sea shore (MSL) in which the following constructions shall not be built: Building of 14 meters higher than road level."

Now read what the Regulation Issue 8 said: " to fix the 100 meters measured from the construction control line (High Tide) according to the annexed map to the Royal Decree …….at the sea shore (High Tide) in which the following constructions shall not be built: Building of 14 meters higher than road level."Now where does it say divide 200 meters in half and apply 100 meters on each side on the construction control line (MLS).

How could a Court Witness rewrite Issue 9? Who could the a court witness move tall building close to the sea than Issue 8 allowed?

Is this the meaning of Amazing Thailand?

Look at the graphic explanation attached or visit:

http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

http://stopvt7thai.blogspot.com/

I apologise if I have it wrong but I thought that the court case brought VT in (perhaps indirectly) as a second defendant, hence why they had received an injunction against the construction of VT7. I know that you went after the building permit on questions of illegality, but I thought that you also charged VT as part of the court case??? Have I gotten it all wrong here?

I will not pretend to have spent any real time pouring over the technical engineering issues in this case, as I am not qualified to make any judgement, and whilst I follow your arguments, I can only assume that I am missing something through my lack of knowledge on MSL lines, high tide lines that chance etc etc, requiring averaging etc etc. I just find it hard to believe that the courts could be that off the mark here... there must be something that upholds the building permit, some substance of argument that could allow the courts to rule in a certain way. Corruption often works well until exposed, and then it usually folds its hand. I understand what you are saying with your postings and it seems reasonable to me, but as I have stated, I cannot pretend to understand what the VT side and engineers are arguing. I have to give more credit to the Thai law system than to think that they can rule against all that could be so plain as to what you are arguing, but then I am a VT7 investor, and one who has not studied Issue 8 or Issue 9. I leave that up to the courts. If there is something in Issue 8 or 9 that says something about a mark 100m out to sea, and then you measure 200m from that point, then that would be 100m from shore in my opinion, and VT7 would have to be very close to being inside this (depending upon exactly where it is measured from). My other point now is that I do not read Thai either, and therefore cannot rely upon English translations of it either when it is argued from the point of someone involved in the whole affair. I cannot swallow that the case is so black and white because it would not fool the courts, who would have to realise that they would be tried for corruption at some future time i would think. They must therefore have some argument that confuses the issue enough to make it "arguable" that the council did not issue the permit illegally. I do not pretend to understand it, nor have I really considered it.

If the status quo is as alleged by some (ie illegal developers, illegal court council, illegal judges etc), then it will not matter how strong your arguments are, because you are always doomed to fail against such opposition, as chances are that the powers above them are as corrupt to allow the lesser powers their ill discretions. If this is true, then you are just unlucky enough to find yourself on the wrong side of it, but there will be little you can do in such an environment, except save your money and do not throw it at them in the court system. I know it to be a possibility because I see similar "power structures" in other countries. In such a climate, laws do not rule, personalities do, under the guise of law. I know that his is what the StopVT7 supporters allege. Basically corruption... quite common in rapidly developing countries.

The question that I have to ask, as stated by Tammi, is "Are you going to appeal?". And also, How much is such an appeal going to cost you? Are you prepared to risk that sort fo money?

The Thai's, if I am informed correctly, are not about to be pushed over by foreign interests in the way that some other countries do to keep on the good side of Western powers. It is proud of the fact that it has managed to stay sovereign when other nations could not, and I do not see it needing to appease Western powers in the way that some other economies must.

I support your right to appeal, and believe that you have every right to do it, but I would have to question your sense if the situation is as some have described it, as it could only lead to a further loss of money for you. If the courts are judging fairly, then you would be at a high risk of losing under that scenario also. Your hope is only that they are not as corrupt as what some are alleging, and that you have a breakthrough landmark case. On such a likelihood, I have no idea how to gauge your chances of success as I do not know even if the Thai political system is crooked or not. I am just following the arguments of some who have posted to posit the stark reality of what you are doing. I would wish you all the luck if I did not have a condo at stake myself. So instead, best wishes, and know that I would have done the same as you (assuming that I felt that injustice was being done), but if you go further than this, you are braver than I am (or less concerned about the rest of your money). So again, the question is... Are you going to appeal the decision?

You'd have thought they'd have come back with an answer by now, obviously not confident an appeal would go their way and it would cost a small fortune to go through the process. There is also no new evidence, making it unlikely another court would rule against the administrative courts verdict causing loss of face to the judge in Rayong.

[lookat]

The arrow from the sea pointed toward the land is claimed to mean ( <-- 100meters located at Borderline control construction area), you measurer from control construction line at MSL ( –->) toward the sea 100 meter to the Borderline construction control area?

Look at the on the map and you will see the arrow is point from the sea toward the land. Why does Pattaya City Hall claim to means measure the opposite direction? See Issue 9 map

How does a witness use a arrow to divide 200 meter from MSL?

Edited January 28, 2008 by lookat

[Tammi]

The arrow from the sea pointed toward the land is claimed to mean ( <-- 100meters located at Borderline control construction area), you measurer from control construction line at MSL ( –->) toward the sea 100 meter to the Borderline construction control area?

Look at the on the map and you will see the arrow is point from the sea toward the land. Why does Pattaya City Hall claim to means measure the opposite direction? See Issue 9 map

How does a witness use a arrow to divide 200 meter from MSL?

They use the arrows to prove the case for City Hall (and VT) - never mind what is actually in writing in the Law.

In Law you have to be aware and prepared by making sure you read everything with the mind of your apponent and that you dot the i and cross the t AND, now, that you have no arrows pointing in different directions! It seems - unless JCC group are going to appeal - that it is losing/have lost the case because of a couple of arrows!

You know, I know, the whole world knows, that it is totally ridiculous to measure 100 meters towards the sea and then 200 metres from that point back towards the land. And, anyway, the written Law would have said so if that had been the intent of the law.

[JaiDeeFarang]

The arrow from the sea pointed toward the land is claimed to mean ( <-- 100meters located at Borderline control construction area), you measurer from control construction line at MSL ( –->) toward the sea 100 meter to the Borderline construction control area?

Look at the on the map and you will see the arrow is point from the sea toward the land. Why does Pattaya City Hall claim to means measure the opposite direction? See Issue 9 map

How does a witness use a arrow to divide 200 meter from MSL?

They use the arrows to prove the case for City Hall (and VT) - never mind what is actually in writing in the Law.

In Law you have to be aware and prepared by making sure you read everything with the mind of your apponent and that you dot the i and cross the t AND, now, that you have no arrows pointing in different directions! It seems - unless JCC group are going to appeal - that it is losing/have lost the case because of a couple of arrows!

You know, I know, the whole world knows, that it is totally ridiculous to measure 100 meters towards the sea and then 200 metres from that point back towards the land. And, anyway, the written Law would have said so if that had been the intent of the law.

A couple of arrows, a decimal point, a few extra zeros are all critical things that can make all the difference. Is there going to be an appeal or not? You are farangs, so don't worry about the loss of face when you lose.

[OneMikeInBangkok]

I know you are bored to death of hearing about it

I know some of the VT7 investors who post on here calously couldn't care less about it.

However I at least was very disturbed by the sounds of a baby crying coming from the structure this morning.

Does View Talay have no shame?

[JaiDeeFarang]

I know you are bored to death of hearing about it

I know some of the VT7 investors who post on here calously couldn't care less about it.

However I at least was very disturbed by the sounds of a baby crying coming from the structure this morning.

Does View Talay have no shame?

I agree it must be very disturbing to hear a baby crying on the construction site, but with Thailand being Thailand there is probably no other option available to the poor little mites parents. Either they work or the baby starves. I very much doubt if there is a creche to leave the baby whilst the parents work to earn a living.

This is indeed a very sorry state of affairs and if there are people in Thailand such as social workers or child welfare officers they should be informed immediately. However, it is not the responsibility of the VT7 investors as you claim, it is VT themselves. Most of the financing prior to completion is done through a bank loan, so why not hold their financiers responsible? This is not the issue anyway, from the outset Richards gripe was that he and the other co-owners would lose their sea views and sunsets, there was no mention of the enviroment or social well being whatsoever. This is just something you've brought up because the case has well and truly been lost with no chance of an appeal to go in your favor.

What I would say is that if VT is such a big company with deep pockets, couldn't they as a sign of good faith provide a creche/nursery to take care of construction workers children whilst they are at work? This would surely improve their image and show they care about the community. I doubt if it would cost much to put in place and they already have the staff to build something suitable.

[OneMikeInBangkok]

I know you are bored to death of hearing about it

I know some of the VT7 investors who post on here calously couldn't care less about it.

However I at least was very disturbed by the sounds of a baby crying coming from the structure this morning.

Does View Talay have no shame?

I agree it must be very disturbing to hear a baby crying on the construction site, but with Thailand being Thailand there is probably no other option available to the poor little mites parents. Either they work or the baby starves. I very much doubt if there is a creche to leave the baby whilst the parents work to earn a living.

This is indeed a very sorry state of affairs and if there are people in Thailand such as social workers or child welfare officers they should be informed immediately. However, it is not the responsibility of the VT7 investors as you claim, it is VT themselves. Most of the financing prior to completion is done through a bank loan, so why not hold their financiers responsible? This is not the issue anyway, from the outset Richards gripe was that he and the other co-owners would lose their sea views and sunsets, there was no mention of the enviroment or social well being whatsoever. This is just something you've brought up because the case has well and truly been lost with no chance of an appeal to go in your favor.

What I would say is that if VT is such a big company with deep pockets, couldn't they as a sign of good faith provide a creche/nursery to take care of construction workers children whilst they are at work? This would surely improve their image and show they care about the community. I doubt if it would cost much to put in place and they already have the staff to build something suitable.

In my previous post I didn't say

shame on the investors

I said

Shame on View Talay

You as an investor may superficially think that this is non of your affair

However

What about the value of your investment - have you considered that?

When it comes down to re-sale as I think the majority of buyers off plan are looking to make a fast buck - either the ease of re-sale (my is their a glut of condos on the market and more to come) or the perceived value of say a high value condo delivered by a reputable company or a low value condo with the doubts that must be in buyers minds when they read about a company that doesn't care less about the Thai law or humanitarian ethics (I am not even mentioning building permits here - just the catalog of law breaking in relation to their on-site practises)

Could this possibly sow some seeds of doubt in the mind of future purchases of View Talay Condos in general about the standard of construction being as low as the standard of their morals.

No I wil not mention standards of construction. A condo built on the edge of the water. A condo with foundations built into sand that flood with seawater on every high tide. Piles that were not driven into the hard ground but cut short for quickness. Rusted re-bar used in the support columns - nah I won't go into things like that - I will just stick to the thoughts of a company that doesn't give a dam_n about dead workers, dead children, dead toddlers or dead babies.

And don't give me the "Well all the sites in Thailand are like that"

I assure you that ALL Thailand constructions sites are NOT like this.

Besides the folks reading this - there are hundreds of folks who may possibly someday be in the market for a good standard, good location, good priced condo from a compay with a good reputation - Is VT7 going to be at the top of their shopping list? I wonder

[lookat]

I was able to read the EIA requirements for vt7 to get a building permit. As I remember; hard hats and steel tip shoes for all works are required. The worker killed was hit in the head with steel rebar. Is that blood on the investors?

Also required as truck wheel wash off pit. For the wheel of all trucks leveling the construction sight. Go by other big construction sights and you see these wash off pits for truck. Look when you go by new Central center on 2^nd road

All tucks entering or leaving must tune left. Their more requirements but it was all is a joke. Because EIA does not enforce their permit requirements!

[JaiDeeFarang]

I know you are bored to death of hearing about it

I know some of the VT7 investors who post on here calously couldn't care less about it.

However I at least was very disturbed by the sounds of a baby crying coming from the structure this morning.

Does View Talay have no shame?

I agree it must be very disturbing to hear a baby crying on the construction site, but with Thailand being Thailand there is probably no other option available to the poor little mites parents. Either they work or the baby starves. I very much doubt if there is a creche to leave the baby whilst the parents work to earn a living.

This is indeed a very sorry state of affairs and if there are people in Thailand such as social workers or child welfare officers they should be informed immediately. However, it is not the responsibility of the VT7 investors as you claim, it is VT themselves. Most of the financing prior to completion is done through a bank loan, so why not hold their financiers responsible? This is not the issue anyway, from the outset Richards gripe was that he and the other co-owners would lose their sea views and sunsets, there was no mention of the enviroment or social well being whatsoever. This is just something you've brought up because the case has well and truly been lost with no chance of an appeal to go in your favor.

What I would say is that if VT is such a big company with deep pockets, couldn't they as a sign of good faith provide a creche/nursery to take care of construction workers children whilst they are at work? This would surely improve their image and show they care about the community. I doubt if it would cost much to put in place and they already have the staff to build something suitable.

In previous posts you have personally attacked investors in VT7 and the blood on their hands if a child is injured or god forbid killed, so a quick turn around from you once more. All I can say is I detect a case of overtly sour grapes from you, nothing more and as usual you are just spouting hot air.

[JaiDeeFarang]

I was able to read the EIA requirements for vt7 to get a building permit. As I remember; hard hats and steel tip shoes for all works are required. The worker killed was hit in the head with steel rebar. Is that blood on the investors?

Also required as truck wheel wash off pit. For the wheel of all trucks leveling the construction sight. Go by other big construction sights and you see these wash off pits for truck. Look when you go by new Central center on 2^nd road

All tucks entering or leaving must tune left. Their more requirements but it was all is a joke. Because EIA does not enforce their permit requirements!

you are as bad as that other fool Mike, why should it be blood on the investors? You don't really have a grasp of the English language do you?

I would say that many of your clothes and consumables were produced by child workers, is their blood, sweat and tears on your conscience? Ignorance is bliss eh? Get a life.

[Pattaya_Fox]

Possible libellous comments have been deleted and one member has been suspended.

I will have no hesitation in closing this thread if other comments of a criminal or libellous nature are made.

[lookat]

you are as bad as that other fool Mike, why should it be blood on the investors? You don't really have a grasp of the English language do you?

I would say that many of your clothes and consumables were produced by child workers, is their blood, sweat and tears on your conscience? Ignorance is bliss eh? Get a life.

Their difference between vt7 and factories. I have visited many clothes, shoe and other factories all over Asia in the last 40 years. Only in Indonesia I saw children employs.

Many people are aware that vt7 reputation and buy anyway! many to resell. Investor should demand their condos are building to all building standards and regulations even EIA regulation. Now they know!

What the saying, you sleep with dogs you wait up with fleas!

[Tammi]

This is indeed a very sorry state of affairs and if there are people in Thailand such as social workers or child welfare officers they should be informed immediately. However, it is not the responsibility of the VT7 investors as you claim, it is VT themselves. Most of the financing prior to completion is done through a bank loan, so why not hold their financiers responsible? This is not the issue anyway, from the outset Richards gripe was that he and the other co-owners would lose their sea views and sunsets, there was no mention of the enviroment or social well being whatsoever. This is just something you've brought up because the case has well and truly been lost with no chance of an appeal to go in your favor.

JCC "gripe" as you call it was that a building over 14 metres was to be built on land that the Law says can only be used for buildings of up to 14 metres.

[CRUNCHER]

I thought this thread was about "Jomtien Condo Owners Sue for Sea View".

Why all these posts about chidren on construction sites? These are surely off topic and are definately deflecting from the main issue.

Whilst children being injured on construction sites is a terrible thing, surely this should be the subject of a separate thread for those who wish to discuss it.

[marekm1]

Now that this certain individual has been taken care of, the members of T.V. can continue exchanging their posts in the proper manner. He has annoyed far too many people. But what you can expect from the guy who called himself not 100% in the head.

Personally I would keep him permanently banned from this topic.

Thank you very much for this action.

[Pattaya_Fox]

I thought this thread was about "Jomtien Condo Owners Sue for Sea View".

Why all these posts about chidren on construction sites? These are surely off topic and are definately deflecting from the main issue.

Whilst children being injured on construction sites is a terrible thing, surely this should be the subject of a separate thread for those who wish to discuss it.

I agree.

Please keep this thread on topic.

[Tammi]

I thought this thread was about "Jomtien Condo Owners Sue for Sea View".

Why all these posts about chidren on construction sites? These are surely off topic and are definately deflecting from the main issue.

Whilst children being injured on construction sites is a terrible thing, surely this should be the subject of a separate thread for those who wish to discuss it.

Jomthien Complex Condo did not sue for sea views. The group of co-owners from Jomthien Complex went to court because VT was given permission by City Hall to erect a building higher than 14 metres when the Law says that only buildings up to 14 meters can be built within the 200 metres on the sea side of Jomthien Complex.

[OhdLover]

Dear StopVT7,

Please just tell us, in as few words as possible,

1. what the outcome of the admin court case was.

2. if the admin court ruling was not in your favour is your group at JCC going to appeal?

3. will you continue with Asia LawWorks as your lawyer?

I think this question still needs to be answered and is the only important thing to keep this topic alive.

I agree that all other subjects are irrelevant and should be ignored or be discussed in a new topic.