Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[JaiDeeFarang]

Tired Looking Condo

[sibeymai]

I wish you people would use the "add reply" button when replying instead of the "reply" button. All those quotes of other posts are unecessary.

If you do need to quote a post, hit the reply and delete all the other posts quoted and just leave the one post you need to quote.

It ain't hard.

Sir Burr, alway's something of value to add.....and you can quote me on that !

[NanLaew]

Yes, TLC. You can get heaps of that down by the library.

BTW, It won't make your Tired Looking Condo look any better but it will take your mind off being Tired Living-in-a Condo.

Edited June 2, 2008 by NanLaew

[sibeymai]

Especially one without a sea view.

[JaiDeeFarang]

All jokes aside I think JCC juristic needs a Terrific Law Company, which is why every co-owner is being hit up for 10K baht. Many must feel it's Terrible Losing Cash when they don't agree with the Thai Law Courts.

[sibeymai]

And all for the sake of Tangibly Lower Condos.

[JaiDeeFarang]

But it's all a Total Lost Cause!

[ThaiBob]

All jokes aside, I would be one upset JCC co-owner IF my association attempted to assess me for a lawsuit to which I was not a party. I don't understand how they could legally justify that. Did I read somewhere stopVT7 was on board of the association?

[marekm1]

There have been days (weeks?) when there has been no posts and then someone asks what is happening and StopVT7 kindly replies and then those who have interests in seeing VT7 built start jumping on StopVT7 for his English. Those people should back off and do what StopVT7 has said time and time again that he is happy to do - wait for the Court's decision.

Tammi, we are all still waiting for StopVT7 kind reply to the question asked few times.

“Is it or is it not true that a levy of 10,000 baht has been added to the maintenance charges of EVERY co-owner by the juristic committee in order to cover the legal costs to fight VT7?”

Maybe you can help us to get an answer from StopVT7 as you seem to agree with everything what he does.

And if he is so kind, how come he got awarded holidays for his rudeness and arrogance. And now there is some serious accusation regarding StopVT7 using (and if proved, stealing) money from other people to finance his private and selfish fight to protect his seaview.

[JaiDeeFarang]

Hi Marek, don't waste your time on this. It is obvious by the lack of response I am correct in what I say. These stopVT7 people don't want to comment as I guess they are not the most popular co-owners at the moment and possibly feel shameful in asking their co-owners and neighbors for money, when all along these sensible residents have wanted no involvement in the case and to keep a low profile.

[ZZZ]

Hi Marek, don't waste your time on this. It is obvious by the lack of response I am correct in what I say. These stopVT7 people don't want to comment as I guess they are not the most popular co-owners at the moment and possibly feel shameful in asking their co-owners and neighbors for money, when all along these sensible residents have wanted no involvement in the case and to keep a low profile.

You got to be joking.

Why would he not be popular by the other residents in JCC for trying to stop another building being built right in front JCC ????

If I was a resident there I would support his cause 100%, you would be stupid not to as the alternative would guarantee a new building right in front of your building. At least he is offering some resistance and a small chance of this not happening. 10,000Baht is nothing compared with what the value will go down by for JCC.

Could someone who actually own a JCC unit confirm that they are against stopVT7 efforts.

[Sir Burr]

Why would he not be popular by the other residents in JCC for trying to stop another building being built right in front JCC ????

Maybe if their apartments didn't face the sea?

[ZZZ]

Maybe if their apartments didn't face the sea?

I think they all face the sea

[Wiresok]

I still come back to the details of the expert witness testimony in court.

His interpretation of the law just does not stand scrutiny.

What would be interesting though is to see what happens if the judges do rule against pattaya city / vt ,as I think they will based on what I have seen up to now,and order the building down to 14m.

Could somebody end up jailed if they refuse to take down?

[JaiDeeFarang]

As stopVT7 likes these little fellas so much, I thought I'd use them to put my thoughts on your comment across.

[JaiDeeFarang]

Maybe if their apartments didn't face the sea?

I think they all face the sea

Do they all have windows both at the front and back of the building?

[Wiresok]

As stopVT7 likes these little fellas so much, I thought I'd use them to put my thoughts on your comment across.

Its a good job you can laugh,because ,when you have no answers,the truth hurts.

Take it you have no answers on the expert witness testimony not stacking up,or have you?

Interested to here them if you have and we will scrutinise them,just as the judge will !

1)Why would the new legislation want to allow building closer to the sea than the previous legislation??

2)Why would the new legislation want to prohibit buildings 100m out into the sea,how many buildings can you see out there now,how many applications have city hall had to build out there in the last 20 years.

When your'e ready.

[ZZZ]

Maybe if their apartments didn't face the sea?

I think they all face the sea

Do they all have windows both at the front and back of the building?

It was a long time since I was inside JCC but as far as I can remember all the entrances are at the back of the building, there may have been a window there as well but don't think so. The units are very long and narrow and the only light coming in is from the sea side.

So the problem will be no sun at all in most of the lower units. The only positive thing will be savings on air con use as they will be in the shade most of the time.

[Tammi]

I am informed that the juristic committee implemented the levy and they can impose this if they want. Very stange to see no comments regarding this either denying or confirming my claims. Must have hit a nerve.

By present Condo Law 75% of co-owners must agree to change in maintenance fee.

Edited June 4, 2008 by Tammi

[Tammi]

There have been days (weeks?) when there has been no posts and then someone asks what is happening and StopVT7 kindly replies and then those who have interests in seeing VT7 built start jumping on StopVT7 for his English. Those people should back off and do what StopVT7 has said time and time again that he is happy to do - wait for the Court's decision.

Tammi, we are all still waiting for StopVT7 kind reply to the question asked few times.

“Is it or is it not true that a levy of 10,000 baht has been added to the maintenance charges of EVERY co-owner by the juristic committee in order to cover the legal costs to fight VT7?”

Maybe you can help us to get an answer from StopVT7 as you seem to agree with everything what he does.

And if he is so kind, how come he got awarded holidays for his rudeness and arrogance. And now there is some serious accusation regarding StopVT7 using (and if proved, stealing) money from other people to finance his private and selfish fight to protect his seaview.

I have been away so am not up on the so called 'rudeness and arrogance'. And at the the moment it seems that StopVT7 is having a holiday from the forum so can't defend himself against your very serious accusations above. If I were owner or a moderator on this forum I would certainly delete your accusatory post.

[ThaiBob]

.......To take my comments out of context and use them to suit their needs sums up the intelligence of this lot. All along they have been stating in a sarcastic, disrespectful manner that the "so called" expert witness is a a 7th grade lawyer. If you say something or someone is "so called" you are undermining credibility and basically calling them incompetent, just because he doesn't agree with what you say doesn't make the expert witness incompetent

Lookat, it's about time you got an opinion of your own and a life to go with it, all you are is stopVT7's lap dog who barks on command with some jumped up piece of drivel and nonsense about anti-corruption and foreign investment. The bottom line is you don't want to lose your seaview, just admit it rather than saying this case is for the good of Thailand.

StopVT7, please stop copying and pasting your ludicrous claims continually, this thread has gone on for far too long and there are too many pages of your rubbish all saying the same thing. Unless you have new evidence give it a rest. You cannot change the course of justice by simply trying to brain wash everyone into believing what you say is true. How high is VT7 now? last time I looked it was 12 storeys, do you honestly think it will be knocked down? ........

Well said, JaiDeeFarang. Enough is enough.Also, loss of their sea view is the bottom line in all of this. An old friend, who has lived in Jomtien Complex Condotel since it was built, admits that the crusade being waged by StopVT7 is a waste of time and he, and many other owners, concede that VT7 will prevail.

.......

Recently a developer in Bangkok was ordered to remove floors from condominiums so I would say that it could certainly happen at VT7.

What is happening at Hua Hin? Any buildings over 14 metres within 200 metres from the seashore?

The Bangkok situation was different because the developer violated the conditions of the building permit. VT7 has a valid construction permit and has passed all planning and environmental hurdles.

I don't know about the zoning rules in Hua Hin and question the relevance but here is a link to Hua Hin showing high rise construction far less than 200 meters from MSL (about 50 or 60 meters I would guess). This building could not be built at Dongtaan Beach under Issue 8 or Issue 9.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&...mp;t=h&z=18

If you scroll up a little please note the construction in to the sea (and some people were questioning why government made an attempt to restrict construction in to the sea?)

If anyone is ambitioius they can scroll (down) and find many high rises built less than 100 meters from the MSL.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&...mp;t=h&z=18

[ThaiBob]

As stopVT7 likes these little fellas so much, I thought I'd use them to put my thoughts on your comment across.

Its a good job you can laugh,because ,when you have no answers,the truth hurts.

Take it you have no answers on the expert witness testimony not stacking up,or have you?

Interested to here them if you have and we will scrutinise them,just as the judge will !

1)Why would the new legislation want to allow building closer to the sea than the previous legislation??

2)Why would the new legislation want to prohibit buildings 100m out into the sea,how many buildings can you see out there now,how many applications have city hall had to build out there in the last 20 years.

When your'e ready.

No one has responded I suspect because you (like stopVT7) recite old arguments that have been discredited. The Judge has "scrutinised" these arguments and had found the evidence so compelling to remove the temporary construction injunction. The Issue 9 map supports the witness testimony which was an affirmation of the City's long standing planning policy of the last 20 or 30 years. Nobody here was around 30 years ago and knew of or was party to the politics, trade-offs, compromises regarding Issue 9. Some people here are trying to interpet "intent" from a questionable English translation of a technical Thai legal document. I'm sure many foreigners that have studied Thai would wish you luck.

As I see it, the plaintiffs should have proven their case with a preponderance of the evidence. Did they offer testimony from their own "expert" witnesses (technical people, engineers, etc)? No. (Only their lawyer). IF the plaintiffs interpretation of Issue 9 was as far reaching as they claim then why didn't they submit evidence to support their case? IF the measurement, in fact, had been changed from 100 meters to 200 meters don't you think there would be a paper trail (advisories, letters of explanation, letters of instruction, etc.) from Bangkok or Chonburi explaining this? I submit such evidence doesn't exist or it would have been used. Many here at TV clearly understand the true intentions of the stopVT7 litigants and it has nothing to do with protecting Thai beaches.

[JaiDeeFarang]

I am informed that the juristic committee implemented the levy and they can impose this if they want. Very stange to see no comments regarding this either denying or confirming my claims. Must have hit a nerve.

By present Condo Law 75% of co-owners must agree to change in maintenance fee.

If you'd care to read my most again you will see I used the word "Levy", the definition on Wikipedia is 'An imposition of a tax'. With this in mind 75% of the co-owners would have to agree on a change on maintenance fees, however a Levy of 10,000 baht is being requested in addition to the usual maintenance fees.

[Taijitu]

If you'd care to read my most again you will see I used the word "Levy", the definition on Wikipedia is 'An imposition of a tax'. With this in mind 75% of the co-owners would have to agree on a change on maintenance fees, however a Levy of 10,000 baht is being requested in addition to the usual maintenance fees.

Yes, that's true and, naturally, 75% of the co-owners would need to be agreeable to the collection of this alleged additional "levy"; the raising of which would need to be done at a properly convened General Meeting of the Co-owners, or through a quorum at a subsequently reconvened meeting. (Notice the word "alleged").

However, when a "Reserve Fund" falls to below 30% of the original amount contributed by the co-owners, the Juristic Manager or the Co-owners Committee can impose a levy, such as this alleged one, without agreement from the co-owners......but the amount levied on all co-owners has to be determined by a resolution at a General Meeting and is related to baht/square metre owned. This seems to be a feature of all condominium by-laws. If the information regarding the imposition of this levy is true, and nobody has confirmed the truth or fiction of this information yet, it could be related to a depleted Reserve Fund.

Anyway, this is solely related to the internal politics, management and operation of Jomtien Complex Condotel and has no bearing on the ultimate outcome of this case. Those of us who do not live in this condominium (and I don't) would be better off keeping their noses out of this particularly irrelevant issue. Those members of ThaiVisa Forum who do live in Jomtien Complex Condominium have an unconditional need to determine what is going on, to agree or otherwise to this levy and to report back on this Forum if they so desire. If they don't desire, they have that prerogative.

[Taijitu]

All jokes aside, I would be one upset JCC co-owner IF my association attempted to assess me for a lawsuit to which I was not a party. I don't understand how they could legally justify that. Did I read somewhere stopVT7 was on board of the association?

Yes he "was" but Richard Haines resigned some months ago...last year.

[JaiDeeFarang]

Any one know how many buildings greater than 14m high within 200m of the High tide mark City Hall has given permition to build? Quite a few I would think?

I would like to split them into 2 catergories.

Those greater than 5 years old which can remain by law if thats correct.

Those less than 5 years old which have the potential to be pulled down.

The stop and pick up sales info on many of the following condo under construction or just finished

"Ocean Portofino" 40 meters

"The Sail" 100 meters

"La Royale Beach" 150 meters

"Musselana" 7 meters (that right 7 meters)

"The Regatta" on Dongtan Beach 75 meters

View Talay Condominium Project 7 ? 100 meters from mean sea level

View Talay Condominium Project 8 100 meters

View Talay Condominium Project 6

View Talay Condominium Project 3 80 meters

View Talay Condominium Project 5 100 meter

"Northpoint" 100 meters

"Ananya" 100 meters

Some big names hear and you see how many VT condos!

I would love to know where lookat got these figures from or how he measured them. No doubt lookat does not possess the correct equipment to measure these distances and has little understanding of the MSL or where it is. Lookat, can you inform us how you came up with these figures or are you just speculating with false figures and guessing?

[JaiDeeFarang]

As stopVT7 likes these little fellas so much, I thought I'd use them to put my thoughts on your comment across.

Its a good job you can laugh,because ,when you have no answers,the truth hurts.

Take it you have no answers on the expert witness testimony not stacking up,or have you?

Interested to here them if you have and we will scrutinise them,just as the judge will !

1)Why would the new legislation want to allow building closer to the sea than the previous legislation??

2)Why would the new legislation want to prohibit buildings 100m out into the sea,how many buildings can you see out there now,how many applications have city hall had to build out there in the last 20 years.

When your'e ready.

1) Why would the old legislation want to build so far away from the sea than the current legislation??

2) Ever been down Walking Street? Much of that is built out into the sea.

[JaiDeeFarang]

If you'd care to read my most again you will see I used the word "Levy", the definition on Wikipedia is 'An imposition of a tax'. With this in mind 75% of the co-owners would have to agree on a change on maintenance fees, however a Levy of 10,000 baht is being requested in addition to the usual maintenance fees.

Yes, that's true and, naturally, 75% of the co-owners would need to be agreeable to the collection of this alleged additional "levy"; the raising of which would need to be done at a properly convened General Meeting of the Co-owners, or through a quorum at a subsequently reconvened meeting. (Notice the word "alleged").

However, when a "Reserve Fund" falls to below 30% of the original amount contributed by the co-owners, the Juristic Manager or the Co-owners Committee can impose a levy, such as this alleged one, without agreement from the co-owners......but the amount levied on all co-owners has to be determined by a resolution at a General Meeting and is related to baht/square metre owned. This seems to be a feature of all condominium by-laws. If the information regarding the imposition of this levy is true, and nobody has confirmed the truth or fiction of this information yet, it could be related to a depleted Reserve Fund.

Anyway, this is solely related to the internal politics, management and operation of Jomtien Complex Condotel and has no bearing on the ultimate outcome of this case. Those of us who do not live in this condominium (and I don't) would be better off keeping their noses out of this particularly irrelevant issue. Those members of ThaiVisa Forum who do live in Jomtien Complex Condominium have an unconditional need to determine what is going on, to agree or otherwise to this levy and to report back on this Forum if they so desire. If they don't desire, they have that prerogative.

I would suggest that the 'reserve fund' is well below 30%, otherwise they may have considered spending money on the property and improving it, rather than fighting and losing a court case and gaining nothing.

[Taijitu]

I would suggest that the 'reserve fund' is well below 30%, otherwise they may have considered spending money on the property and improving it, rather than fighting and losing a court case and gaining nothing.

I tend to agree on this point even though, as I said, it's purely an internal management issue and every condominium co-owner will likely face an additional and similar levy in the future. It's not all about "management"; it goes back to the time when the first pile was driven. If too much of the project money was 'eaten' at the outset, then repairs and maintenance will be needed sooner rather than later. Over the last eight years or so, Jomtien Condominium Complex has spent sunstantial sums of money on repairing cracks in the swimming pool, subsidence and cracking in the garden (both the swimming pool and the garden are on the 4th floor) and a major lift refurbishment....none of these repairs were cheap. Another common factor is that they all occured very early in the life of the condominium buildings....and I bet the "Reserve Fund" took a knock.

Ideally, in this part of the world because of the climate etc., a properly constructed building should have a life of 30 years before major repairs are needed to the structure. OK, cosmetic stuff and preventative maintenance are always on-going efforts and they do pay dividends in the longer term.....but that's not what a "Reserve Fund" is for.

[JaiDeeFarang]

I took a look at The Cove condominium in Naklua this morning and was highly impressed, even though the price was steep. Has anyone seen how close that will be to the sea?

http://www.thecovepattaya.com/projectplan.php

Lookat, go and measure and add it to your ficticious list.