Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[jpm76]

I wait to hear what the court says. Because when reading the map or the regulation, Issue 8 or 9, their no where it states to measure into the sea before you measure onto the land.

When will this court make the decision, is there a date set for this??

Hi ZZZ,

I am not sure how long you have been following the case, but in case you have just come across this recently, I thought I would just write quickly to let you know that the court made its decision back in January this year, but that StopVt7 has gone to an appeal court to challenge the court's decision. We are still unsure of this but StopVt7 tells us that this is expected to be this month sometime (though I would note that it is all hearsay at this point in time with nothing confirmed).

[Tammi]

Doesn't mean sea level depend on how the sea bottom lies? Mean sea level will be different in a place where the bottom shelves steeply to a place where the bottom is flat. In an area where bottom is flat and gradual is it possible that one could measure 100 metres out to sea and 200 metres back and still not be at high tide level? So it is sensible to measure from high tide level and that I believe is the intent of the law - no building over 14 metres inland within 200 metres from high tide level - and easily applied all over Thailand - no need for surveyors to go looking for mean sea level on every stretch of shoreline where developments are taking place.

[stopvt7]

Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521 ), stated in accordance with the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, Section 3., which stated that “ To fix the area of 200 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map of the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, to control the areas of Banglamung / NONG PLALAI / Naklua and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District of Chonburi Province of B.E. 2499, at the sea shore, to be the prohibited areas for the following descriptions of constructions……(8) Buildings with the height of 14 meters ”

Where is the written in Issue 9 or on the map to “measure into the sea”? We can not fine these words!

Soon we will see the Supreme Admin Court decision and then we will know if they fine somewhere on the map it is written you “measure into the see” or not?

[ThaiBob]

Doesn't mean sea level depend on how the sea bottom lies? Mean sea level will be different in a place where the bottom shelves steeply to a place where the bottom is flat. In an area where bottom is flat and gradual is it possible that one could measure 100 metres out to sea and 200 metres back and still not be at high tide level? So it is sensible to measure from high tide level and that I believe is the intent of the law - no building over 14 metres inland within 200 metres from high tide level - and easily applied all over Thailand - no need for surveyors to go looking for mean sea level on every stretch of shoreline where developments are taking place.

These are old arguments that have been discredited. Issue 8 was ambigous on what was meant by "sea shore"; high tide, low tide, mean tide? Issue 9 cleared all that up by defining the MSL which is not some moving target like some suggest but clearly marked on coastal maps of the Thai navy. Compare the Issue 8 and Isuue 9 maps and there is a big difference. The Issue 9 map has a big bold line which shows the restricted construction borderline which the Issue 8 map doe not have.

http://bp0.blogger.com/_1x8bR0BbXM4/Rv2uMz...200+meter+Q.jpg

The City argues the other construction restricted border is established by measuring 200 meters landward from the bold line on the map. This creates the 200 meter restricted construction zone. That was expert witness testimony and it makes sense to me, and makes makes to most unbiased persons but most importantly it made sense to the judge so he removed the temporary construction injunction. Remember, no where does Issue 9 say explicitly to measure 200 meter from the MSL. If it did we wouldn't be having this discussion and many highrises (past, present and future) would not received construction permits.

The stopVT7 choir needs to bring some new arguments to the table. Frankly, I think they're just pissin' into the wind.

[ZZZ]

Doesn't mean sea level depend on how the sea bottom lies? Mean sea level will be different in a place where the bottom shelves steeply to a place where the bottom is flat. In an area where bottom is flat and gradual is it possible that one could measure 100 metres out to sea and 200 metres back and still not be at high tide level? So it is sensible to measure from high tide level and that I believe is the intent of the law - no building over 14 metres inland within 200 metres from high tide level - and easily applied all over Thailand - no need for surveyors to go looking for mean sea level on every stretch of shoreline where developments are taking place.

These are old arguments that have been discredited. Issue 8 was ambigous on what was meant by "sea shore"; high tide, low tide, mean tide? Issue 9 cleared all that up by defining the MSL which is not some moving target like some suggest but clearly marked on coastal maps of the Thai navy. Compare the Issue 8 and Isuue 9 maps and there is a big difference. The Issue 9 map has a big bold line which shows the restricted construction borderline which the Issue 8 map doe not have.

http://bp0.blogger.com/_1x8bR0BbXM4/Rv2uMz...200+meter+Q.jpg

The City argues the other construction restricted border is established by measuring 200 meters landward from the bold line on the map. This creates the 200 meter restricted construction zone. That was expert witness testimony and it makes sense to me, and makes makes to most unbiased persons but most importantly it made sense to the judge so he removed the temporary construction injunction. Remember, no where does Issue 9 say explicitly to measure 200 meter from the MSL. If it did we wouldn't be having this discussion and many highrises (past, present and future) would not received construction permits.

The stopVT7 choir needs to bring some new arguments to the table. Frankly, I think they're just pissin' into the wind.

There is nothing ambiguous about the sea shore definition ask any surveyor and he will tell you it's the area between high tide and low tide.

All other countries in the world use the high tide mark for these purposes.

Most other jurisdictions in Thailand use the high tide mark for this purpose.

The high tide mark is the only border line that makes any sense for reasons pointed out by tammi.

But for some reason Pattaya wants to be different. I'm not sure why but guess that some powers are trying to get out of a sticky situation by trying all means to make it look like the MSL was the border even if the high tide mark was the intended border when the regulations were made.

[stopvt7]

Doesn't mean sea level depend on how the sea bottom lies? Mean sea level will be different in a place where the bottom shelves steeply to a place where the bottom is flat. In an area where bottom is flat and gradual is it possible that one could measure 100 metres out to sea and 200 metres back and still not be at high tide level? So it is sensible to measure from high tide level and that I believe is the intent of the law - no building over 14 metres inland within 200 metres from high tide level - and easily applied all over Thailand - no need for surveyors to go looking for mean sea level on every stretch of shoreline where developments are taking place.

These are old arguments that have been discredited. Issue 8 was ambigous on what was meant by "sea shore"; high tide, low tide, mean tide? Issue 9 cleared all that up by defining the MSL which is not some moving target like some suggest but clearly marked on coastal maps of the Thai navy. Compare the Issue 8 and Isuue 9 maps and there is a big difference. The Issue 9 map has a big bold line which shows the restricted construction borderline which the Issue 8 map doe not have.

http://bp0.blogger.com/_1x8bR0BbXM4/Rv2uMz...200+meter+Q.jpg

The City argues the other construction restricted border is established by measuring 200 meters landward from the bold line on the map. This creates the 200 meter restricted construction zone. That was expert witness testimony and it makes sense to me, and makes makes to most unbiased persons but most importantly it made sense to the judge so he removed the temporary construction injunction. Remember, no where does Issue 9 say explicitly to measure 200 meter from the MSL. If it did we wouldn't be having this discussion and many highrises (past, present and future) would not received construction permits.

The stopVT7 choir needs to bring some new arguments to the table. Frankly, I think they're just pissin' into the wind.

The legal definition of “Sea Shore”, if not defined as in Issue 8, is located at High Tide. But Issue 9 define “Sea Shore” to be located at MSLon the map.

Using Issue 9 and map you measuring from the “Sea Shore” which is shown on the map to be located at MSL. Their NO where you can fine words to “measure into the sea” on the map,

You can fine, on the Issue 9 map, the “borderline of the construction restriction area” at Sukhumvit Road but you do not measure from Sukhumvit Road. You measure from MSL at the sea shore onto the land! Not as the so called expert witness which said you “measure into the sea” 100 meters before you measure onto the land 100 meters from MSL which is 200 meters from “borderline of the construction restriction area”.

But Issue 9 said to measure 200 meters from MSL at the sea shore. So their was not a expert witness in the court because he can not understand Thai or Issue 9 .

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 is 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 is to be amended by the following statement:

“No 3. To specify the area within the 200 meters measurement from the construction control line see 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 seaside 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)

Certified correct

(Mr. Yuthana Rittisit)

Administrative Officer

Public Utility Section

****

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 to 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:

3. To specify the area within the 100 meters measurement from the construction control line see 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 seaside 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.

Certified correct copy

(Signed) Yuthana Rittisit

Administrative Officer

Public Utility Section

Office of the Secretary

Copy taken and reviewed by : Wallada

(Mr. Somchai Leelaprapaporn)

Civil Engineer Grade 7

[JaiDeeFarang]

Doesn't mean sea level depend on how the sea bottom lies? Mean sea level will be different in a place where the bottom shelves steeply to a place where the bottom is flat. In an area where bottom is flat and gradual is it possible that one could measure 100 metres out to sea and 200 metres back and still not be at high tide level? So it is sensible to measure from high tide level and that I believe is the intent of the law - no building over 14 metres inland within 200 metres from high tide level - and easily applied all over Thailand - no need for surveyors to go looking for mean sea level on every stretch of shoreline where developments are taking place.

These are old arguments that have been discredited. Issue 8 was ambigous on what was meant by "sea shore"; high tide, low tide, mean tide? Issue 9 cleared all that up by defining the MSL which is not some moving target like some suggest but clearly marked on coastal maps of the Thai navy. Compare the Issue 8 and Isuue 9 maps and there is a big difference. The Issue 9 map has a big bold line which shows the restricted construction borderline which the Issue 8 map doe not have.

http://bp0.blogger.com/_1x8bR0BbXM4/Rv2uMz...200+meter+Q.jpg

The City argues the other construction restricted border is established by measuring 200 meters landward from the bold line on the map. This creates the 200 meter restricted construction zone. That was expert witness testimony and it makes sense to me, and makes makes to most unbiased persons but most importantly it made sense to the judge so he removed the temporary construction injunction. Remember, no where does Issue 9 say explicitly to measure 200 meter from the MSL. If it did we wouldn't be having this discussion and many highrises (past, present and future) would not received construction permits.

The stopVT7 choir needs to bring some new arguments to the table. Frankly, I think they're just pissin' into the wind.

I can't see any new arguements there from stopVT7 and even the highlighted word Seaside seems a bit ambiguous to me, agreed pissin in the wind frankly speaking.

[tropiccapricorn]

According to the original wording of that law, anything built higher than 14 m and closer to the beach than JCC is illegal.

But due to increasing pressure (financial and so) it seems to have worked out that the people required to uphold the law absolutely intend to ignore and forget it for which all sorts of adventurous interpretations are used.

Or maybe somebody tell me one reason why the builders of JCC didn’t build those towers 100 m closer to the beach

and as a result VT7 wouldn’t be at all.

The sad thing is that apparently exactly the obedience to this law it is they are getting punished for now.

[prospero]

According to the original wording of that law, anything built higher than 14 m and closer to the beach than JCC is illegal.

But due to increasing pressure (financial and so) it seems to have worked out that the people required to uphold the law absolutely intend to ignore and forget it for which all sorts of adventurous interpretations are used.

Or maybe somebody tell me one reason why the builders of JCC didn't build those towers 100 m closer to the beach

and as a result VT7 wouldn't be at all.

The sad thing is that apparently exactly the obedience to this law it is they are getting punished for now.

If you sight a line down the two-hundred meter from shore boundary, you will see that Jomtien Complex, Grand Condotel, Jomtien Condotel, and Pattaya Park are all the same distance. View Talay 5 intrudes, of course. One has to ask the question, why didn't Rabbit Resort, White House, and other developments build higher? Perhaps they didn't have the ability to respond to "increasing pressure".

[aberman1970]

"No 3. To specify the area within the 200 meters measurement from the construction control line see 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 seaside 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). "

Still clutching at straw's here, even by StopVT7's own argument he loses. No. 8 he has highlighted above, which road is that? bottom or top of the hill?? Everything is open to everyones own interpretation and in this case no one is interested if you have a sea view or not, get over it and move on.

[Pattayaseven]

According to the original wording of that law, anything built higher than 14 m and closer to the beach than JCC is illegal.

But due to increasing pressure (financial and so) it seems to have worked out that the people required to uphold the law absolutely intend to ignore and forget it for which all sorts of adventurous interpretations are used.

Or maybe somebody tell me one reason why the builders of JCC didn't build those towers 100 m closer to the beach

and as a result VT7 wouldn't be at all.

The sad thing is that apparently exactly the obedience to this law it is they are getting punished for now.

What do you think is the easiest way to make money?

Alternativ 1: If you build a building at the shoreline and then try to sell the plots behind it with buildings blocking the seaview?

Or

Alternativ 2: You build a building as far behind as possible on the plot, sell it with seaview and the prospect of a small park in front of it and then selling the plot in front of the building with seaview?

Edited May 15, 2008 by Pattayaseven

[lookat]

“No 3. To specify the area within the 200 meters measurement from the construction control line see 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 seaside in which the following constructions shall not be built:

1. Place for keeping and selling fuel

2. Theater

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). "

Above Issue 9 is very clear that you do not measure into the sea! Their no where it is said on the map or in Issue8 or 9 to measure into the sea. You measure from the sea shore ( seaside) at MSL in one direction. The upcoming court decision has nothing to do with new evidence or a different argument.

What is not clear if Thailand Judges can clearly understand Issue 9? That the question which we are waiting the Admin Supreme Court to answer?

When?

[OhdLover]

yawn... In the summer season we see all those old series on tv, for the 2nd, 3d, 4th or how maniest time... This thread is worse.

I just saw the copy/paste of stopvt7's "200meter-prove" about the 23d time in this thread.

Probably from the point of view that if you state something continuously, people tend to start believing it, regardless if it's true or not.

Well... I got some news... paste it another 389 times, and still it doesn't gain any value for me.

It says what it says and I still believe a judge has been asked to say something about it.

So I suggest either you come with something new or you wait until the person who can decide about it, has decided.

Cheers.

[lookat]

yawn... In the summer season we see all those old series on tv, for the 2nd, 3d, 4th or how maniest time... This thread is worse.

I just saw the copy/paste of stopvt7's "200meter-prove" about the 23d time in this thread.

Probably from the point of view that if you state something continuously, people tend to start believing it, regardless if it's true or not.

Well... I got some news... paste it another 389 times, and still it doesn't gain any value for me.

It says what it says and I still believe a judge has been asked to say something about it.

So I suggest either you come with something new or you wait until the person who can decide about it, has decided.

Cheers.

The 24 time for you OhdLover! Even you may be able to understand what Issue 9 and what it did not state. Their no where it is said to "measure into the sea" so does it make you corrupt or stupid? I'm betting on stupit.

Issue 9

“No 3. To specify the area within the 200 meters measurement from the construction control line see 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 seaside in which the following constructions shall not be built:

1. Place for keeping and selling fuel

2. Theater

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). "

[OhdLover]

I'm betting on stupit.

..... says who?? So the first judge was stupiD ??

Edited May 16, 2008 by OhdLover

[Wiresok]

I find it astonishing that the key issue of measuring out into the sea by 100m was first raised in this case by a 7th grade lawyer in the last Rayong hearing.

If the expert witness is to be believed that this was always the law then how come only he knew about it.

Surely if this was the correct, established,widely known,legal interpretation then somebody from the city hall/vt defence would have pointed it out in the higher Bangkok Supreme Court 12 months ago and finished the case there and then.

They didnt,the plaintiffs got the verdict.

The fact that it wasnt pointed out then leads me to conclude it is something that has grew legs since,helped along by the plaintiffs ex lawyer .

I cannot believe that such a key issue would evade the Bangkok Supreme Court.

Draw your own conclusions?.

[lookat]

I'm betting on stupid.

..... says who?? So the first judge was stupiD ??

I was thinking OhdLover could be stupid?

The Rayong judges were wrong. Now, I’m waiting for the Supreme Court to explain why their wrong.

[OhdLover]

I'm betting on stupid.

..... says who?? So the first judge was stupiD ??

I was thinking OhdLover could be stupid?

The Rayong judges were stupid. Now, I'm waiting for the Supreme Court to explain why their wrong.

Repairing the quotes??? That's great. Never too old to learn lookat. Time for the next step.

Try to comprehend what I am trying to say with my posting instead of taking the opportunity to parrot stopvt7 again.

I'll give it a second try. Dummyproof.

I say => why copy/paste 37 times => gaining value ? => no => same story? => yes

So, you can copy/paste again and tell the same story again. Up to you. Highight it in green, purple, magenta.

I doesn't make me neither brigther nor more stupid.

But consider what it would make you....

Edited May 17, 2008 by OhdLover

[jpm76]

I'm betting on stupid.

..... says who?? So the first judge was stupiD ??

I was thinking OhdLover could be stupid?

The Rayong judges were wrong. Now, I'm waiting for the Supreme Court to explain why their wrong.

That is what I love about the arrogance of some of the StopVT7 losers! Everyone is stupid who does not agree with them...

Firstly we have Stopvt7 questioning the competence, the ability to read Thai etc of the expert witness and the judge, then we have Lookat (Stopvt7's lapdog) calling VT7 investors stupid. Seems everyone who argues against them are "stupid", but just perhaps, it is they who are stupid because they cannot understand the complexity of the debates in question.

We have heard countless examples of how the only solution must be "corruption" or "increasing pressure" if you want to try and avoid your slanders (fortunately we must not be THAT stupid), but I have seen several arguments that show alternative interpretations of the facts in question, and may be why the "stupid" judge ruled in favour of City Hall.

Are you clever enough Lookat to realise that, if there were any inconsistency in the law (as there appears ot be to those not stupid enough to understand that Stopvt7 only flaunts his interpretations of his Thai translations), that the Thai courts may look to produce the most favourable outcome to the area (rather than bowing down to the arrogance of stupid foreigners who think that they have the right to come into the country, declare the expert professionals stupid, the judges stupid, the officials corrupt, the Thai's unable to read their own laws, and basically anyone who does not join their crusade stupid).

In most first world systems of law, we have a separation of powers between the legislative, the executive and the judicial. The reason why the judicial is there, is because it is widely realised that the legislative will require "interpretation" due to the ambiguity in the law. Now, the only stupid ones I see are those arguing that they are the ones who claim that they can correctly ascertain the technicalities of complex surveying matters (better than those who are professionals in their field), can interpret the meaning of Thai legislation (despite it being their second language) better than the "Thai" judges who are obviously judges on account of their knowledge of the law, can determine city planning codes and measures (obviously again better than those employed to do the job), and basically think that they are supermen in light of the fact that no-one I know would claim such things in any country.

The reason why I would argue that these supermen are the stupid ones, is because you never know when the "stupid" (assuming they would be stupid by your previous arguments) immigration officials are going to come along and say that enough is enough of all your slanders of the Thai system, and decide that you should go to some other country and annoy the hel_l out of them - and may I suggest Africa where they would just shoot such arrogance.

Is it any wonder that foreigners are sometimes painted as being so arrogant when you have such supermen as Lookat and Stopvt7 constantly telling the world (and I mean telling you again, again, again, and again...broken record style with no new arguments or points whatsoever) how "stupid" everyone is who do not agree with their INTERPRETATION (both of the law and Thai language).

Give it is a rest lapdog and bark somewhere else, and when this goes against you, I hope that you remember how "stupid" we all were. I will have a "dunce" suit made for you to show you how "stupid" you are in assuming the stupidity of everyone else.

I completely agree with OHDlover...it does not make any difference how many times you repeat a point... it does not make it true, UNLESS (and here is your chance), you are in the practice of brainwashing people through constant repetition. A quick look over the StopVt7 posts would suggest that you are well versed in the practices of cults, because StopVT7 has done nothing but repeat, repeat, repeat and repeat as if he just wants whatever he has to stay remain the last post for all to read.

If the next court case goes against you, you are all going to look mighty "stupid" for maintaining the stupidity of ALL these people, but I am more concerned about the fact that we seem to have a master race, far exceeding the intelligence of our ordinary stupid human professionals. But of course, rather than maintaining ALL are stupid, you could maintain that ALL are CORRUPT, but given StopVT7's self-alleged respect of the Thai legal system, the Thai law and Thailand in general, to allege corruption , after he has denied his claims of this so vehemently, would be WELL SHOULD I SAY IT, plain STUPID. So I now understand why you have had to shift the arguments of impending corruption to those of widespread stupidity, though unfortunately Lookat is not, despite his apparent superhumanness, cluey enough to drop the corruption charges and still asks the question "Stupid" or "Corrupt"?

No suprise there - he has shown many times that he is nothing more than StopVT7's parrot, but yet he demonstrates that he must be only a clone wannabe of this master race of superhuman intelligence because he has on many occasions damaged the now lost (lost as this debate went on and we saw the true colours of StopVT7) "credibility" of StopVT7. Shame OneMike no longer posts here, because he must have been the third level of this superhuman category ie the kind that could be included due to his understanding that STOPVT7 is the only one in the right, but unable to understand ANY of the complexities of the situation at hand.

Well, Lookat, I will go back now to my daily life, and my "stupidity" that I must share with OHDlover since I am not corrupt, fortunately "stupid" enough to not realise the implications of the existence of such a superhuman race who are so proficient as to be able to walk into foreign countries, supercede (through plain superiority in intelligence and understanding) the authority of engineers, surveyors, lawyers, judges and all Thai's (probably within a few years when they have spent a lifetime doing it). I pledge my allegiance, our superior overlords. No wait, hold on, I think that such actions are the height of arrogance and true stupidity.... so watch how things end Lookat because your calls of stupidity may fall back on your immortal self.

[Pattayaseven]

The reason issue 9 does not say you measure 100m into the sea, is because the construction control line is 100m out in the sea. Which is excactly the SAME!

Construction control line -----=>100m = beach -------=>100m (total 200m) = NO BUILDING ZONE -------=> 5m (total 205m from the construction control line) = VIEW TALAY 7

Edited May 17, 2008 by Pattayaseven

[Tammi]

I'm betting on stupid.

..... says who?? So the first judge was stupiD ??

I was thinking OhdLover could be stupid?

The Rayong judges were wrong. Now, I'm waiting for the Supreme Court to explain why their wrong.

That is what I love about the arrogance of some of the StopVT7 losers! Everyone is stupid who does not agree with them...

Firstly we have Stopvt7 questioning the competence, the ability to read Thai etc of the expert witness and the judge, then we have Lookat (Stopvt7's lapdog) calling VT7 investors stupid. Seems everyone who argues against them are "stupid", but just perhaps, it is they who are stupid because they cannot understand the complexity of the debates in question.

I seem to remember that it was a very well connected official who advised that Jomthien Complex group should take the case to the Admin Court.

We have heard countless examples of how the only solution must be "corruption" or "increasing pressure" if you want to try and avoid your slanders (fortunately we must not be THAT stupid), but I have seen several arguments that show alternative interpretations of the facts in question, and may be why the "stupid" judge ruled in favour of City Hall.

I am sure that judges don't always make the right decision and that is why there are Appeal Courts

Are you clever enough Lookat to realise that, if there were any inconsistency in the law (as there appears ot be to those not stupid enough to understand that Stopvt7 only flaunts his interpretations of his Thai translations), that the Thai courts may look to produce the most favourable outcome to the area (rather than bowing down to the arrogance of stupid foreigners who think that they have the right to come into the country, declare the expert professionals stupid, the judges stupid, the officials corrupt, the Thai's unable to read their own laws, and basically anyone who does not join their crusade stupid).

Are you saying that the court can flaunt the law if it considers that a 27 storey building is a good thing for the area?

As for foreigners in Thailand - the Thai governement allows them to come into the country, buy condominiums, and reside here and therefore foreigners do have the full weight of Thai laws to support them.

In most first world systems of law, we have a separation of powers between the legislative, the executive and the judicial. The reason why the judicial is there, is because it is widely realised that the legislative will require "interpretation" due to the ambiguity in the law. Now, the only stupid ones I see are those arguing that they are the ones who claim that they can correctly ascertain the technicalities of complex surveying matters (better than those who are professionals in their field), can interpret the meaning of Thai legislation (despite it being their second language) better than the "Thai" judges who are obviously judges on account of their knowledge of the law, can determine city planning codes and measures (obviously again better than those employed to do the job), and basically think that they are supermen in light of the fact that no-one I know would claim such things in any country.

We will have to wait and see what the the decision of the Supreme Admin Court is and I supppose we will have to accept it. But perhaps the discussion of the case will be taken up by other educated Thais who do take the side of StopVT7 and his friends.

The reason why I would argue that these supermen are the stupid ones, is because you never know when the "stupid" (assuming they would be stupid by your previous arguments) immigration officials are going to come along and say that enough is enough of all your slanders of the Thai system, and decide that you should go to some other country and annoy the hel_l out of them - and may I suggest Africa where they would just shoot such arrogance.

Is it any wonder that foreigners are sometimes painted as being so arrogant when you have such supermen as Lookat and Stopvt7 constantly telling the world (and I mean telling you again, again, again, and again...broken record style with no new arguments or points whatsoever) how "stupid" everyone is who do not agree with their INTERPRETATION (both of the law and Thai language).

Give it is a rest lapdog and bark somewhere else, and when this goes against you, I hope that you remember how "stupid" we all were. I will have a "dunce" suit made for you to show you how "stupid" you are in assuming the stupidity of everyone else.

I completely agree with OHDlover...it does not make any difference how many times you repeat a point... it does not make it true, UNLESS (and here is your chance), you are in the practice of brainwashing people through constant repetition. A quick look over the StopVt7 posts would suggest that you are well versed in the practices of cults, because StopVT7 has done nothing but repeat, repeat, repeat and repeat as if he just wants whatever he has to stay remain the last post for all to read.

If the next court case goes against you, you are all going to look mighty "stupid" for maintaining the stupidity of ALL these people, but I am more concerned about the fact that we seem to have a master race, far exceeding the intelligence of our ordinary stupid human professionals. But of course, rather than maintaining ALL are stupid, you could maintain that ALL are CORRUPT, but given StopVT7's self-alleged respect of the Thai legal system, the Thai law and Thailand in general, to allege corruption , after he has denied his claims of this so vehemently, would be WELL SHOULD I SAY IT, plain STUPID. So I now understand why you have had to shift the arguments of impending corruption to those of widespread stupidity, though unfortunately Lookat is not, despite his apparent superhumanness, cluey enough to drop the corruption charges and still asks the question "Stupid" or "Corrupt"?

No suprise there - he has shown many times that he is nothing more than StopVT7's parrot, but yet he demonstrates that he must be only a clone wannabe of this master race of superhuman intelligence because he has on many occasions damaged the now lost (lost as this debate went on and we saw the true colours of StopVT7) "credibility" of StopVT7. Shame OneMike no longer posts here, because he must have been the third level of this superhuman category ie the kind that could be included due to his understanding that STOPVT7 is the only one in the right, but unable to understand ANY of the complexities of the situation at hand.

Well, Lookat, I will go back now to my daily life, and my "stupidity" that I must share with OHDlover since I am not corrupt, fortunately "stupid" enough to not realise the implications of the existence of such a superhuman race who are so proficient as to be able to walk into foreign countries, supercede (through plain superiority in intelligence and understanding) the authority of engineers, surveyors, lawyers, judges and all Thai's (probably within a few years when they have spent a lifetime doing it). I pledge my allegiance, our superior overlords. No wait, hold on, I think that such actions are the height of arrogance and true stupidity.... so watch how things end Lookat because your calls of stupidity may fall back on your immortal self.

The rest of the above is a lot of useless gobbledeegook

[SmartFarang]

Hey, it seems that they are clearing the land next to View Talay 7.

View Talay 7

Anyone know what is going up there?

The plot thickens...

Edited May 18, 2008 by SmartFarang

[Tammi]

Hey, it seems that they are clearing the land next to View Talay 7.

View Talay 7

Anyone know what is going up there?

The plot thickens...

On another thread it has been said that the rumour is that VT is going to put in an Amusement Park. If this rumour turns out to be true it will be - I think - because VT has a good idea that it is going to have to take down VT7. What kind of developer puts an amusement park between his condominium developments? Perhaps one where court's decision has gone against him.

May the old man have a happy retirement and thank goodness no more cereal boxes. JMHO

Edited May 18, 2008 by Tammi

[Wiresok]

I've had a look back through a lot of this thread and I think the guy with all the problems is the expert witness.

You have to recall that 12 months ago the Bangkok Supreme Court listened to the evidence and agreed with stopvt group that the regulation 9 meant a building within 200m was limited to 14m.

No mention here of measuring 100m out into the sea.

Subsequently at the Rayong hearing its the expert witness who comes up with the new evidence of measuring out into the sea by 100m argument,which the Rayong court accepted as nobody challenged it.

The Bangkok Supreme Court now sees there is new evidence that was not presented to it 12 months ago,that is at odds with its earlier acceptance of regulation 9 intent, so understandably notes the discrepancy and wants to test it .

In the Rayong court,the expert witness merely stated his claim,unchallenged.

Now the expert witness is going to have to prove and substantiate his claim and provide verifications,validations,authentications,audit trails,etc for his explanation,to shift the Bangkok Supreme Court from its previous position.

If I was the judge in the Bangkok Supreme Court I would want to know why this new evidence did not come to light at the earlier hearing,and why only this one chap appeared to know about it.

I would also be interested to learn why all the earlier buildings were set back 200m.

For me QED,but the outcome depends on what statement the BSC wants to make about who holds the power in Thailand,courts or cash.

[stopvt7]

Issue 9 / Google Update:

Google has post a new satellite photos of Pattaya and now yow can see VT7 and the measurement from the construction control line at MSL onto the land 200 meters.

Issue 9 said:

“No 3. To specify the area within the 200 meters measurement from the construction control line see the map (on map at MSL). 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 seashore in which the following constructions shall not be built:

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). "

Can the VT7 supporter understand this picture?

[Pattayaseven]

Issue 9 said:

"No 3. To specify the area within the 200 meters measurement from the construction control line see the map (on map at MSL).

Can the VT7 supporter understand this picture?

That is just wrong adding your own words when quoting laws. Looks like you are just trying to manipulate the general public. "(on map at MSL)" is not a part of issue 9. The map describes the Construction Control Line as 100m from the shoreline towards the sea. 100m of CCL in the sea and 100m onto land.

If you measure the distance from all the high rises in Pattaya, Pratamnak and Jomtien on the seaside to your definition of CCL you will see that approximately a third of the buildings are within the "no building limit". This is because this is a building zone and your definition is wrong!

[OhdLover]

Issue 9 / Google Update:

Google has post a new satellite photos of Pattaya and now yow can see VT7 and the measurement from the construction control line at MSL onto the land 200 meters.

Issue 9 said:

"No 3. To specify the area within the 200 meters measurement from the construction control line see the map (on map at MSL). 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 seashore in which the following constructions shall not be built:

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). "

Can the VT7 supporter understand this picture?

Can you please copy Issue 9 in this thread? I can find it nowhere.......

[OhdLover]

Issue 9 said:

"No 3. To specify the area within the 200 meters measurement from the construction control line see the map (on map at MSL).

Can the VT7 supporter understand this picture?

That is just wrong adding your own words when quoting laws. Looks like you are just trying to manipulate the general public. "(on map at MSL)" is not a part of issue 9. The map describes the Construction Control Line as 100m from the shoreline towards the sea. 100m of CCL in the sea and 100m onto land.

If you measure the distance from all the high rises in Pattaya, Pratamnak and Jomtien on the seaside to your definition of CCL you will see that approximately a third of the buildings are within the "no building limit". This is because this is a building zone and your definition is wrong!

Exactly. I get the feeling that stopvt and his crew are getting desperate.

Google posted a new pic and now everything is clear!!!!!!!!! WOW!

P.S. When you try to open the pic, the popup states: image cannot be displayed, because it contains errors... SMART SOFTWARE!!!!!

Edited May 20, 2008 by OhdLover

[Wiresok]

I've also read somewhere that if the plus/minus 100m definition is to be believed,then issue 9 allows building closer to the sea than issue 8 did.

Can this be possible?

[lookat]

I've also read somewhere that if the plus/minus 100m definition is to be believed,then issue 9 allows building closer to the sea than issue 8 did.

Can this be possible?

You are right.