Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[popshirt]

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.

YES. Please. Maybe the Mods can help us out here. I am tired to reading so much extraneous drivel in this thread instead of finding out what happens of import to Jomtien and Pattaya.

[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.

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.

Yes I agree that are some buildings 200m from the MSL as there are some building 500m and more from MSL, but that doesn’t say anything about the law. Jomtien Plaza(I think that what is called) on the right side, looking from the beach about 60m from the JCC is about 160m. from MSL. and it was completed roughly at the same time, about 30 years ago. So it makes it an illegal according to your law and stopVT7 law. In Naklua there are buildings right on the beach. In Pattaya, I don’t know, I lost the count, but must be close to 50 buildings within 200m. and over 14m. So VT7 fits perfectly with the other buildings on the coastline.

I don’t know why you are so against VT7 as you don’t live in JCC. Unless you invested in VT5, which is illegal as well, according to your law and scared to lose your sea view.

[Gary A]

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?

The children should really be left at day care while their parents are working. WHAT, there is no day care? There you go Mike. Here is a good chance to prove your compassion. Why don't you contribute to the safety of the children by giving them a safe place to stay while the parents are trying to earn enough to feed their children.

[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.

Yes I agree that are some buildings 200m from the MSL as there are some building 500m and more from MSL, but that doesn’t say anything about the law. Jomtien Plaza(I think that what is called) on the right side, looking from the beach about 60m from the JCC is about 160m. from MSL. and it was completed roughly at the same time, about 30 years ago. So it makes it an illegal according to your law and stopVT7 law. In Naklua there are buildings right on the beach. In Pattaya, I don’t know, I lost the count, but must be close to 50 buildings within 200m. and over 14m. So VT7 fits perfectly with the other buildings on the coastline.

I don’t know why you are so against VT7 as you don’t live in JCC. Unless you invested in VT5, which is illegal as well, according to your law and scared to lose your sea view.

It is not according to my law and stopVT7's Law, it is according to a Law of Thailand. We all know there are lots of buildings over 14 meters within the 200 meters. Nobody took the developers to court and therefore the buildings are still standing. I was told by a lawyer that a case must be brought within 5 years of completion of the building or it is too late to apply to have it removed. If the lawyer is correct then there is still time to ask for VT5 to be removed.

Re sea views: Look at VT internet site and you will see that, in the pictures for VT7, Grand Condotel and VT5 have been removed. Why?

I think that investors on the north side of VT7 (if it does get built) will lose their seaviews when VT builds A & B blocks. The present blocks are C & D. And if VT builds A & B as close to the perimeter as they did C & D then the facing apartments will be living in each others bedrooms. Yuck.

Edited January 30, 2008 by Tammi

[JaiDeeFarang]

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.

Tammi excuse me if I'm wrong but what is the heading of this thread? "Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View".

Are you just contradicting yourself now? Don't you think you've lost enough face without making such stupid comments? If you revert back to the original OP, you'll see that the main concern was that co-owners headed by Richard would lose their sea views and sunsets. Who are you to tell the Thai people how to do things? It is farangs like you that give the rest of us a bad name, wishing things here were just like they are 'back home', well go back home you won't be missed here.

[prospero]

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.

Tammi excuse me if I'm wrong but what is the heading of this thread? "Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View".

Are you just contradicting yourself now? Don't you think you've lost enough face without making such stupid comments? If you revert back to the original OP, you'll see that the main concern was that co-owners headed by Richard would lose their sea views and sunsets. Who are you to tell the Thai people how to do things? It is farangs like you that give the rest of us a bad name, wishing things here were just like they are 'back home', well go back home you won't be missed here.

Quite a nasty posting. Your "jai" isn't very "dee".

[JaiDeeFarang]

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.

Tammi excuse me if I'm wrong but what is the heading of this thread? "Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View".

Are you just contradicting yourself now? Don't you think you've lost enough face without making such stupid comments? If you revert back to the original OP, you'll see that the main concern was that co-owners headed by Richard would lose their sea views and sunsets. Who are you to tell the Thai people how to do things? It is farangs like you that give the rest of us a bad name, wishing things here were just like they are 'back home', well go back home you won't be missed here.

Quite a nasty posting. Your "jai" isn't very "dee".

That is not "nasty", it becomes nasty when OMIB starts accusing investors of VT7 of having blood on their hands. Funny, we haven't heard from him for a while, I wonder why.......................

Sometimes the truth is hard to bare and if that is perceived as "nasty", well so be it.

[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.

Tammi excuse me if I'm wrong but what is the heading of this thread? "Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View".

Are you just contradicting yourself now? Don't you think you've lost enough face without making such stupid comments? If you revert back to the original OP, you'll see that the main concern was that co-owners headed by Richard would lose their sea views and sunsets. Who are you to tell the Thai people how to do things? It is farangs like you that give the rest of us a bad name, wishing things here were just like they are 'back home', well go back home you won't be missed here.

Quite a nasty posting. Your "jai" isn't very "dee".

That is not "nasty", it becomes nasty when OMIB starts accusing investors of VT7 of having blood on their hands. Funny, we haven't heard from him for a while, I wonder why.......................

Sometimes the truth is hard to bare and if that is perceived as "nasty", well so be it.

What's with the (real angry)emoticon? He is bad for your blood pressure.

I know the title of this topic and I've always thought it inappropriate. It was a ThaiVisa Admin guy, George, who titled the topic. Is George in the StopVT7 group?

I wouldn’t dream of telling Thai people outside my employ how to do things. However, I would hope that they will follow the laws of their country and not be egged on by farangs to break the laws.

I have to agree with you that the truth is indeed often hard to bare. Bare (verb), in my dictionary, means to uncover, reveal.

[JaiDeeFarang]

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.

Tammi excuse me if I'm wrong but what is the heading of this thread? "Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View".

Are you just contradicting yourself now? Don't you think you've lost enough face without making such stupid comments? If you revert back to the original OP, you'll see that the main concern was that co-owners headed by Richard would lose their sea views and sunsets. Who are you to tell the Thai people how to do things? It is farangs like you that give the rest of us a bad name, wishing things here were just like they are 'back home', well go back home you won't be missed here.

Quite a nasty posting. Your "jai" isn't very "dee".

That is not "nasty", it becomes nasty when OMIB starts accusing investors of VT7 of having blood on their hands. Funny, we haven't heard from him for a while, I wonder why.......................

Sometimes the truth is hard to bare and if that is perceived as "nasty", well so be it.

What's with the (real angry)emoticon? He is bad for your blood pressure.

I know the title of this topic and I've always thought it inappropriate. It was a ThaiVisa Admin guy, George, who titled the topic. Is George in the StopVT7 group?

I wouldn't dream of telling Thai people outside my employ how to do things. However, I would hope that they will follow the laws of their country and not be egged on by farangs to break the laws.

I have to agree with you that the truth is indeed often hard to bare. Bare (verb), in my dictionary, means to uncover, reveal.

I didn't know View Talay was a farang company? Which farangs are egging City Hall on to break the law? It is strictly a Thai matter and they will do as they please in their own country, whether it suits you or not.

[Tammi]

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.

Tammi excuse me if I'm wrong but what is the heading of this thread? "Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View".

Are you just contradicting yourself now? Don't you think you've lost enough face without making such stupid comments? If you revert back to the original OP, you'll see that the main concern was that co-owners headed by Richard would lose their sea views and sunsets. Who are you to tell the Thai people how to do things? It is farangs like you that give the rest of us a bad name, wishing things here were just like they are 'back home', well go back home you won't be missed here.

That is not "nasty", it becomes nasty when OMIB starts accusing investors of VT7 of having blood on their hands. Funny, we haven't heard from him for a while, I wonder why.......................

Sometimes the truth is hard to bare and if that is perceived as "nasty", well so be it.

What's with the (real angry)emoticon? He is bad for your blood pressure.

I know the title of this topic and I've always thought it inappropriate. It was a ThaiVisa Admin guy, George, who titled the topic. Is George in the StopVT7 group?

I wouldn't dream of telling Thai people outside my employ how to do things. However, I would hope that they will follow the laws of their country and not be egged on by farangs to break the laws.

I have to agree with you that the truth is indeed often hard to bare. Bare (verb), in my dictionary, means to uncover, reveal.

I didn't know View Talay was a farang company? Which farangs are egging City Hall on to break the law? It is strictly a Thai matter and they will do as they please in their own country, whether it suits you or not.

What exactly do I do to give YOU a bad name?

I think you have an ulterior motive when you post here and I think that motive is to get this topic closed down, so, from now on I will ignore you.

[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.

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.

Tammi excuse me if I'm wrong but what is the heading of this thread? "Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View".

Are you just contradicting yourself now? Don't you think you've lost enough face without making such stupid comments? If you revert back to the original OP, you'll see that the main concern was that co-owners headed by Richard would lose their sea views and sunsets. Who are you to tell the Thai people how to do things? It is farangs like you that give the rest of us a bad name, wishing things here were just like they are 'back home', well go back home you won't be missed here.

Quite a nasty posting. Your "jai" isn't very "dee".

That is not "nasty", it becomes nasty when OMIB starts accusing investors of VT7 of having blood on their hands. Funny, we haven't heard from him for a while, I wonder why.......................

Sometimes the truth is hard to bare and if that is perceived as "nasty", well so be it.

What's with the (real angry)emoticon? He is bad for your blood pressure.

I know the title of this topic and I've always thought it inappropriate. It was a ThaiVisa Admin guy, George, who titled the topic. Is George in the StopVT7 group?

george infact owns this site and no george nor any of the mods have any affiliation with the stopvt7 group or any other company linked to this thread.

The original opening article came from the Nation news media.

[marekm1]

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.

Tammi excuse me if I'm wrong but what is the heading of this thread? "Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View".

Are you just contradicting yourself now? Don't you think you've lost enough face without making such stupid comments? If you revert back to the original OP, you'll see that the main concern was that co-owners headed by Richard would lose their sea views and sunsets. Who are you to tell the Thai people how to do things? It is farangs like you that give the rest of us a bad name, wishing things here were just like they are 'back home', well go back home you won't be missed here.

Quite a nasty posting. Your "jai" isn't very "dee".

That is not "nasty", it becomes nasty when OMIB starts accusing investors of VT7 of having blood on their hands. Funny, we haven't heard from him for a while, I wonder why.......................

Sometimes the truth is hard to bare and if that is perceived as "nasty", well so be it.

What's with the (real angry)emoticon? He is bad for your blood pressure.

I know the title of this topic and I've always thought it inappropriate. It was a ThaiVisa Admin guy, George, who titled the topic. Is George in the StopVT7 group?

george infact owns this site and no george nor any of the mods have any affiliation with the stopvt7 group or any other company linked to this thread.

The original opening article came from the Nation news media.

There is no reason to close down this topic. It will die itself. I would like to give my respect to JaiDeeFarang who somehow spoke for all the investors in VT7. At least in my case and there will be always some free bear for you on 17^th floor. Pity OMIB cannot comment on that as he got slapped.

[Tammi]

Does anyone know what is happening in Hua Hin? I had heard that construction within 200 meters had completely stopped there. Has buiding recommenced?

[lookat]

Go back and read the court order and you see the case is not over in court. The court does not give a final order! I heard to the stopvt7 group had meets this week thing are going on….

[lookat]

Let look at the issues and do some thinking!

In the English Translation of January 16, 2008 Rayong Court lifted the Injunction what allows construction to start. This is not the final order.

Rayong court decision said:

"The Court ordered the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning to measure the distance from the shoreline at MSL as prescribed by the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E.

2479 controlling over the region of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Klua and Tambol Nhog Prue Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 to the building in dispute to obtain the distance and to submit the Court a map briefly prepared after measuring. 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. Measurement showed that the building of the Second Prosecuted Person is over 200 meter construction control line. (My Note: Regulation Issue 9 says: "No 3 to fix the 200 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map to the Royal Decree …….at the sea shore in which the following constructions shall not be built: Building of 14 meters higher than road level. How could a witness rewrite Isse9?) The Second Prosecuted Person filed a motion to the Court to revoke the provisional order or judgment before judgment. The Court enquired both Parties and Witness. The Litigant and 9 Associates filed a motion dated 15 January 2008 to clarify on matter of fact and matter of law which can be summarized that the ten Litigants accepted the MSL measurement process conducted by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning that the method should be correct in theory, but the Litigants are of opinion that the building control area prescribed in the map annexed to the Royal Decree is at the 100 meter distance from the original shoreline toward the sea and not from the MSL point. (Note this is not what we said!)

Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul, 7th Class Lawyer of the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning,

testified as the Witness, that the area controlling the construction as referred in The Royal Decree B.E. 2521 is 100 meter distance from MSL towards the sea. While measuring the Witness did not measure from the MSL point to the dispute building, but he measured from the MSL point until he reached 100 meter from the aforesaid point, and if measurement continued to reach the dispute building, the building would be about 102 or 103 meter far from MSL depending on which side to the building. If the measurement was from the construction control area prescribed by the Royal Decree B.E. 2521, the building distance obtained would be similar to the measurement from the MSL inward the land at the distance of 200 meter. The Court examined and considered the "Most Urgent" Report Ref. Mor Tor 0710/9634 dated 19 December 2007 submitted by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning requesting the Court to revoke the provisional order before judgment to the Second Prosecuted Person, and the procedures of the General Meeting of the Judges in the Supreme Administrative Court regarding Administrative Court Procedure B.E. 2543. The point to be considered is whether the Court should revoke the provisional order or judgment before judgment to the Second Prosecuted Person. The consideration referred to Article 77 of the Administrative Court Procedure B.E. 2543 stated that the Court shall apply Title 1, Division 4 under the Civil Procedure Code to the consideration on motion filed against any provisional orders or measures before judgment as far as the Civil Procedure Code can apply mutatis mutandis, however, without contradiction to the Procedure. Reference was also made to Section 262 Paragraph 1 under the Civil Procedure Code saying that "Where in the course of trial there is any change or modification in the facts or circumstances on which the Court's order granting an application for any provisional measures has been grounded, the Court before which the case is pending may, when it thinks fit or upon the application of the defendant or third person as provided in Section 261, issue an order altering or repealing such measure."

This case the Court granted its order in response to the motion filed by the 10 Litigants on the materialized reason that the Court need time and consideration procedures to determine the correct starting point for measurement the distance as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521), and if the dispute building is properly far from the point of measurement as intended by law.The measurement conducted by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning as ordered by the Court, and the testimony of the witness, it appeared that the dispute building is more than 100 meter away from the MSL. The Court is of the opinion that if the measurement was made from the building control area shown in the map annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 controlling over the region of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Klua and Tambol Nhog Prue Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 by another 100 meter further far away in the sea from the MSL as shown in the map annexed to the aforesaid Royal Decree and as testified by the witness, the dispute building would be over 200 meter from the control area as referred by the aforesaid Ministerial Regulation as well.

Therefore, the facts that were used as reasons for granting the provisional order or measure before judgment in this case have now changed. There is not enough ground for which the Court shall maintain its provisional order before judgment further. 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.

Members of the Judge carrying the trial.

Mr. Kittinai Kromtach"

Now did not the court expert witness rewrites the issue 9 regulation and the Administrative Supreme Court conclusion?

Administrative Supreme Court in July said:

"Nevertheless, where No. 3 (8) under the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued by the virtue of the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 amended by the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) issued by the virtue of the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 prescribed that the 200 meter line measured from the construction control line shown in the map annexed to the Royal Decree promulgating the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 governing ……..Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 on the seaside shall be restricted from constructing of any building exceeding 14 meter high from road surface. Therefore, if the Construction Permit No. 162/2007 dated 28 November 2006 granted by the Defendant No. 1 to the Defendant No. 2 should appear to be unlawful against the Ministerial Regulation thereto as being claimed by the ten plaintiffs, the Court of First Instance should have sentenced this point of being unlawful, i.e. the judgment shall be focused on the permission of construction the building exceeding height limit by the Defendant No. 2. Whilst the Administrative Court of First Instance ordered the provisional measure to cease construction before judgment, the building's base rocks were built, the construction did not reach the height limit of 14 meter above the road surface. Where the Administrative Court of First Instance issued the order of provisional measure to effect temporary protection by ceasing the entire construction is, therefore, in excess of what reasonable under the circumstances.

The Supreme Court, therefore, gives an order to amend the order of the Administrative Court of First Instance. That the Defendant No. 2 shall cease the construction performed, under the Work Permit No. 162/2007 dated 28 November 2007, on the part exceeding 14 meter height. On a temporary basis until the Court has ordered otherwise.

Mr. Vorapoj Visarutpich

Judge of Supreme Administrative Court"

Rayong said "Court is of the opinion that if the measurement was made from the building control area shown in the map"

Vs:

Supreme Administrative Court said "prescribed that the 200 meter line measured from the construction control line shown in the map"

It look to me the fight may just started? Area vs, line

เขต kèt · area ; region ; district ; zone

เส้น sên · line ;

Edited February 2, 2008 by lookat

[Tammi]

I have it from 2 very good sources that the legal wrangling isn't over yet.

[OhdLover]

Anybody new pics of the progress??

Maybe Mike can post some nice pic of the current view.

I wont be there untill next month, so I'm quite curious.

Thanks!

[OhdLover]

Don't have any pics but it's coming along nicely. I'll try and get you some photos over the weekend.

Thanks!!

[jpm76]

Anybody new pics of the progress??

Maybe Mike can post some nice pic of the current view.

I wont be there untill next month, so I'm quite curious.

Thanks!

To the infinite sadness of all, I think that Mike's membership was correctly revoked by the administrator. I expect tht it was himwho posted the slanderous and crimnally libelous accusations (yet again).

As to photos, I am not sure if it is recent enough, but on www.viewtalaycondo.com they have added the Jan 2008 picture. I think that some progress has occurred, but then I am not as local as many there. Would be great if JaiDee could get some photos posted here. Let's hope that this is all over shortly, and they can get on with the bulding.

Regards

Justin

[Tammi]

Anybody new pics of the progress??

Maybe Mike can post some nice pic of the current view.

I wont be there untill next month, so I'm quite curious.

Thanks!

To the infinite sadness of all, I think that Mike's membership was correctly revoked by the administrator. I expect tht it was himwho posted the slanderous and crimnally libelous accusations (yet again).

As to photos, I am not sure if it is recent enough, but on www.viewtalaycondo.com they have added the Jan 2008 picture. I think that some progress has occurred, but then I am not as local as many there. Would be great if JaiDee could get some photos posted here. Let's hope that this is all over shortly, and they can get on with the bulding.

Regards

Justin

And, of course, you notice the pretty 'sales' photo in which both Grand Condotel and View Talay 5 have been taken out of the picture. And we all expect that View Talay 5 buildings A & B will go up on the vacant lot right beside View Talay 7.

[OneMikeInBangkok]

Anybody new pics of the progress??

Maybe Mike can post some nice pic of the current view.

I wont be there untill next month, so I'm quite curious.

Thanks!

To the infinite sadness of all, I think that Mike's membership was correctly revoked by the administrator. I expect tht it was himwho posted the slanderous and crimnally libelous accusations (yet again).

As to photos, I am not sure if it is recent enough, but on www.viewtalaycondo.com they have added the Jan 2008 picture. I think that some progress has occurred, but then I am not as local as many there. Would be great if JaiDee could get some photos posted here. Let's hope that this is all over shortly, and they can get on with the bulding.

Regards

Justin

As usual wrong again

Comments like these however on moderator decisions WILL get YOU banned

You want some comments - fine

Work continues - (for the moment)

Children continue playing on the VT7 site and risk having their young lives snuffed out. Nothing slanderous or libelous about that unless I am lying of course.

I refuse to post the pictures on this forum but the pictures - date stamped - are being kept, and will be passed on to the courts who will sort out the inquest into the first innocent lives lost.

[lookat]

I talked with someone of knowledge from JCC and was informed that and appeal was filed on Friday. They used and Bangkok attorney and Asia LawWorks was dismissed from their case!

http://www.bangkokpost.com/150108_Outlook/...n2008_out49.php

[lookat]

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 was told this explained much what the appeal is about:

http://bp1.blogger.com/_1x8bR0BbXM4/R5b9gd...for+Blog%29.jpg

[ThaiBob]

Don't have any pics but it's coming along nicely. I'll try and get you some photos over the weekend.

Thanks!!

These were taken a few days ago.

Edited February 18, 2008 by ThaiBob

[tropiccapricorn]

At last we know it for sure according to Real Estate (March)

They now build by final decision of the administration court from 15. 1. 08 up to full impressive 27 floors in direct ocean front.

And that with full power and highest speed to regain lost building time because as quoted a small group of irresponsible foreigners tried to stop this wonderful condominium project by creating a big court case against VT.

Fortunately these aliens lost this court case clearly and finally already and this absolutely breathtaking condominium will be built with its full 27 impressive floors. and those foreigners in LOS realize now that all of them are guests in the Kindom of Thailand only.

The wide spread bad opinion about 'farangs' is mainly based on the inappropriate behavior of those foreigners like the farang plaintiffs in this case.

Hopefully even these people learnd carefully about life in LOS now which would be progress for them.

If those foreigners do not feel comfortable in LOS any more, they should leave and return to their home countries instead

of disturbing the Thai courts and the well working Thai/farang community

of developers and entrepeneurs in Pattaya. So we have it all white on black. (Excuse vomit)

So lets open the selling spree like they did with JCC years ago where of course there was no qustion.

And if you ever feel compelled to defend your case applying a Thai law set up by Thais against violation

just leave to origin or even better join the new crowd.

And for those who doubt, in the meantime, the structure rose by two more floors and anybody hoping for jacks to reduce

it is probably in fairyland.

Happy investments.

[plasticpig]

Looks like, I will get to wave over to StopVT7 after all

from my balcony.

Was starting to panic a bit.

Thailand is a land of Laws.

[OhdLover]

Don't have any pics but it's coming along nicely. I'll try and get you some photos over the weekend.

Thanks!!

These were taken a few days ago.

Thanks for posting the pictures!!

Edited February 19, 2008 by OhdLover

[JaiDeeFarang]

Looks like, I will get to wave over to StopVT7 after all

from my balcony.

Was starting to panic a bit.

Thailand is a land of Laws.

You can join myself Myself, marekm1 and Ohdlover on the 26th floor for a cold beer when its complete.

Thailand is a country of Laws, which is great coming from a bunch of "Aliens"

[OhdLover]

I refuse to post the pictures on this forum

Maybe that's why people refuse to believe you...

why would you refuse if you can get action from people who have

a hard time believing you, after so many things you stated before appeared to be false???

[OneMikeInBangkok]

I refuse to post the pictures on this forum

Maybe that's why people refuse to believe you...

why would you refuse if you can get action from people who have

a hard time believing you, after so many things you stated before appeared to be false???

So you want to call me a liar?

Fair enough - up to you

I have nothing to prove to you. I just gather evidence that eventualy, God forbid if the worst comes to worse I can show that the death of an innocent child was not an accident but sheer criminal negligence.

I am not calling you any names - folks can look back over your posts and your VT investor b buddies and see what dross we have to put up with in Pattaya