Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[jpm76]

Nothing I have seeen or heard convinces me the "expert witness" testimony is plausible.

Why would issue 9 be written to allow you to build closer to the sea than issue 8??

Why would issue 9 be written to specifically prohibit buildings 100m out to sea,how many do you see there now.

Pants!!

If anybody can provide a sensible,logical,co-herent answer to these questions I would be obliged.

Because in many countries, particularly in the nearby South Pacific eg Fiji, Tahiti, New Calidonia etc, they actually do build over the water and out towards the sea. If you do not believe me, just do a quick internet search and you will see that there are many countries that do it also. I am a developer in Cemtral America, and I see it in places like Panama also, so not that uncommon, and probably why the Thai legislators decided to write a new law to cover the 100m from the beach and the 100m out to sea also.

[surfer]

The construction control 'zone' covers construction into and out of the sea from the MSL. Do not "Think" if you don't know or understand.

The expert witness should be referred to as "The court appointed expert witness". Thailand is a country of laws, but it seems many don't have a grasp on reality and wish the law would suit their understanding, manipulation and distortion of it.

Ok then...you are one of the elite few percent able to grasp the Thai legal system on property/ construction related matters then. Is it by profession or do you religously read thai legal docs in Thai and english? Do you work for the thai government, panning authority? international advisory consultant?? Speak fluent thai as wlell i guess.

the expert witness (or what ever) is just a human in a professional field with either a clue, opinion or maybe some friends around thailand...

each to their own.

Funnily enough Surfer, if you read some of the previous posts, you will see that we have already acknowledged that the "elite and superhuman race" awards must go to Stop VT7 and his crew because they are the ones who have denounced Thai judges for their interpretation of the law, rebuked expert witnesses for their engineering knowledge, slagged off their own lawyers and accused them of vying for political positions, attacked VT7 investors and labelled them as heartless capitalists who care naught for nothing other than themselves, and basically assumed that they know fa rmore than any expert working in the Thai legal system.

Of course, then we hear the rubbish about how much he respects Thailand and its law, and if you were to read the whole of this posting, you would discover that it was only when VT7 investors got sick and tired of StopVt7, Lookat and others posting propaganda BS that we decided to begin posting ourselves here and bringing into question some of his arguments that only he could be right. We, if I can speak for VT7 investors, mostly believe that the expert Thai system has it right to date, and that their knowledge is far superior than ours in matters of Thai law, Thai language (as these are all arguments that I and others have used in the past). And so, the elitist tags certainly belong to the StopVt7 group, and not VT7 investors, who have had to respond to the constant reposting of the same old arguments from StopVt7 in order so that the facts should be assumed to be completely those written by StopVt7 and crew.

As a couple of fellow VT7 investors have stated, repeating the same arguments all the time do not make it truer. i personally think that StopVT7 is on a VERY PERSONAL crusade to protect his own sea views (as his original posts suggests), but later decided to take a moral high ground and bring in environmental protection, (and later his supporters decided to bring in issues of children on site, worker safety etc - all off topic posts), and other arguments to rally support of his case. But the facts have not changed, and since law is very subject to interpretation (hence why courts exist), we may never know. What I would like to see is responsible resolutions, and tearing down buildings that have complied with the law and received successful building permits and approvals would not be correct in this case. I doubt that it would or should happen.

No, many of the recent postings you are reading about are partly reaction against the Soviet style manipulation of "reality" and facts designed to push propaganda for a personal interest. I think that you have been reading for a while though, but if you were to read back through all these posts, you would see what I am referring to. VT7 investors have only been more vocal as of late, and given the circumstances of HAVING to defend ourselves. Else StopVT7's portrayals of us as blood sucking thirsty capitalists with no morals, no anything other than pure profit (ironically, a personal interest that StopVT7 denies to have any concerns over when he shifts his crusade over the environment and other social costs), would stick undeservingly. We are not the elitist omniscient ones, but rather those that think that the Thais deserve a bit more credit when they have professionally and expertly come to their decisions. It is elitist when one attacks every professional opinion and judgement contrary as wrong because it does not concur with their own personal interest. Rather than calling it elitist, I preferred the tag "superhuman" because their skills were so obviously far in advance of us ordinary humanity who felt that the professionals were most likely the nest to make these decisions.

I still hold that StopVT7 has the right to use his legal appeal, and I came out in support of it earlier on in my posts, but what many have tired of is the way that StopVT7 has gone about it, and yet he still maintains that he has been the perfect gentleman about it. Others see in his writings, contrary to other things written, a tone of complete arrogance, disrespect, and condemnation of all against him. He does not acknowledge his personal interest in this case, and instead holds out that he is fighting for the environment or whatever cause will gain public support. I do not know why, as with ThaiBob, how the JCC committee could charge 10,000 Baht to every condo owner for a court case initiated by only 10 plaintiffs. That would be unmistakenly, corruption, or the use of power towards personal ends. I hope, for the sakes of JCC owners, that this is not true, else I would be refusing to pay it also, and would be taking the Board to court - it would be a desperate measure to obtain more funds for this fight, and one I am sure such a distinguished altruist as Mr Haines could certainly not be involved in.

Hopefully there is a decision soon, and that it rules correctly and upholds the fact that the building permission was correctly obtained - I even remember reading somewhere that the approval process was not easy for VT7 and that they had to go to great lengths with obtaining things such as EIA's due to the project's size and proximity. Such points would be further arguments that responsible decisions have been made here, and that the alleged corruption charges are way off the mark. Someone with more time that me may like to go back through all these postings and get the details of this...but good luck.

To responsible and ecological development that is also reasonable in its balance of furthering economic and environmental ends ("reasonable and balanced" - something that surely produces debate in any situation similar to this one). But this topic was never really about that - it was always as the topic title suggests "Jomtien Condo Owners Sue for Sea View", a personal crusade begun by ten plaintiffs.

And the award for repetitive old school boy sniping and generally boring the pants off readers goes to …….JPM with honourable mention to Jai Dee Phalang.

I will bore you one more time with the fact that I have personally dealt with a similar 200m from high tide rule elsewhere in Thailand. One way only…. That is how I and obviously some other people believe the law was intended and well if some wish to go to court to protect their sea view from being blocked by an absolute god awful monstrosity then good luck to them.

Oh my, a developer with a conscience on taking 10,000 baht to help protect fellow condo owners from having 3 years of construction in their face!! I suppose you gave interest back to your investors on their deposits and completed their buildings to a higher standard then original spec?

Go on accuse me of slandering the Thai legal system god knows it seems to be a favourite past time of you 2 boring old farts. When in fact maybe stopvt7 does not appear to be slandering only questioning his previous lawyer, and from what I read,,, anybody with a third of a brain would have to question that legal relationship…

[ThaiBob]

Nothing I have seeen or heard convinces me the "expert witness" testimony is plausible.

Why would issue 9 be written to allow you to build closer to the sea than issue 8??

Why would issue 9 be written to specifically prohibit buildings 100m out to sea,how many do you see there now.

Pants!!

If anybody can provide a sensible,logical,co-herent answer to these questions I would be obliged.

I'll take a stab at your questions.

"Nothing I have seeen or heard convinces me the "expert witness" testimony is plausible." The real question is the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning of Bangkok report (December 19,2007) plausible? I believe so when one looks at the Issue 9 map. (All Khun Veera did was answer the Judge's questions about the report but it was the department that asked the Court to revoke the temporary injunction.) It is an undeniable fact that the map clearly shows the bold line representing "borderline of the construction restriction area" 100 meters seaward from the MSL. The challenge for arguments on both sides, pro or con on this debate, must account for this line. The City/VT7 argument is simple; the borderline is clearyly shown on the map so simply mearure 200 meters landward which is equivalent to measuring 100 meters from the MSL. On the contrary, the litigants say measure 200 meters landward from the MSL. But, there is a problem with this argument....how do they account for that restricted borderline?

Their answer goes to your question "Why would issue 9 be written to specifically prohibit buildings 100m out to sea,how many do you see there now." The 10 litigants filed an explanation to the Court on August 31, 2007. In summary (from the stopvt7 blog) "....In the opinion of the 10 Litigants the purpose of Issue 9 was to increase the "construction restricted area" to include 100 meters of the sea along coastal areas, and to change the restriction on construction's above 14 meters from 100 meters to 200 meters from the “shoreline at mean sea level MSL”. One reason to include the sea in the "construction restricted area" is for example Walking Street at Pattaya Beach Road which still to this day has non-maritime constructions entering the sea. (then refers to their map) "Border line of the construction restricted area" set 100 meters into the sea was also to prevent further violations of this nature." If you accept this argument then you accept a 300 meter restricted construction zone. No where does Issue 9 mention a 300 meter measurement and no where does it say to measure from the MSL. It is the litigants argrument that does not seem plausible to me but then again I am lacking in "grey matter".

"Why would issue 9 be written to allow you to build closer to the sea than issue 8??"....I don't believe it does but it is a mute point for me. Does anyone know of any JomTien/Dong Tan highrises built less than 100 meters from the sea? When the litigants appealed the Court ordered survey to permit a 200 meter measurement and where denied they did everything possible to show VT7 was less than 100 meter from the MSL. They argued to use the MSL in Greenland, Nova Scotia or Mars but to no avail. The Court order survey basically confirmed the City and VT7 measurements and VT7 is legal.

For me the City/VT7 position as affirmed so far by Court passes the plausibility test.

[jpm76]

The construction control 'zone' covers construction into and out of the sea from the MSL. Do not "Think" if you don't know or understand.

The expert witness should be referred to as "The court appointed expert witness". Thailand is a country of laws, but it seems many don't have a grasp on reality and wish the law would suit their understanding, manipulation and distortion of it.

Ok then...you are one of the elite few percent able to grasp the Thai legal system on property/ construction related matters then. Is it by profession or do you religously read thai legal docs in Thai and english? Do you work for the thai government, panning authority? international advisory consultant?? Speak fluent thai as wlell i guess.

the expert witness (or what ever) is just a human in a professional field with either a clue, opinion or maybe some friends around thailand...

each to their own.

Funnily enough Surfer, if you read some of the previous posts, you will see that we have already acknowledged that the "elite and superhuman race" awards must go to Stop VT7 and his crew because they are the ones who have denounced Thai judges for their interpretation of the law, rebuked expert witnesses for their engineering knowledge, slagged off their own lawyers and accused them of vying for political positions, attacked VT7 investors and labelled them as heartless capitalists who care naught for nothing other than themselves, and basically assumed that they know fa rmore than any expert working in the Thai legal system.

Of course, then we hear the rubbish about how much he respects Thailand and its law, and if you were to read the whole of this posting, you would discover that it was only when VT7 investors got sick and tired of StopVt7, Lookat and others posting propaganda BS that we decided to begin posting ourselves here and bringing into question some of his arguments that only he could be right. We, if I can speak for VT7 investors, mostly believe that the expert Thai system has it right to date, and that their knowledge is far superior than ours in matters of Thai law, Thai language (as these are all arguments that I and others have used in the past). And so, the elitist tags certainly belong to the StopVt7 group, and not VT7 investors, who have had to respond to the constant reposting of the same old arguments from StopVt7 in order so that the facts should be assumed to be completely those written by StopVt7 and crew.

As a couple of fellow VT7 investors have stated, repeating the same arguments all the time do not make it truer. i personally think that StopVT7 is on a VERY PERSONAL crusade to protect his own sea views (as his original posts suggests), but later decided to take a moral high ground and bring in environmental protection, (and later his supporters decided to bring in issues of children on site, worker safety etc - all off topic posts), and other arguments to rally support of his case. But the facts have not changed, and since law is very subject to interpretation (hence why courts exist), we may never know. What I would like to see is responsible resolutions, and tearing down buildings that have complied with the law and received successful building permits and approvals would not be correct in this case. I doubt that it would or should happen.

No, many of the recent postings you are reading about are partly reaction against the Soviet style manipulation of "reality" and facts designed to push propaganda for a personal interest. I think that you have been reading for a while though, but if you were to read back through all these posts, you would see what I am referring to. VT7 investors have only been more vocal as of late, and given the circumstances of HAVING to defend ourselves. Else StopVT7's portrayals of us as blood sucking thirsty capitalists with no morals, no anything other than pure profit (ironically, a personal interest that StopVT7 denies to have any concerns over when he shifts his crusade over the environment and other social costs), would stick undeservingly. We are not the elitist omniscient ones, but rather those that think that the Thais deserve a bit more credit when they have professionally and expertly come to their decisions. It is elitist when one attacks every professional opinion and judgement contrary as wrong because it does not concur with their own personal interest. Rather than calling it elitist, I preferred the tag "superhuman" because their skills were so obviously far in advance of us ordinary humanity who felt that the professionals were most likely the nest to make these decisions.

I still hold that StopVT7 has the right to use his legal appeal, and I came out in support of it earlier on in my posts, but what many have tired of is the way that StopVT7 has gone about it, and yet he still maintains that he has been the perfect gentleman about it. Others see in his writings, contrary to other things written, a tone of complete arrogance, disrespect, and condemnation of all against him. He does not acknowledge his personal interest in this case, and instead holds out that he is fighting for the environment or whatever cause will gain public support. I do not know why, as with ThaiBob, how the JCC committee could charge 10,000 Baht to every condo owner for a court case initiated by only 10 plaintiffs. That would be unmistakenly, corruption, or the use of power towards personal ends. I hope, for the sakes of JCC owners, that this is not true, else I would be refusing to pay it also, and would be taking the Board to court - it would be a desperate measure to obtain more funds for this fight, and one I am sure such a distinguished altruist as Mr Haines could certainly not be involved in.

Hopefully there is a decision soon, and that it rules correctly and upholds the fact that the building permission was correctly obtained - I even remember reading somewhere that the approval process was not easy for VT7 and that they had to go to great lengths with obtaining things such as EIA's due to the project's size and proximity. Such points would be further arguments that responsible decisions have been made here, and that the alleged corruption charges are way off the mark. Someone with more time that me may like to go back through all these postings and get the details of this...but good luck.

To responsible and ecological development that is also reasonable in its balance of furthering economic and environmental ends ("reasonable and balanced" - something that surely produces debate in any situation similar to this one). But this topic was never really about that - it was always as the topic title suggests "Jomtien Condo Owners Sue for Sea View", a personal crusade begun by ten plaintiffs.

And the award for repetitive old school boy sniping and generally boring the pants off readers goes to …….JPM with honourable mention to Jai Dee Phalang.

I will bore you one more time with the fact that I have personally dealt with a similar 200m from high tide rule elsewhere in Thailand. One way only…. That is how I and obviously some other people believe the law was intended and well if some wish to go to court to protect their sea view from being blocked by an absolute god awful monstrosity then good luck to them.

Oh my, a developer with a conscience on taking 10,000 baht to help protect fellow condo owners from having 3 years of construction in their face!! I suppose you gave interest back to your investors on their deposits and completed their buildings to a higher standard then original spec?

Go on accuse me of slandering the Thai legal system god knows it seems to be a favourite past time of you 2 boring old farts. When in fact maybe stopvt7 does not appear to be slandering only questioning his previous lawyer, and from what I read,,, anybody with a third of a brain would have to question that legal relationship…

Well, thank you for the award. I would like to thank God, my parents and loving family, but most of all - the constant dribble or repetitive arguments coming from the other side that leads me to keep repeating the same points. And if by boring, you mean academic, then I can hardly apologise for an education that taught me to write in a style that was meant for those that can hold concentration for more than three seconds. (And that hardly makes me an elitist as you contend we must all be to take positions behind the Thai system!)

And as for the developer point of view and conscience, I too have encountered a situation whereby the Mariners Laws issues (distance from the ocean came into play, and is still being settled there in Nicaragua). As to how I settled it, I shifted the investors out of harm's reach, and moved them from an apartment complex into a resort-style complex with far better amenities. This was to avoid having to reimburse monies with interest etc, and yes I take a loss in profit, but fortunately circumstances there (huge rises in property values) allowed me to make this concession. And so to your snide remark, I add that I exactly did provide a higher standard to them at my own expense. You sound like StopVT7 if you assume that all developers (like VT7 investors) are money hungry soul-less money grabbers with no conscience, so sorry to throw that back in your face.

I do not accuse you of slandering the Thai system, and I expect that you have only a passing interest here, so it makes little difference to me if you assume tomake points to what some have already been saying, albeit with hidden veils. As I am not familiar with his previous legal counsel, I am not willing to comment, except that they chose them to represent them. After they lost that case, I noted some posting there that StopVT7 had not lost at all, but Asia Law Works lost. Seems like Asia Law works would have done quite well out of it if the accussations are true ie plenty of money for the case, and political prestige.

I write these posts after midnight, and only react against some of the things I see written whilst trying to keep myself up to date, but I believe that you get what you put out there, and I initially supported StopVT7's cause (even as a VT7 investor) because I would have done the same thing. I just happen to dislike the way that he has gone about it with trashing all that do not agree with him, and mounting what appears to be a propaganda-smear campaign, but to save repeating myself, I have answered your remarks and questions.

So, I'll take my third of a brain now and give it some rest because it sounds like I may need three times as much brain rejuvenation as you because I see the StopVt7 legal relationship as a legitimate principal-agent relationship, but I seem to believe that you may be implying something different... what would you call it I wonder?

[JaiDeeFarang]

If this thread was intended originally to gain public support for the stopVT7 'posse' it certainly seems to have back fired, from what I can see there are now more people posting on here, who are anti of the JCC plaintiffs and their lowlife tactics to obtain money from fellow co-owners.

These guys, whose only real issue is losing their seaview have sunk to new depths in their fund raising attempts and involving the rest of their co-owners, who until now have had the right of no involvement. Now unfortunately they are all lumbered with the same label as stopVT7 and the trouble that goes with it.

This whole farce is a personal crusade headed by Richard and his Merry Men but now he is dragging everyone else down to his level, which is despicable. These guys just don't know when to stop, when will it be? Many years down the line with appeal after appeal and hundreds of thousands if not millions of baht later, money they don't have but take under false pretences in the name of the Beaches of Thailand! BS BS BS!

This whole thing is a bomb waiting to go off in the faces of the co-owners, who have nothing to do with the case. I sincerely hope that they will read this and take heed of it and not support Richard in his crusade for the good of mankind! My god, he's starting to sound like KOTO, maybe he is KOTO?

[jpm76]

Nothing I have seeen or heard convinces me the "expert witness" testimony is plausible.

Why would issue 9 be written to allow you to build closer to the sea than issue 8??

Why would issue 9 be written to specifically prohibit buildings 100m out to sea,how many do you see there now.

Pants!!

If anybody can provide a sensible,logical,co-herent answer to these questions I would be obliged.

I'll take a stab at your questions.

"Nothing I have seeen or heard convinces me the "expert witness" testimony is plausible." The real question is the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning of Bangkok report (December 19,2007) plausible? I believe so when one looks at the Issue 9 map. (All Khun Veera did was answer the Judge's questions about the report but it was the department that asked the Court to revoke the temporary injunction.) It is an undeniable fact that the map clearly shows the bold line representing "borderline of the construction restriction area" 100 meters seaward from the MSL. The challenge for arguments on both sides, pro or con on this debate, must account for this line. The City/VT7 argument is simple; the borderline is clearyly shown on the map so simply mearure 200 meters landward which is equivalent to measuring 100 meters from the MSL. On the contrary, the litigants say measure 200 meters landward from the MSL. But, there is a problem with this argument....how do they account for that restricted borderline?

Their answer goes to your question "Why would issue 9 be written to specifically prohibit buildings 100m out to sea,how many do you see there now." The 10 litigants filed an explanation to the Court on August 31, 2007. In summary (from the stopvt7 blog) "....In the opinion of the 10 Litigants the purpose of Issue 9 was to increase the "construction restricted area" to include 100 meters of the sea along coastal areas, and to change the restriction on construction's above 14 meters from 100 meters to 200 meters from the "shoreline at mean sea level MSL". One reason to include the sea in the "construction restricted area" is for example Walking Street at Pattaya Beach Road which still to this day has non-maritime constructions entering the sea. (then refers to their map) "Border line of the construction restricted area" set 100 meters into the sea was also to prevent further violations of this nature." If you accept this argument then you accept a 300 meter restricted construction zone. No where does Issue 9 mention a 300 meter measurement and no where does it say to measure from the MSL. It is the litigants argrument that does not seem plausible to me but then again I am lacking in "grey matter".

"Why would issue 9 be written to allow you to build closer to the sea than issue 8??"....I don't believe it does but it is a mute point for me. Does anyone know of any JomTien/Dong Tan highrises built less than 100 meters from the sea? When the litigants appealed the Court ordered survey to permit a 200 meter measurement and where denied they did everything possible to show VT7 was less than 100 meter from the MSL. They argued to use the MSL in Greenland, Nova Scotia or Mars but to no avail. The Court order survey basically confirmed the City and VT7 measurements and VT7 is legal.

For me the City/VT7 position as affirmed so far by Court passes the plausibility test.

Thanks ThaiBob,

It sounds sensible, logical and coherent to me (like all of your posts have). Clearly, we see what we want to see, and this is why the StopVT7 side do not understand your points that you have made along the way. Thanks for adding the bit about Pattaya Walking beach as well as it shows clearly why a responsible government may indeed look to change regulation to ensure the protection of the coast in the face of an already expanding construction zone.

In the countries that I have seen similar issues, it arose due to unclear regulations, and in my opinion, there is a degree of ambiguity in these Thailand laws, but if I follow your arguments correctly, it would be very harsh for a government to penalise VT7 retroactively on account of the fact that they obtained legal planning permissions, permits etc. If there was in fact intention to make a 200m no-go zone (and I do not think that this is the case at all, other than including sea zones), then I believe that new legislation should be introduced and made to apply from the introduction of the law. With the arguments that you have presented, I hope that others can see the logic in it to realise that StopVT7 makes "interpretations" that make certain assumptions, incorrectly as our side would argue.

Hopefully this all gets sorted soon, and VT7 investors can enjoy a beer or two. Thanks for your efforts however in clarifying the most relevant and main area of the disputed territory. This is what is important.

[stopvt7]

Dear Wiresok, Your question “why would issue 9 be written to allow you to build closer to the sea than issue 8??”

Issue 9 was not written to build closer to the sea but was written to move the maps borderline into the sea to increase the regulation area cover by the map.

Because the government found Issue 8 regulation did not give them authority over Naklua where their were fish factory in the sea. Issue 8 also prohibit fish factories see Issue 8 long version below. This is a part of why Issue 8 was updated by Issue 9.

I been told at the same time during debates they decided to increase the protected area before large building (over 14 meters tall) could be built. This was why they increased the measurement from 100 to 200 meter as writing the new regulation Issue9. The new Issue 9 never changed the point which the measurement was taken at “the construction control line .... at the sea side”.

But, Issue 9 map redefined the construction control line by making it at MSL on the new map. This was part of a compromise with some who thought 200 meters was to much to increase the new setback from the the construction control line.

Your are right in saying “Nothing I have seen or heard convinces me the "expert witness" testimony is plausible.” I think one could ask if the expert witness was he at a tea party befor writing his report to the court??

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:

.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 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 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.

4. 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

Measure from the "borderline of the construction restriction area".

No! you measure from the “the construction control line" .... at MSL

ThaiBob about adding facts!

[JaiDeeFarang]

Dear Wiresok, Your question "why would issue 9 be written to allow you to build closer to the sea than issue 8??"

Issue 9 was not written to build closer to the sea but was written to move the maps borderline into the sea to increase the regulation area cover by the map.

Because the government found Issue 8 regulation did not give them authority over Naklua where their were fish factory in the sea. Issue 8 also prohibit fish factories see Issue 8 long version below. This is a part of why Issue 8 was updated by Issue 9.

I been told at the same time during debates they decided to increase the protected area before large building (over 14 meters tall) could be built. This was why they increased the measurement from 100 to 200 meter as writing the new regulation Issue9. The new Issue 9 never changed the point which the measurement was taken at "the construction control line .... at the sea side".

But, Issue 9 map redefined the construction control line by making it at MSL on the new map. This was part of a compromise with some who thought 200 meters was to much to increase the new setback from the the construction control line.

Your are right in saying "Nothing I have seen or heard convinces me the "expert witness" testimony is plausible." I think one could ask if the expert witness was he at a tea party befor writing his report to the court??

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:

.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 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 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.

4. 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

Measure from the "borderline of the construction restriction area".

No! you measure from the "the construction control line" .... at MSL

ThaiBob about adding facts!

Surprise, surprise yet another allegation of corruption, just because stopvt7 doesn't agree with the expert witness, who no doubt under went years of university training to learn his chosen profession.

[stopvt7]

Dear JaiDeeFarang

That is “so called” expert witness.

The VT7 attorney call him a the proxy for city hall!

We waiting for the Admin Supreme Court to determine if he is a real expert?

We think not!

[Ungabunga]

Dear JaiDeeFarang

That is “so called” expert witness.

The VT7 attorney call him a the proxy for city hall!

We waiting for the Admin Supreme Court to determine if he is a real expert?

We think not!

Don't know about anyone else, but I honestly can't understand what you are talking about here. No offence.

This is how Tarzan would post if he were a member of this forum. Probably.

[lookat]

Here we go agin! JaiDeeFarang is makes another “allegation of corruption”.

JaiDeeFarang have you not heard Thais call whisky “tea” when they drink it from a cup?

So a tea party could be call a whisky party. The expert witness could have been drunk when writing the report to the court! Reading his report, it does not make sense . Maybe that why the judge used so many “if” in the latest court order?

[ThaiBob]

.............

Measure from the "borderline of the construction restriction area".

No! you measure from the “the construction control line" .... at MSL

ThaiBob about adding facts!

I see no facts added just your opinion. Your entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine. Just so happens my opinion and the judge's are the same.

[ThaiBob]

Dear JaiDeeFarang

That is “so called” expert witness.

The VT7 attorney call him a the proxy for city hall!

We waiting for the Admin Supreme Court to determine if he is a real expert?

We think not!

Just for clarity, Khun Veera, has been referred to as the expert witness. From your blog (VT7's answer to your Appeal to the Administrative Supreme Court), the VT lawyer said "Mr. Pornsak Piyakamolrat, the Civil Engineer 7, who is the proxy of the defendant no. 1".

[stopvt7]

Dear ThaiBob here a new fact you can twist!

The Administrative Court of Rayong Province ordered the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning of Bangkok to survey and reports the measurement location of VT7 from MSL. That was all the Rayong court ordered requested or required.

Did not the expert witness report provide a “determination of a question of law” when they wrote their report requesting the removal of the injunction? When they measured into the sea? The Rayong court use that report in their court order and used the word “if” often when quoting the the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning of Bangkok report.

Below is a government English translation. From the Thailand government act which set up the Administrative Court system:

“RULE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF JUDGES OF THE SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE COURT ON ADMINISTRATIVE COURT PROCEDURE, B.E. 2543 (2000)

Clause 55: The Court, if it thinks fit or upon an application by a party, may issue an order appointing an expert for studying, examining or analyzing any matter in connection with the case, provided that it is not the determination of a question of law, and then preparing a report or giving statements to the Court. A copy of a report or a memorandum of statements given by an expert shall be furnished to the party concerned for the purpose of preparing comments for submission to the Court within the period of time specified by the Court. The Court may issue an order instructing the expert to give oral statements supplementing the expert’s report.”

I think the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning of Bangkok report violated "clause 55" from Thailand government act which set up the Administrative Court system. Because Rayong used only the report in their decision and never explained their meaning of Issue 9 in the court order.

It’s about all though “if”s in their decision!

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

http://bp2.blogger.com/_1x8bR0BbXM4/R7jT7C...8English%29.jpg

[OhdLover]

Free advice for stopvt7.

1. Learning

Facts <=> Opinions

2. Answering

1 question 100 times <=> 100 questions 0 times

3. Honesty

Sea View <=> Beach Protection

Edited June 10, 2008 by OhdLover

[lookat]

What this, a real fact! Clause 55: "The Court, if it thinks fit...... may issue an order appointing an expert for studying, examining or analyzing any matter in connection with the case, provided that it is not the determination of a question of law,"

This is a new fact that the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning report violated class 55! This is a BIG new fact!

Edited June 10, 2008 by lookat

[JaiDeeFarang]

Dear JaiDeeFarang

That is "so called" expert witness.

The VT7 attorney call him a the proxy for city hall!

We waiting for the Admin Supreme Court to determine if he is a real expert?

We think not!

Don't know about anyone else, but I honestly can't understand what you are talking about here. No offence.

This is how Tarzan would post if he were a member of this forum. Probably.

Even Captain Caveman was more coherent! If these people cannot understand plain English what hope have they got at understanding translated court documents?

[JaiDeeFarang]

Here we go agin! JaiDeeFarang is makes another "allegation of corruption".

JaiDeeFarang have you not heard Thais call whisky "tea" when they drink it from a cup?

So a tea party could be call a whisky party. The expert witness could have been drunk when writing the report to the court! Reading his report, it does not make sense . Maybe that why the judge used so many "if" in the latest court order?

(lookat the dictionary) Your grasp of English leaves plenty of room for error and misinterpretation, which is obviously the case in the whole debarcle (lookat the dictionary again!)

Do not show your ignorance please, everyone knows what stopvt7 was insinuating (lookat the dictionary once more)

[JaiDeeFarang]

What this, a real fact! Clause 55: "The Court, if it thinks fit...... may issue an order appointing an expert for studying, examining or analyzing any matter in connection with the case, provided that it is not the determination of a question of law,"

This is a new fact that the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning report violated class 55! This is a BIG new fact!

BS! It depends how you interpret it, actually it doesn't. It depends on how the court interprets it and I also notice at the very start there is another IF!

[stopvt7]

What this, a real fact! Clause 55: "The Court, if it thinks fit...... may issue an order appointing an expert for studying, examining or analyzing any matter in connection with the case, provided that it is not the determination of a question of law,"

This is a new fact that the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning report violated class 55! This is a BIG new fact!

BS! It depends how you interpret it, actually it doesn't. It depends on how the court interprets it and I also notice at the very start there is another IF!

Dear JaiDeeFarang

You don't like the "if" in "if it thinks fit...... may issue an order appointing an expert for studying"? Well that what the judge did when he appointed the Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning of Bangkok to do survey and report to the court the VT7 location from MSL.

Can you understand the words "provided that it is not the determination of a question of law"?? How would the Court interpret “provided that it is not the determination of a question of law" in clause55? I think clause55 is very clearly worded!

Do you have the grey matter to understand the clear English translation of clause 55?

I like this little guy he make me laugh!

[OhdLover]

Free advice for stopvt7 (copy 1)

1. Learning

Facts <=> Opinions

2. Answering

1 question 100 times <=> 100 questions 0 times

3. Honesty

Sea View <=> Beach Protection

[Wiresok]

Well thanks for having a go at that but can you see the lengths you are having to go to with stretched,complex,unfounded arguments to support the "expert witness" against what is in essence a very simple issue.

This sort of response is always a sure sign of a struggle to make things fit a point of view,even though they go against common sense.

Common sense indicates to me that you would not introduce new legislation to allow you to build closer to the sea than the earlier legislation would.Why would the lawmakers want to allow building closer to the sea,doesn't make sense.

And not seeing any tall buildings 100m out into the sea,or any applications to build any there in the last 30 years,gives no reason to want to write issue 9 to provide blanket legislation to specifically prohibit such buildings 100m out there to sea.Is the "expert witness" suggesting you can build up to 14m in the plus/minus 100m zone,or cannot build anything?

Buildings allowed out into the sea but only up to 14m?

You see,the questions just go on and on.

You have to remember that to change legislation costs a fortune in time and money to implement,so you arn't going to change it unless you have compelling reasons which offer improvements and benefits.

The expert witness reasoning does not offer benefits,only detriments ,and more questions,and that is where it falls down.

To make a case to support the "expert witness" defies common sense and logic,so still not convinced.

[stopvt7]

Dear Wiresok

Your statement “Buildings allowed out into the sea but only up to 14m?” makes good sense.

But, their a danger in your statement. When city hall learn about money which can be made issuing building permits, into the sea 100 meters, their be a hole new building boom started in Pattaya.

Be careful because the VT7 investors crowd we start call you a “stopvt7 lap dog”..

[CRUNCHER]

Well thanks for having a go at that but can you see the lengths you are having to go to with stretched,complex,unfounded arguments to support the "expert witness" against what is in essence a very simple issue.

This sort of response is always a sure sign of a struggle to make things fit a point of view,even though they go against common sense.

Common sense indicates to me that you would not introduce new legislation to allow you to build closer to the sea than the earlier legislation would.Why would the lawmakers want to allow building closer to the sea,doesn't make sense.

And not seeing any tall buildings 100m out into the sea,or any applications to build any there in the last 30 years,gives no reason to want to write issue 9 to provide blanket legislation to specifically prohibit such buildings 100m out there to sea.Is the "expert witness" suggesting you can build up to 14m in the plus/minus 100m zone,or cannot build anything?

Buildings allowed out into the sea but only up to 14m?

You see,the questions just go on and on.

You have to remember that to change legislation costs a fortune in time and money to implement,so you arn't going to change it unless you have compelling reasons which offer improvements and benefits.

The expert witness reasoning does not offer benefits,only detriments ,and more questions,and that is where it falls down.

To make a case to support the "expert witness" defies common sense and logic,so still not convinced.

One of the reasons I have been following this thread is to see if someone can come up with logical answers to some of these questions, but I think that they mostly defy logic. As I see it, whatever the "expert" says, it is at this time, legal to build up to at least 14 meters high however far out to sea you wish. Of course practicalities, construction costs and land ownership are issues which are probably more relevant than legalities. Which comes back to the question, why legislate to deal with something no one wants to do anyway?

Without going into whether the "expert" is right or wrong in his interpretation, can anyone come up with logical answers to these questions?

[lookat]

Dear OhdLover

Your “Free advice for stopvt7.”

Sea View <=> Beach Protection / Yes what wrong with protecting both?

Same, same but different!

[stopvt7]

CRUNCHER stated “Without going into whether the "expert" is right or wrong in his interpretation, can anyone come up with logical answers to these questions?”

Clause 55 said the expert witness does not have a right to interpret any issue. The expert witness should of stuck to the facts of the court order.

“RULE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF JUDGES OF THE SUPREME ADMINISTRATIVE COURT ON ADMINISTRATIVE COURT PROCEDURE, B.E. 2543 (2000)

Clause 55: The Court, if it thinks fit or upon an application by a party, may issue an order appointing an expert for studying, examining or analyzing any matter in connection with the case, provided that it is not the determination of a question of law, and then preparing a report or giving statements to the Court. A copy of a report or a memorandum of statements given by an expert shall be furnished to the party concerned for the purpose of preparing comments for submission to the Court within the period of time specified by the Court. The Court may issue an order instructing the expert to give oral statements supplementing the expert’s report.”

Yes, The Supreme Admin Court will again interpret Issue 9 as it did in August 2007 when the said. "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.”

“Mr. Vorapoj Visarutpich ........

Judge of Supreme Administrative Court.......”

We waiting for the Admin Supreme Court decision.

ThaiBob about again adding facts!

[lookat]

Dear Stopvt7

You need to stop adding all the facts in your postings.

The vt7 investor crowd dislike court facts. They preferred pipe smoke like 100 meters into the sea!

[JaiDeeFarang]

Well thanks for having a go at that but can you see the lengths you are having to go to with stretched,complex,unfounded arguments to support the "expert witness" against what is in essence a very simple issue.

This sort of response is always a sure sign of a struggle to make things fit a point of view,even though they go against common sense.

Common sense indicates to me that you would not introduce new legislation to allow you to build closer to the sea than the earlier legislation would.Why would the lawmakers want to allow building closer to the sea,doesn't make sense.

And not seeing any tall buildings 100m out into the sea,or any applications to build any there in the last 30 years,gives no reason to want to write issue 9 to provide blanket legislation to specifically prohibit such buildings 100m out there to sea.Is the "expert witness" suggesting you can build up to 14m in the plus/minus 100m zone,or cannot build anything?

Buildings allowed out into the sea but only up to 14m?

You see,the questions just go on and on.

You have to remember that to change legislation costs a fortune in time and money to implement,so you arn't going to change it unless you have compelling reasons which offer improvements and benefits.

The expert witness reasoning does not offer benefits,only detriments ,and more questions,and that is where it falls down.

To make a case to support the "expert witness" defies common sense and logic,so still not convinced.

One of the reasons I have been following this thread is to see if someone can come up with logical answers to some of these questions, but I think that they mostly defy logic. As I see it, whatever the "expert" says, it is at this time, legal to build up to at least 14 meters high however far out to sea you wish. Of course practicalities, construction costs and land ownership are issues which are probably more relevant than legalities. Which comes back to the question, why legislate to deal with something no one wants to do anyway?

Without going into whether the "expert" is right or wrong in his interpretation, can anyone come up with logical answers to these questions?

I don't know if you live here or for how long you've been visiting, but IMHO you do not fully understand Thailand if you make such comments as these. Anyone who has spent any time here realises that 'LOGIC' and 'COMMON SENSE' doesn't occur here very often, if ever. Thais will do whatever suits them even if there is absolutely no thought given to the consequences, they will do it anyway. Using the word Logic is a bit Naive of you.

To say the Thai court will protect you farangs against Thais is also Naive, do you really think the court will rule in your favour and in turn make all the Thais involved with the case 'lose face'?

They will duck, dive, go left, go right, do anything to avoid confrontation and loss of face and interpret the law whichever way suits them best. We are in Thailand, not the western world!

One other thing, have you seen the developements they have in Dubai such as The World, The Palms for instance? As beach front land in tourist areas becomes more scarce, what legislation would govern Raimon Land for example with their wealthy Middle Eastern investors developing something similar in Thailand? Take a look at this link http://www.raimonland.com/RLengV2/media_ce...ails.asp?id=137

Edited June 11, 2008 by JaiDeeFarang

[plasticpig]

Very true

I’m still confident that I won’t loose out on my condo

[Taijitu]

At the 2007 Annual General Meeting, a resolution was passed for the co-owners to pay for the group of ten legal case. The co-owners were very happy that someone started to take legal action...........

I was talking to an old friend last night. He and his wife have lived in JCC since it was built (I met them in JCC in 1996). He has heard nothing and has read nothing about this resolution and the alleged levy!!! He suggests that the story is pure fiction and his wife, who was on the Co-owners' Committee at one time, agreed with him.

He lives in Tower 'B' of JCC and has watched the construction of VT7 from the start. He, and others, in Tower 'B' aren't so vocal as StopVT7 because VT7 will mar the view from Tower 'A' but not so much Tower 'B'. He concurred that the issue is all about loss of sea view and has nothing to do with the protection of beaches.

His only positive comment about StopVT (Richard Haines) was (quote) "At least he tried". (Note the past tense!!!)

(Edit: Spelling)

Edited June 11, 2008 by Taijitu