Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[marekm1]

Is Thailand a country of laws? I think it is a country of laws! And many people will find out.

If Pattaya doesn't care to protect the environment and the beach for Thailand's and tourism industria future? Why would anyone want to invest in Pattaya or Thailand?

Go read the reason for Issue 8 and 9! Issue 8 and 9 were written to protect the beach for environment and tourism by requiring no buildings over 14 meters until you are 200 meters from MSL. The law is very clear about the 200 meter measurement.

Why don't you take time and think about why would anyone want to invest is a condo if the government can change the meaning of a law without any logic or written word in the law such as you measure into the sea 100 meters before you measure onto the land 200 meters?

The court case has to two important aspects the environment and foreign investment and will Thailand enforce the laws to protect both.

It's not about a our sea view!

Or VT7 investors to make money!

Ministerial Regulation

Issue 9 (B.E. 2521)

Issued under the Building Construction Control Act

B.E. 2479

…………………………………

By the virtue of the Section 15 of the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479, the Ministry of Interior issued the following Ministerial Regulations:

1. No. 1 of the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 to be amended by the followings statement:

"No. 1. This Ministerial Regulation applies within the boundary line of the map annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 in the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2520"

2. No. 3 of the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 to be amended by the following statement:

"No 3. Setting of 200 meters measured from the construction control line on the map annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 in the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 at the sea side in which the following constructions shall not be built:

1. Place for keeping and selling fuel

2. Theatre

3. Wooden shop

4. Concrete shop house

5. Market

6. Garage or paint shop for car, motorcycle or motor boat

7. Warehouse

8. Building of 14 meters higher than road level.

The Ministerial Regulation is hereby given on the date of twenty-third of November B.E. 2521 (1978).

General Lek Naewmalee

Minister of Interior

(Mr. Somchai Leelaprapaporn)

Civil Engineer Grade 7

Note: The reason issuing this Ministerial Regulation due to the updating of the construction control areas in Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol

Nhong Prue, by extending the construction restriction areas as appeared in the map annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 controlling over the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Klua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521. It is, therefore, appropriate to amend the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 governing restriction of the construction of some kinds of building within the controlling areas under the aforesaid Royal Decree.

Copy taken from the Government Gazette No. 95 Section 157 dated 31 December 2521 (1978)

Ministerial Regulation

Issue 8 (B.E. 2519)

Issued under the Building Construction Control Act

B.E. 2479

…………………………………

By the virtue of the Section 15 of the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479, the Ministry of Interior issued the following Ministerial Regulations:

1. This Ministerial Regulation applies inside the boundary line shown in the map annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 in the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2479."

2. The land areas under this Ministerial Regulation are restricted from construction of the following buildings:

1. Cheese or artificial cheese factory

2. Factory to produce soy sauce, fish sauce, shrimp paste, pickled shell, etc.

3. Slaughterhouse

4. Tanning house or storage of animal horns, animal skin, animal bones or furs

5. Place for cloth dying which yield bad smell

6. Fish steaming or boiling house

7. Soup factory

8. Animal fat, skin, or tendon stewing plant

9. Oil stewing plant of any kind

10. Shell lime or cement plant

11. Flour mill

12. Whisky, beer or alcohol brewery or refinery

13. Animal farm with smell, waste, and noise pollution

14. Manufacturing plant with smell, waste, smoke, dirt and wastewater which may be polluted and harmful to public health.

3. Setting of 100 meters measured from the construction control line on the map annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 in the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2479 at the sea side in which the following constructions shall not be built:

1. Place for keeping and selling fuel

2. Theatre

3. Wooden shop

4. Concrete shop house

5. Market

6. Garage or paint shop for car, motorcycle or motor boat

7. Warehouse

8. Building of 14 meters higher than road level.

The area under Article 3 above,

Construction of building, house must be at least 8 meters away from Highway No. 3135.

Building or house construction must be provided with 75% open, and uncovered space of size to the land plot on which the construction is applied for.

This Ministerial Regulation is given on the date of twelfth, June B.E. 2519 (1976)

MRV Seni Pramot

Ministry of Interior

Copy taken from the Government Gazette No. 93 Section 87 dated 29 June 1966.

Note: The reason issuing this Ministerial Regulation is that further to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 applying to some areas of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Klua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2499, and the aforesaid areas are open public resorts. It is appropriate that the areas shall not be allow to construct some kinds of building considered to disturb good environment and generating any kind of wastes, pollutions. This Ministerial Regulation is, therefore, issued.

We think Rayong Admin Court was mistake in lifting the injunction before a final decisions on Issue 8 and 9. So we have appeal their order to the Administrative Supreme Court located in Bangkok.

So you are saying, that if VT7 moved the constraction 100m towards the beach and build it right on the beach that would be perfectly legal.

That’s your interpretation of the law.

Any high-rise building can be built on the beach or near the beach into the sea because it’s outside 200m.

This doesn’t seem very sensible to me.

Your interpretation of the law would actually destroy the beaches and the environment. Luckily the judges cannot be bent to this subjective and selfish thinking.

[lookat]

marekm1 what country are you from?

You do not understand English do you?

[marekm1]

marekm1 what country are you from?

You do not understand English do you?

Maybe I don’t understand the law as good as you do but can you explain to me in simple English what’s stopping the developer to build the high rise building on the beach as long as it is outside the 200m inland boundary, if the law is what you recon. And when you bought your condo it didn’t seem curious to you, that the old half rounded building on the right, looking from the beach is only 160m from MSL. The real law has been and will be applied for many years. 20 years from now Jomtien will be nothing like it is now. It’s called progress and you cannot stop that.

[Tammi]

marekm1 what country are you from?

You do not understand English do you?

Maybe I don’t understand the law as good as you do but can you explain to me in simple English what’s stopping the developer to build the high rise building on the beach as long as it is outside the 200m inland boundary, if the law is what you recon. And when you bought your condo it didn’t seem curious to you, that the old half rounded building on the right, looking from the beach is only 160m from MSL. The real law has been and will be applied for many years. 20 years from now Jomtien will be nothing like it is now. It’s called progress and you cannot stop that.[/font]

I'm not understanding your post. There's nothing to stop a developer erecting a building over 14 meters in height so long as developer is 200 meters from MSL and has all the necessary permits. That's the real law. You seem to be saying that the real law is that developers here in Thailand will do as they please just like in Spain's 'Costa Del Con" where I believe there are now huge problems for owners as their condos are torn down.

Edited February 23, 2008 by Tammi

[marekm1]

marekm1 what country are you from?

You do not understand English do you?

Maybe I don't understand the law as good as you do but can you explain to me in simple English what's stopping the developer to build the high rise building on the beach as long as it is outside the 200m inland boundary, if the law is what you recon. And when you bought your condo it didn't seem curious to you, that the old half rounded building on the right, looking from the beach is only 160m from MSL. The real law has been and will be applied for many years. 20 years from now Jomtien will be nothing like it is now. It's called progress and you cannot stop that.[/font]

I'm not understanding your post. There's nothing to stop a developer erecting a building over 14 meters in height so long as developer is 200 meters from MSL and has all the necessary permits. That's the real law. You seem to be saying that the real law is that developers here in Thailand will do as they please just like in Spain's 'Costa Del Con" where I believe there are now huge problems for owners as their condos are torn down.

Tammi, correct me if I wrong, but I understand as the law stands now, you cannot build anything within 100m from MSL either way. The way stopVT7 claims you cannot build anything within 200m from MSL., into the lend, which leaves the space on the beach and into the sea, free to be developed. And that would be perfectly legal. It just doesn’t make any sense to me.

Thanks anyway for the info on Spain’s condos. I’ve heard something about it, but I look more into it. But I doubt it’s the same situation like in Jomtien, where the buildings have been built consistently within 200m for the last 20 years.

Sorry, when I say anything I mean building over 14m high.

Edited February 23, 2008 by marekm1

[lookat]

The law said in Issue 8 uodate:

“No 3. Setting of 200 meters measured from the construction control line on the map ………………at the sea side (at MSL on Issue 9 map) in which the following constructions shall not be built: …..

8. Building of 14 meters higher than road level.”

“Note: The reason issuing this Ministerial Regulation due to the updating of the construction control areas……… by extending the construction restriction areas as appeared in the map ………….controlling over the regions …………It is, therefore, appropriate to amend the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 governing restriction of the construction of some kinds of building within the controlling areas under the aforesaid Royal Decree.”

Rayon Court was wrong and it was appealed to The Admin Supreme Court.

Now we wait to fine out Thailand laws says next?

Will Pattaya be like Spain where now owners are having the condos and homes tore down? Even though they had a building permit when they were built. Only a fool would buy a condo which is over 14 meter from the road height which is not 200 meters from MSL.

[Tammi]

Tammi, correct me if I wrong, but I understand as the law stands now, you cannot build anything within 100m from MSL either way. The way stopVT7 claims you cannot build anything within 200m from MSL., into the lend, which leaves the space on the beach and into the sea, free to be developed. And that would be perfectly legal. It just doesn’t make any sense to me.

Thanks anyway for the info on Spain’s condos. I’ve heard something about it, but I look more into it. But I doubt it’s the same situation like in Jomtien, where the buildings have been built consistently within 200m for the last 20 years.

Sorry, when I say anything I mean building over 14m high.

The way the Law stands now is that no building over 14 meters in height is allowed within 200 meters of MSL. However, it appears that, because of a couple of arrows on a map, Rayong Admin Court is interpreting the Law to mean that one has to measure 100 meters into the sea and then 200 meters back towards land to determine the line beyond which buildings over 14 meters in height can be built.

Of course it’s ridiculous that commercial and residential buildings could be built on the beach and into the sea. Or is it ridiculous? Look at Walking Street in Pattaya. Mind you, City Hall has tried to remove the buildings at the seaside, but for some reason or other without success. I wonder what was the reason?

I have read the relevant Laws of several countries and counties and I don’t remember anywhere reading that building is allowed on the beach and/or into the sea. It is taken as read that such building would not be allowed.

The first hi-rise condos to be built in Jomthien were Jomthien Condotel and Grand Condotel and both were built 200 meters back from MSL. The developer followed the Law. I am sure that he would have built nearer to the sea if he had been allowed because he would then have been able to put more houses in the villages that are inside the grounds of the condos. As it is the land beach side of both condos is “wasted” on gardens and low-rise condos.

Jomthien Complex developer also followed the Law but it would seem that the Juristic Person Manager and Management Committee erred in not securing the beach side land and it became the job of a group of co-owners to take the matter to court and they are now appealing the Rayong Admin. Court’s decision and have dismissed their lawyer and hired another.

Jomthien Condotel and Grand Condotel also erred in not securing beachside land. JC is presently fighting to stop Regatta being built to a height over 14 meters and, I have heard, Grand has been fighting a court case for many years to secure the swimming pool and adjacent land. I have heard that the roads inside both compounds still belong to the developer.

It is a very big concern that land beachside at JC and GC may fall into the hands of people who will obtain permission to build hi-rises – maybe 91 storeys!!! The fate of the co-owners lies in the hands of Juristic Person Managers and Management Committees and City Hall and the Administrative Courts.

[lookat]

You stated “stopVT7 claims you cannot build anything within 200m from MSL.”

No! You can not build over 14 meter high until you are 200 meters from MSL. Their some addition area in Thailand which abide by the law and only Pattaya ignore the law That why only a fool would buy a condo from a developer or real estate agent which ignore the law.

[OneMikeInBangkok]

Tammi, correct me if I wrong, but I understand as the law stands now, you cannot build anything within 100m from MSL either way. The way stopVT7 claims you cannot build anything within 200m from MSL., into the lend, which leaves the space on the beach and into the sea, free to be developed. And that would be perfectly legal. It just doesn't make any sense to me.

Thanks anyway for the info on Spain's condos. I've heard something about it, but I look more into it. But I doubt it's the same situation like in Jomtien, where the buildings have been built consistently within 200m for the last 20 years.

Sorry, when I say anything I mean building over 14m high.

The way the Law stands now is that no building over 14 meters in height is allowed within 200 meters of MSL. However, it appears that, because of a couple of arrows on a map, Rayong Admin Court is interpreting the Law to mean that one has to measure 100 meters into the sea and then 200 meters back towards land to determine the line beyond which buildings over 14 meters in height can be built.

Of course it's ridiculous that commercial and residential buildings could be built on the beach and into the sea. Or is it ridiculous? Look at Walking Street in Pattaya. Mind you, City Hall has tried to remove the buildings at the seaside, but for some reason or other without success. I wonder what was the reason?

I have read the relevant Laws of several countries and counties and I don't remember anywhere reading that building is allowed on the beach and/or into the sea. It is taken as read that such building would not be allowed.

The first hi-rise condos to be built in Jomthien were Jomthien Condotel and Grand Condotel and both were built 200 meters back from MSL. The developer followed the Law. I am sure that he would have built nearer to the sea if he had been allowed because he would then have been able to put more houses in the villages that are inside the grounds of the condos. As it is the land beach side of both condos is "wasted" on gardens and low-rise condos.

Jomthien Complex developer also followed the Law but it would seem that the Juristic Person Manager and Management Committee erred in not securing the beach side land and it became the job of a group of co-owners to take the matter to court and they are now appealing the Rayong Admin. Court's decision and have dismissed their lawyer and hired another.

Jomthien Condotel and Grand Condotel also erred in not securing beachside land. JC is presently fighting to stop Regatta being built to a height over 14 meters and, I have heard, Grand has been fighting a court case for many years to secure the swimming pool and adjacent land. I have heard that the roads inside both compounds still belong to the developer.

It is a very big concern that land beachside at JC and GC may fall into the hands of people who will obtain permission to build hi-rises – maybe 91 storeys!!! The fate of the co-owners lies in the hands of Juristic Person Managers and Management Committees and City Hall and the Administrative Courts.

Tammi - you have brought up an issue that has been bugging me for a while now.

The first law "Issue 8" set the distance from MSL at 100 meters

The second law "Issue 9" increased that distance to 200 meters

Now all that sounds pretty straightforward. The logic seems clear that they decided 100 meters was too close to MSL to be putting up tall buildings that would

a. crowd the beach

b. cause pollution problems

c. be a structural problem - remember the beach doesn't stop at the beach brollys, a natural beach allowing for storm surges carries many meters inland

Now we have City Hall - or at least we should say one guy at City Hall suggesting that issue 9 didn't increase the distance from 100 to 200 meters but kept the same distance 100 meters inland and now includes 100 meters out to see from MSL

NOw what developer in their right mind is planning to build a skyscraper or at least a building over 14 meters in the area from MSL out to sea and needs to be regulated?

I know of the skyscrapers built offshore in Dubai

I know that in ultra crowded places like Hong Kong a ruling like this could be sensible.

Bear in mind that issue 9 was instigated many years ago.

Is there really, or was there really, or in the near future is ther really any need to issue a law resticting the building of skyscrapers out to sea in Pattaya Bay or Jomtien bay?

I have been up and down this little piece of coastline many many times over the last twenty years. I have visited many other coastal resorts and islands up and down Thailand and apart from the occasional pier and low marina wall and some quaint fishiing huts on stilts I have never seen anything being built out to sea - apart from one noticable exception - Walking Street.

Many years ago I lived and worked on Walking Street running a small hotel and restaurant built on the seaward side. I always joked that I had the last hotel room in Pattaya. I used to fish from my balcony about 50 meters out to sea.

As already pointed out Pattaya City Hall has been trying to "get rid" of the "Illegal" buildings built out into the bay on Walking Street. They don't seem to be trying too hard!!!!!

Now of course Walking Street is a major tourist attraction in Pattaya and in Thailand. Getting rid of Walking Street would be a major Gaffe that would cost Pattaya hundreds of thousands of tourists and umpteen millions of dollars in lost revenue.

OK sorry for the waffle - here is the point

Now Pattaya City Hall say that it is NOT ok to build structures over 14 meters in height in "their interpretation" the zone 100 meters inland and 100 meters out to sea.

I repeat again Not ok to build structures over 14 meters

and again to make sure you don't miss the point

NOT OK TO BUILD STRUCTURES OVER 14 METERS IN HEIGHT

So by a reverse piece of logic

It must be OK to build structures under 14 meters in height

So that fixes the problem of Walking Street

So why on Earth has City Hall been wasting their time trying to get rid of the structures built out to sea and all under 14 meters in height. Of course they will say they were built without a construction permit.

In addition this now means that anyone wanting to build a structure under "14 meters in height" that's about four stories, should be able to obtain a building permit from City HAll and erect a shop, hotel, shopping mall on the beach - ON THE BEACH and out to sea for a distance of 100 meters.

So Pattaya Beach would have to be renamed Pattaya without a beach!!!!

Of course what I am saying is a daft bit of twaddle - no one ever in a month of Sundays would ever even remotely in their wildest dreams ever make a law like that would they?

[marekm1]

You stated "stopVT7 claims you cannot build anything within 200m from MSL."

No! You can not build over 14 meter high until you are 200 meters from MSL. Their some addition area in Thailand which abide by the law and only Pattaya ignore the law That why only a fool would buy a condo from a developer or real estate agent which ignore the law.

Thank you Lookout for your comment. I think you have been programmed by the aliens to repeat the same thing over and over and over and over again.

But seriously can you please post some new pictures of VT7 from your balcony or at least inform me when the VT7 starts to obstructing your view. It will be a happy day for me.

[lookat]

"Tammi - you have brought up an issue that has been bugging me for a while now.

The first law "Issue 8" set the distance from MSL at 100 meters

The second law "Issue 9" increased that distance to 200 meters

Now all that sounds pretty straightforward."

No! Issue 8 you measured from High Tide.

Issue 9 you measure from MSL.

Now by measuring from MSL into the sea 100 meters then measure from MSL onto the land 100 meters you have moved the buildings closer to the sea then they were located in Issue8. This is a strong point for the appeal.

Edited February 24, 2008 by lookat

[stopvt7]

Don’t forget what the expert witness did. He took two arrows pointing at each other and made magic! What fool would want to buy a questionable condo base on magic?

Because some day in the future the Thailand government could tear the condo down like is now happing in Spain!!

[ThaiBob]

....

No! Issue 8 you measured from High Tide.

Issue 9 you measure from MSL.

Now by measuring from MSL into the sea 100 meters then measure from MSL onto the land 100 meters you have moved the buildings closer to the sea then they were located in Issue8. This is a strong point for the appeal.

I could have missed it but I don't recall Issue 8 ever claimed you measure from High Tide. The definiton of "seashore" was always very ambigious and Issue 9 clarified that point by saying you measure from the MSL. In actuality, the City has always used the MSL 0.0 marker although there was some discussion about using the MSL +1.448 measurement which the Court discarded. I don't see this as strong point for an appeal. Appeals are won by new evidence or technicalities on legal points of law; the Supreme Court will not re-try the case. There is no new evidence. The evidence is that a sworn witness from the Department of Engineering in Bangkok testified and re-affirmed the City of Pattaya's original contention that the no construction zone is measured from the construction control line which begins 100 meters toward the sea and ends 100 meters landward from the MSL 0.0 marker. The City of Pattaya has used these guidelines in approving highrise construction along the beach for the past 20 years.

[stopvt7]

Issue 8 does not say from high tide! But from legal definition it is clear when the law talks about “at the sea short” it is has the meaning to be at “High Tide as found in nature”

[plasticpig]

And you still think you are going to win.

[OneMikeInBangkok]

....

No! Issue 8 you measured from High Tide.

Issue 9 you measure from MSL.

Now by measuring from MSL into the sea 100 meters then measure from MSL onto the land 100 meters you have moved the buildings closer to the sea then they were located in Issue8. This is a strong point for the appeal.

I could have missed it but I don't recall Issue 8 ever claimed you measure from High Tide. The definiton of "seashore" was always very ambigious and Issue 9 clarified that point by saying you measure from the MSL. In actuality, the City has always used the MSL 0.0 marker although there was some discussion about using the MSL +1.448 measurement which the Court discarded. I don't see this as strong point for an appeal. Appeals are won by new evidence or technicalities on legal points of law; the Supreme Court will not re-try the case. There is no new evidence. The evidence is that a sworn witness from the Department of Engineering in Bangkok testified and re-affirmed the City of Pattaya's original contention that the no construction zone is measured from the construction control line which begins 100 meters toward the sea and ends 100 meters landward from the MSL 0.0 marker. The City of Pattaya has used these guidelines in approving highrise construction along the beach for the past 20 years.

I don't think we are talking about "re-trying the case at Supreme Court"

As far as I am aware the Admin Court in Rayong has not issued a final decision so that case is not over yet. The Admin Court simply removed the "no build injunction"

When the Admin Court issued their first injunction to stop building VT went to The Supreme Court and appealed that decision. The Supreme Court thought this was a little harsh to stop all building work and allowed VT to build up to 14 meters (and spend more money)

Now the shoe is on the other foot and JCC are appealing to the Supreme Court to put the injunction against building in place again.

VT owners think they have won - they haven't even got to first base yet!!

Does anyone know who the anti corruption team are investigating. Is it VT, the City Hall employee who issued the building permit or the mayor or a combination of all three?

Does anyone know if the final decision is against VT who will foot the bill for demolition. Will it be VT, City Hall, the officer who issued the permit or will the co-owners/investors be asket to contribute more money to remove their "allegedly illegal investments"?

Now wouldn't that set the cat amongst the pigeons!!

Also if they do demolish would they order the structure to be taken down to the 14 meter mark or removed altogether if the original building permit was deemed to have been issued illegally.

[stopvt7]

“Does anyone know who the are investigating. Is it VT, the City Hall employee who issued the building permit or the mayor or a combination of all three?”

Yes, It is all parties involved in the case including Asia LawWorks and the court. The explanation I received the investigation is about the questionable building permit which is clearly against Issue 8 and 9. We were told they have been studying the case for some time. And their was enough evidence and the governor office request an anti corruption team. Now they been informed their will be a anti corruption investigation lead from Bangkok.

Also it looks like a good election issue for the up come Pattaya mayor election?

[beginner]

VT owners think they have won - they haven't even got to first base yet!!

Does anyone know if the final decision is against VT who will foot the bill for demolition. Will it be VT, City Hall, the officer who issued the permit or will the co-owners/investors be asket to contribute more money to remove their "allegedly illegal investments"?

Now wouldn't that set the cat amongst the pigeons!!

Also if they do demolish would they order the structure to be taken down to the 14 meter mark or removed altogether if the original building permit was deemed to have been issued illegally.

Quote OMIB

As you say, wouldn't that set the cat amongst the pigeons?

But if history is any guide I think VT7 owners need not panic yet, if ever.

Back in post 984 on (page 40) I pasted a story about the 101 illegal buildings on Walking Street that I know you are very familiar with. That was dated October 1998. It included this line

The committee agreed that the 101 buildings should be torn down as the Public Works and Provincial Authority suggested.

Last night, nine years later, they were still there despite all the advanced plans and promises to demolish them.

I wonder why there are so many USA jokes about lawyers which generally (very unjustly?) label them as despicable,dishonest, scheming, lying characters whose main purpose in life is to part their clients from their money. And yet, and yet. The first thing a group of disatisfied expats (including Americans) do is to call upon the services of not just one group of lawyers but two in order to get their way.

Maybe "My lawyer is different"

Presumably the costs of all this legal advice and litigation is minimal but nevertheless even a high ethics, saintly Law Centre would be reluctant to turn down the prospect of big money from expats fighting a long. long indeterminate battle with Government employed opponents who have unlimited funds and no need to ever settle.

Regarding the coming election. I have heard all three main candidates speak. I do not recall any of them or for that matter, any menber of the audiences mentioning VT7. Is it possible that they think they have bigger issues to contend with?

[lookat]

VT7 buyer remenber ignorance is not a defense in court.

Edited February 24, 2008 by lookat

[stopvt7]

FYI:

Coped from: "Meeting on the Drafting of Ministerial Regulation No. 8

There have been several amendments made during the Meeting on proposals to the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 B.E. 2518 issued under the virtue of Building Control Act B.E. 2479 , i.e.

- Article 2, the first meeting prescribed “The road along the edge of the sea” means the road that one side connected to the sea does not exceed 50 meters from building construction restriction line.”

The meeting held later on further amended “setting of 100 meters from the construction control line referred to the map annexed.”

- Article 4, “Within the distance of 50 meters from the road along the edge of the sea, the following types of buildings are not permitted to be constructed.”

(8) Building of 14 meters above the road surface.

This was later amended to read “The area of 100 meters measured from the construction control line according to the map annexed, from the sea towards the shore shall not be permitted to construct the following types of buildings”

(8) Building of 14 meters above the road surface.

Further amendment was to delete the wording “towards the shore” since the wording was clearly understood, then the following wording was used instead “to fix the 100 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map at the sea shore that building of the following types are not permitted for construction”

During the meeting, the Chairperson questioned the person who proposed this amendment that if the amendment shall take advantage on villagers who have only small piece of land on the sea shore for not being to optimize the use of land plots. The person who made this proposal answered that “minority must be sacrificed for the majority ”

The amendments were consented by the meeting because the meeting wanted to protect the beach by controlling the construction which may impact the natural look of sea beach area."

Why did not the Rayong Admin Court request a copy of drafting minutes to understand when measuring from "the sea shore" they said "amendment was to delete the wording “towards the shore” since the wording was clearly understood".

I would not want to be a buyer of VT7! The case is far from being over!

[Tammi]

Well, I see that VT has got a huge banner sign in Thai and English running the whole length of the beachside. So huge it's difficult to read but says that VT now has permission to build 27 storeys.

I wish City Hall would ask VT to do something about the green fencing on the beachside between VT5 and VT7. Not a pretty sight and behind it being used by locals as an open air toilet and dumping ground.

[ThaiBob]

“Does anyone know who the are investigating. Is it VT, the City Hall employee who issued the building permit or the mayor or a combination of all three?”

Yes, It is all parties involved in the case including Asia LawWorks and the court. The explanation I received the investigation is about the questionable building permit which is clearly against Issue 8 and 9. We were told they have been studying the case for some time. And their was enough evidence and the governor office request an anti corruption team. Now they been informed their will be a anti corruption investigation lead from Bangkok.

Also it looks like a good election issue for the up come Pattaya mayor election?

This is interesting. And why would the anti-corruption team be investigating Asia LawWorks? How can a provincial governor's office investigate a national administrative body like an Administrative Court? If all parties are being investigated does that mean the original 10 complaintants are being investigated too? What might the investigation uncover? That foreigners own their units using illegal Thai companies and if so taxes haven't been paid? That foreigners or their Thai companies own more than one condo unit (which is against the law). Sounds like good grounds for denying retirement visa extensions. Perhaps Pandora's box has been opened.

l

[ThaiBob]

....

No! Issue 8 you measured from High Tide.

Issue 9 you measure from MSL.

Now by measuring from MSL into the sea 100 meters then measure from MSL onto the land 100 meters you have moved the buildings closer to the sea then they were located in Issue8. This is a strong point for the appeal.

I could have missed it but I don't recall Issue 8 ever claimed you measure from High Tide. The definiton of "seashore" was always very ambigious and Issue 9 clarified that point by saying you measure from the MSL. In actuality, the City has always used the MSL 0.0 marker although there was some discussion about using the MSL +1.448 measurement which the Court discarded. I don't see this as strong point for an appeal. Appeals are won by new evidence or technicalities on legal points of law; the Supreme Court will not re-try the case. There is no new evidence. The evidence is that a sworn witness from the Department of Engineering in Bangkok testified and re-affirmed the City of Pattaya's original contention that the no construction zone is measured from the construction control line which begins 100 meters toward the sea and ends 100 meters landward from the MSL 0.0 marker. The City of Pattaya has used these guidelines in approving highrise construction along the beach for the past 20 years.

I don't think we are talking about "re-trying the case at Supreme Court"

As far as I am aware the Admin Court in Rayong has not issued a final decision so that case is not over yet. The Admin Court simply removed the "no build injunction"

When the Admin Court issued their first injunction to stop building VT went to The Supreme Court and appealed that decision. The Supreme Court thought this was a little harsh to stop all building work and allowed VT to build up to 14 meters (and spend more money)

Now the shoe is on the other foot and JCC are appealing to the Supreme Court to put the injunction against building in place again.

VT owners think they have won - they haven't even got to first base yet!!

Does anyone know who the anti corruption team are investigating. Is it VT, the City Hall employee who issued the building permit or the mayor or a combination of all three?

Does anyone know if the final decision is against VT who will foot the bill for demolition. Will it be VT, City Hall, the officer who issued the permit or will the co-owners/investors be asket to contribute more money to remove their "allegedly illegal investments"?

Now wouldn't that set the cat amongst the pigeons!!

Also if they do demolish would they order the structure to be taken down to the 14 meter mark or removed altogether if the original building permit was deemed to have been issued illegally.

"I don't think we are talking about "re-trying the case at Supreme Court""...True. So what is the new evidence?

"VT owners think they have won - they haven't even got to first base yet!!"....I disagree, I think they've rounded third base and are headed for home. The simple fact is appeals are very difficult to win. I realize these stats are about the U.S. Court system but it makes the point:

http://federalism.typepad.com/crime_federa...of_winning.html

[plasticpig]

[stopvt7]

FYI: “The meeting approved the aforesaid draft of the Ministerial Regulation, because of the reason to protect the area by the shore, by controlling the constructions which may impact the seas and beaches: details as shown in the attachment of the appeal No:1 – The Meeting of Drafting of the Ministerial Regulation of Issue8 ( B.E. 2519 ) Therefore, the intention or purpose of The Ministerial Regulation of Issue 8 is “to fix the 100 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map at the sea shore onto the land that the type of building of No. 3 ( 1 ) – ( 8 ) are not permitted to be constructed, in accordance with the Ministerial Regulation of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ), which stated that….Because the aforesaid areas are public attractions for taking an airing, it’s suitable to prohibit certain types of constructions which may cause troubles and disturbance and create waste and may destroy the environment. Later on, there was the adjustment of the construction control area in the regions of Banglamung / Naklua / and Nongprue Sub-districts of Chonburi province, by expanding the area, as shown in the annexed map of the Royal Decree Promulgating The Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, controlling over the areas of Banglamung / Naklua and Nongprue Sub-district of Chonburi province B.E. 2521, it is suitable to make an amendment to the Regulations of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ), to be more suitable, therefore, The Ministerial Regulation of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ) was promulgated, shown in the remark section, on the attached map of Ministerial Regulation of Issue 9, and therefore, the provision of both Ministerial Regulations are in accordance with one another, / or the procedures are connect with one another, so they were always mentioned of / or used as references in parts of their regulations. The intention or purpose to promulgate the Ministerial Regulation of Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) is to expand the control area for constructions in Banglamung / Naklua and Nongprue Sub-district, Bang-lamung District of Chonburi Province, which are the public attractions for taking an airing or holiday, by in the Regulations of Issue 9 fixes the 200 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map of the Royal Degree of B.E. 2521, at the sea shore that types of buildings of NO. 3 ( 1 ) – ( 8 ) shall not be permitted to be constructed. When it is needed to be interpreted to be in accord with the intention or purpose of the Regulations of Issue 8 (B.E. 2519), the expansion made from 100 to 200 meters must be expanded the distance at the sea shore onto the land, in order to protect those areas from the prohibited constructions, in accordance with the provisions of Issue 8 and 9, to be more suitable and appropriate.”

[lookat]

Their a new posting at http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

“Meeting on the Drafting of Ministerial Regulation No. 8” part of Issue 9

Very interest reading about measurements.

[Tammi]

“Does anyone know who the are investigating. Is it VT, the City Hall employee who issued the building permit or the mayor or a combination of all three?”

Yes, It is all parties involved in the case including Asia LawWorks and the court. The explanation I received the investigation is about the questionable building permit which is clearly against Issue 8 and 9. We were told they have been studying the case for some time. And their was enough evidence and the governor office request an anti corruption team. Now they been informed their will be a anti corruption investigation lead from Bangkok.

Also it looks like a good election issue for the up come Pattaya mayor election?

This is interesting. And why would the anti-corruption team be investigating Asia LawWorks? How can a provincial governor's office investigate a national administrative body like an Administrative Court? If all parties are being investigated does that mean the original 10 complaintants are being investigated too? What might the investigation uncover? That foreigners own their units using illegal Thai companies and if so taxes haven't been paid? That foreigners or their Thai companies own more than one condo unit (which is against the law). Sounds like good grounds for denying retirement visa extensions. Perhaps Pandora's box has been opened.

l

That foreigners are perhaps not paying taxes on rental income?

[lookat]

Did the Court expert witness rewrites the issue 9 regulation?

The Administrative Supreme Court decision in July 2007 said:

“Nevertheless, where No. 3 (8) under the Ministeral 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”

[ThaiBob]

“Does anyone know who the are investigating. Is it VT, the City Hall employee who issued the building permit or the mayor or a combination of all three?”

Yes, It is all parties involved in the case including Asia LawWorks and the court. The explanation I received the investigation is about the questionable building permit which is clearly against Issue 8 and 9. We were told they have been studying the case for some time. And their was enough evidence and the governor office request an anti corruption team. Now they been informed their will be a anti corruption investigation lead from Bangkok.

Also it looks like a good election issue for the up come Pattaya mayor election?

This is interesting. And why would the anti-corruption team be investigating Asia LawWorks? How can a provincial governor's office investigate a national administrative body like an Administrative Court? If all parties are being investigated does that mean the original 10 complaintants are being investigated too? What might the investigation uncover? That foreigners own their units using illegal Thai companies and if so taxes haven't been paid? That foreigners or their Thai companies own more than one condo unit (which is against the law). Sounds like good grounds for denying retirement visa extensions. Perhaps Pandora's box has been opened.

l

That foreigners are perhaps not paying taxes on rental income?

Yes, if a foreigner forms one those questionable Thai companies (with 49 percent or less minority stake) the Thai company must pay taxes just like any other Thai business.

Edited February 25, 2008 by ThaiBob

[lookat]

"Does anyone know who the are investigating. Is it VT, the City Hall employee who issued the building permit or the mayor or a combination of all three?"

Yes, It is all parties involved in the case including Asia LawWorks and the court. The explanation I received the investigation is about the questionable building permit which is clearly against Issue 8 and 9. We were told they have been studying the case for some time. And their was enough evidence and the governor office request an anti corruption team. Now they been informed their will be a anti corruption investigation lead from Bangkok.

Also it looks like a good election issue for the up come Pattaya mayor election?

This is interesting. And why would the anti-corruption team be investigating Asia LawWorks? How can a provincial governor's office investigate a national administrative body like an Administrative Court? If all parties are being investigated does that mean the original 10 complaintants are being investigated too? What might the investigation uncover? That foreigners own their units using illegal Thai companies and if so taxes haven't been paid? That foreigners or their Thai companies own more than one condo unit (which is against the law). Sounds like good grounds for denying retirement visa extensions. Perhaps Pandora's box has been opened.

l

That foreigners are perhaps not paying taxes on rental income?

Yes, if a foreigner forms one those questionable Thai companies (with 49 percent or less minority stake) the Thai company must pay taxes just like any other Thai business.