Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[ThaiBob]

jpm76, I know I shouldn't be nasty but I really, really hope that someone builds an entertainment complex with 100 floor hotel/condo in the sea right in front of you. And don't think it can't happen - that's what condos outside the 200 meters thought.

The VT7 buyers know and accept the risks that their views are not gauranteed. Visit the stopVT7 blog and look at a recent picture taken I suspect from the Jom Tien Plaza (which by the way is far less than 200 meters from the MSL). Do you see all the built buildings in the distance built close to the sea? How could the JCC owners believe the story and trust what their developer or real estate agent told them? JCC can hardly be called beach front property. Here are a few pics pics taken about a week go. They are working on the 16th floor.

[ripley]

JCC buyers received full-colour brochures which showed the panoramic sea view and an artist's representation of the low rise hotel & water sports facility which were to be part of the package. Believing that anyone who issued such photographic and printed matter and then failed to deliver would (of course) be busted big time for fraud - people bought in. The deal of selling out to VT7 was done so covertly it was a done deal before anyone could react. The JCC developer also sold off areas that were stated & illustrated on the drawings to be "common areas".

[Tammi]

JCC buyers received full-colour brochures which showed the panoramic sea view and an artist's representation of the low rise hotel & water sports facility which were to be part of the package. Believing that anyone who issued such photographic and printed matter and then failed to deliver would (of course) be busted big time for fraud - people bought in. The deal of selling out to VT7 was done so covertly it was a done deal before anyone could react. The JCC developer also sold off areas that were stated & illustrated on the drawings to be "common areas".

Thank goodness that with the introduction of the new Condominium Act that this can't happen anymore. The developer must deliver what is shown in advertisements, brochures, on the internet, etc.

And it was a done deal that VT5 got built. Grand Condominium Juristic Person Manager told co-owners who went to him to question the building of VT5 so much in front of them that "law can be changed every 5 years. VT5 is legal". BS.

Very important things are done without the Manager and Committee referring back to the co-owners. I just heard today about a co-owner who recently came on one of her frequent visits here to stay in her condo and was horrified to learn that various things had been done including raising the maintenance fee. She is taking JPM and committee to court. I presume she has looked into the matter(s) and believes all done illegally.

I hear that committees are now taking out liability insurance to protect themselves - again done without reference to the co-owners.

IMHO it's a rats' nest.

[prospero]

<br />

JCC buyers received full-colour brochures which showed the panoramic sea view and an artist's representation of the<b> low rise hotel & water sports facility </b>which were to be part of the package. Believing that anyone who issued such photographic and printed matter and then failed to deliver would (of course) be busted big time for fraud - people bought in. The deal of selling out to VT7 was done so covertly it was a done deal before anyone could react. The JCC developer also sold off areas that were stated & illustrated on the drawings to be "common areas".

<br /><br />Thank goodness that with the introduction of the new Condominium Act that this can't happen anymore. The developer must deliver what is shown in advertisements, brochures, on the internet, etc.<br /><br />And it was a done deal that VT5 got built. Grand Condominium Juristic Person Manager told co-owners who went to him to question the building of VT5 so much in front of them that "law can be changed every 5 years. VT5 is legal". BS. <br /><br />Very important things are done without the Manager and Committee referring back to the co-owners. I just heard today about a co-owner who recently came on one of her frequent visits here to stay in her condo and was horrified to learn that various things had been done including raising the maintenance fee. She is taking JPM and committee to court. I presume she has looked into the matter(s) and believes all done illegally. <br /><br />I hear that committees are now taking out liability insurance to protect themselves - again done without reference to the co-owners.<br /><br />IMHO it's a rats' nest.<br /><br />

<br /><br /><br />

Remember: the Jomtien Complex challenge to VT7 is the first time anyone ever made a legal action with regard to Issue 9. Perhaps if Grand Condotel had challenged VT5, there never would have been a VT7. Thai Bob's statement that there are other buildings close to the shore means only that nobody brought the developers or city hall to court. Now, the matter is in front of the Supreme Administrative Court -- a jurisdiction instituted by His Majesty the King to allow for legal action against government agencies, especially when corruption may be suspected. One has to think that whatever the decision they hand down, it will be based on an objective reading of the law.

[beginner]

Thank goodness that with the introduction of the new Condominium Act that this can't happen anymore. The developer must deliver what is shown in advertisements, brochures, on the internet, etc.

IMHO it's a rats' nest.

The new Condominium Act specifies penalties for braking its various provisions. Will a fine of up to 100,000 baht act as an effective deterrent?

Some new projects are costing several billion baht. A fine of 100,000 is less than some of the regular PR stunts that are put on by some developers.

Similarly, the new ESCROW account is being ignored by the people that are most threatened by it. Its not mandatory.

It all appears to be 'window dressing' and not intended to do very much to protect buyers from much more powerful sellers.

The law is the law. But, Thailand culture places the law in a slightly different place than western culture. Even serious criminals are able to evade it if they are powerful enough. Contractual disputes can run on for years and never be resolved satisfactorily. This, after all, is Thailand. Isn't that why we all live here?... to get away from the over regulated, legalistic, nannying of Western lawmakers and enforcers.

You are correct. Its a rats' nest.

[stopvt7]

Dear ThaiBob

You asked “How could the JCC owners believe the story and trust what their developer or real estate agent told them?”

If you would of read JCC promotion sale brochure you would understand we called a “beach front property”.

Issue 9 insures own sea view and protests the beach for tourism! Wait until the Supreme Administrative Court makes their decision. Then you understand! Thailand is a country of laws which protects the beaches.

Then will come the time to tear down VT7 to 14 meters level above the road level. More they build the more to tear down!

[prospero]

<br />

Thank goodness that with the introduction of the new Condominium Act that this can't happen anymore. The developer must deliver what is shown in advertisements, brochures, on the internet, etc.<br /><br /><br />IMHO it's a rats' nest.

<br /><br />The new Condominium Act specifies penalties for braking its various provisions. Will a fine of up to 100,000 baht act as an effective deterrent?<br />Some new projects are costing several billion baht. A fine of 100,000 is less than some of the regular PR stunts that are put on by some developers.<br /><br />Similarly, the new ESCROW account is being ignored by the people that are most threatened by it. Its not mandatory.<br /><br />It all appears to be 'window dressing' and not intended to do very much to protect buyers from much more powerful sellers.<br /><br />The law is the law. But, Thailand culture places the law in a slightly different place than western culture. Even serious criminals are able to evade it if they are powerful enough. Contractual disputes can run on for years and never be resolved satisfactorily. This, after all, is Thailand. Isn't that why we all live here?... to get away from the over regulated, legalistic, nannying of Western lawmakers and enforcers.<br /><br />You are correct. Its a rats' nest.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

I sense a genuine shift in your attitude, Beginner. A month or so ago, you were brimming with plucky optimism about the bright future of the Pattaya condominium market. You practically had a crick in your neck gazing up to where the magnificent Ocean 1 tower would pierce the sky. Now, you are somewhat bitter. Has anything happened to change your outlook?

[ripley]

Possibly a reason for limited response to discussion on New Thai Condo Law thread is it's so hard to find the bally thing! There has been interest shown & this thread does invite discussion addressing vital issues not strictly on topic of "jomtien co owners sue for sea view.."

My particular soapbox is to brainstorm ways to get co-owners involved and aware of what is happening in their buildings so that they attend or proxy to AGMs. That they insist on the information which is their right. That a full agenda be attached to every invitation to a meeting.This seems to me to be the only sure way to keep the condo safe for its owners.

But that's my soapbox. Other concerns have been raised about condo and housing law.

For now, you can find the thread by clicking "Real Estate....." below, then scroll down to the thread about the law.

Did you know that the brochures promised private access to the beach so that our "feet never touch the pavement"? The passage contained a little pagoda & foliage. When VT7 started building, they first left a narrow, oven-like corridor for passage (including pagoda). JCC queried the land office & was informed that there was NO private access provided by its builders. However, because the passage had been used for a certain number of years, JCC had the right to use it as part of "public domain". Now VT7 has disappeared the walkway entirely. And our poor toes patter along the pavement with everybody else's.

[prospero]

<br />

jpm76, I know I shouldn't be nasty but I really, really hope that someone builds an entertainment complex with 100 floor hotel/condo in the sea right in front of you. And don't think it can't happen - that's what condos outside the 200 meters thought.

<br /><br />Thanks Tammi, for taking another step. No that you agree VT7 wil be built, you may dream about another complex in front of us.<br />Once that will happen, you may laugh. By the way, VT7 never guaranteed me my seaview, I didnt even ask for it.<br />So if your entertainment complex will be built, I wont even go to court. I have better things to do than losing time, money and face.<br /><br />But I am very happy you agree that this thread can be closed. Respect!<br />

<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

What very well may happen is that a nice entertainment center will be built in front of Jomtien Complex after View Talay 7 is knocked down. It will pack a lot of fun into the legal height of 14 meters -- movies, pubs, a bowling alley, fine dining. Residents of the Dong Tarn Beach area will enjoy a lovely addition to our neighborhood!

Edited July 22, 2008 by prospero

[prospero]

<br />

jpm76, I know I shouldn't be nasty but I really, really hope that someone builds an entertainment complex with 100 floor hotel/condo in the sea right in front of you. And don't think it can't happen - that's what condos outside the 200 meters thought.

<br /><br />Thanks Tammi, for taking another step. No that you agree VT7 wil be built, you may dream about another complex in front of us.<br />Once that will happen, you may laugh. By the way, VT7 never guaranteed me my seaview, I didnt even ask for it.<br />So if your entertainment complex will be built, I wont even go to court. I have better things to do than losing time, money and face.<br /><br />But I am very happy you agree that this thread can be closed. Respect!<br />

<br /><br /><br />

What very well may happen is that a nice entertainment complex will be built in front of Jomtien Complex after View Talay 7 is knocked down. It will pack a lot of fun into the legal height of 14 meters -- movies, pubs, a bowling alley, nice restaurants. Residents of the Dong Tarn Beach area will enjoy a lovely addition to our neighborhood.

[fredKroket]

<br />

jpm76, I know I shouldn't be nasty but I really, really hope that someone builds an entertainment complex with 100 floor hotel/condo in the sea right in front of you. And don't think it can't happen - that's what condos outside the 200 meters thought.

<br /><br />Thanks Tammi, for taking another step. No that you agree VT7 wil be built, you may dream about another complex in front of us.<br />Once that will happen, you may laugh. By the way, VT7 never guaranteed me my seaview, I didnt even ask for it.<br />So if your entertainment complex will be built, I wont even go to court. I have better things to do than losing time, money and face.<br /><br />But I am very happy you agree that this thread can be closed. Respect!<br />

<br /><br /><br />

What very well may happen is that a nice entertainment complex will be built in front of Jomtien Complex after View Talay 7 is knocked down. It will pack a lot of fun into the legal height of 14 meters -- movies, pubs, a bowling alley, nice restaurants. Residents of the Dong Tarn Beach area will enjoy a lovely addition to our neighborhood.

Are all the anti-VT7 bunch completely stark raving bonkers, blinkered, deceitful and egotistical? They seem to be getting worse lately. It's like if you keep telling a lie over and over, after a while you believe its true!

[prospero]

<br />Possibly a reason for limited response to discussion on New Thai Condo Law thread is it's so hard to find the bally thing! There has been interest shown &amp; this thread does invite discussion addressing vital issues not strictly on topic of &quot;jomtien co owners sue for sea view..&quot;<br /> My particular soapbox is to brainstorm ways to get co-owners involved and aware of what is happening in their buildings so that they attend or proxy to AGMs. That they insist on the information which is their right. That a full agenda be attached to every invitation to a meeting.This seems to me to be the only sure way to keep the condo safe for its owners.<br /> But that's my soapbox. Other concerns have been raised about condo and housing law.<br /> For now, you can find the thread by clicking &quot;Real Estate.....&quot; below, then scroll down to the thread about the law.<br /><br /> Did you know that the brochures promised private access to the beach so that our &quot;feet never touch the pavement&quot;? The passage contained a little pagoda &amp; foliage. When VT7 started building, they first left a narrow, oven-like corridor for passage (including pagoda). JCC queried the land office &amp; was informed that there was NO private access provided by its builders. However, because the passage had been used for a certain number of years, JCC had the right to use it as part of &quot;public domain&quot;. Now VT7 has disappeared the walkway entirely. And our poor toes patter along the pavement with everybody else's.<br />

<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

View Talay 7 may already be in violation of the new Condo Act. If you go to the website, you will see that they have conveniently airbrushed View Talay 5 and Grand Condotel out of the picture of VT7. Unless the developer intends to demolish those buildings, he is guilty of false advertising. If any sucker has been stupid enough to buy a north-side unit in VT7 sight unseen, he might be unpleasantly surprised when he sees a big white eyesore off his balcony.

http://www.view-talay-condos.net/vt7_sales.php

But, hey, Thai Bob, JPM76 real smart dudes. They can see through the lies of the very developer whose building they've invested in! They know there are buildings that aren't shown on the View Talay website! Hey, can't a developer do a bit of photoshopping?? What's a little misrepresentation among friends?

And when that View Talay developer told them that there was NO PROBLEM WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT, they believed that also. After all, aren't there OTHER BUILDINGS less than 200 meters from the sea?

And for the past year, they have been biting their nails and bravely talking about their future sea views as the Jomtien Complex case crawls through the Administrative Court System.

Edited July 22, 2008 by prospero

[marekm1]

<br />Possibly a reason for limited response to discussion on New Thai Condo Law thread is it's so hard to find the bally thing! There has been interest shown &amp; this thread does invite discussion addressing vital issues not strictly on topic of "jomtien co owners sue for sea view.."<br /> My particular soapbox is to brainstorm ways to get co-owners involved and aware of what is happening in their buildings so that they attend or proxy to AGMs. That they insist on the information which is their right. That a full agenda be attached to every invitation to a meeting.This seems to me to be the only sure way to keep the condo safe for its owners.<br /> But that's my soapbox. Other concerns have been raised about condo and housing law.<br /> For now, you can find the thread by clicking "Real Estate....." below, then scroll down to the thread about the law.<br /><br /> Did you know that the brochures promised private access to the beach so that our "feet never touch the pavement"? The passage contained a little pagoda &amp; foliage. When VT7 started building, they first left a narrow, oven-like corridor for passage (including pagoda). JCC queried the land office &amp; was informed that there was NO private access provided by its builders. However, because the passage had been used for a certain number of years, JCC had the right to use it as part of "public domain". Now VT7 has disappeared the walkway entirely. And our poor toes patter along the pavement with everybody else's.<br />

<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

View Talay 7 may already be in violation of the new Condo Act. If you go to the website, you will see that they have conveniently airbrushed View Talay 5 and Grand Condotel out of the picture of VT7. Unless the developer intends to demolish those buildings, he is guilty of false advertising. If any sucker has been stupid enough to buy a north-side unit in VT7 sight unseen, he might be unpleasantly surprised when he sees a big white eyesore off his balcony.

http://www.view-talay-condos.net/vt7_sales.php

But, hey, Thai Bob, JPM76 real smart dudes. They can see through the lies of the very developer whose building they've invested in! They know there are buildings that aren't shown on the View Talay website! Hey, can't a developer do a bit of photoshopping?? What's a little misrepresentation among friends?

And when that View Talay developer told them that there was NO PROBLEM WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT, they believed that also. After all, aren't there OTHER BUILDINGS less than 200 meters from the sea?

And for the past year, they have been biting their nails and bravely talking about their future sea views as the Jomtien Complex case crawls through the Administrative Court System.

I can see from the picture of the brochure enclosed by StopVT7, that the building in front of JCC is 9 floor high and itself is illegal.

In the words of prospero, how can any sucker has been stupid enough to buy into JCC and not checking the facts properly. Or was it a fact to believe the slick salesman at that time because it sounded and looked good.

If 9 floors looked good at that time, 27 floors look even better now.

[lookat]

Dear marekm1

Your wrong the rail around the swimming pool is 14 meters and the building in front is pool high. It must have 2 windows per floor?

[JaiDeeFarang]

Take a look at this picture, why is JCC so far behind other old condos in that area? Look at Grand Condo, Jomtien Condotel and how far forward Jomtien Plaza is! I get the feeling that VT7 or something similar have been on the cards for many, many years. Just look at all the prime development land in front of JCC!

I feel from the last few posts from the stopVT7 gang that they have been more than a bit naive believing nothing higher than 14 metres could be built in front of JCC. To me it looks pretty obvious that sooner or later something BIG was gointg to be built there. Unless you own absolute beach front property forget protecting your seaview or even your hypocritical fight to save Thailand's beaches. How many years have you been sitting on your balconies looking at that huge piece of land, just wondering what will they ever do with it? Well now you know, and it will never be brought down to 14 metres.

Ariel_Shot.bmp

[Tammi]

Take a look at this picture, why is JCC so far behind other old condos in that area? Look at Grand Condo, Jomtien Condotel and how far forward Jomtien Plaza is! I get the feeling that VT7 or something similar have been on the cards for many, many years. Just look at all the prime development land in front of JCC!

I feel from the last few posts from the stopVT7 gang that they have been more than a bit naive believing nothing higher than 14 metres could be built in front of JCC. To me it looks pretty obvious that sooner or later something BIG was gointg to be built there. Unless you own absolute beach front property forget protecting your seaview or even your hypocritical fight to save Thailand's beaches. How many years have you been sitting on your balconies looking at that huge piece of land, just wondering what will they ever do with it? Well now you know, and it will never be brought down to 14 metres.

And the same goes for Jomthien Condotel as they did not 'secure' the land between the hi-rises and the beach. The developer told clients that everything belonged to Jomthien Condotel. Big Fat Lie. The Regatta site seems to have been abandoned but I think the developer is biding his time until the Court rules in favor of View Talay and then the Regatta will be reconfigured to how many storeys? The sky is the limit. That is if the developer has the money. But of course he will sell off the plan and take God knows how many years to build. Drove past what's it called again that 91 storey thing? Seems that site is being used to make cement for something else.

I have heard that Jomthien Condo Complex did own the land between its hi-rises and the beach but they went and sold it in the firm belief that they were protected by Law from having anything over 14 m built on the land.

But, as usual, JaiDeeFarang talks a lot of nonsense. Because the Law expressly forbids hi-rises within the 200 metres from the beach it could not be obvious to anyone that hi-rises would be built closer to the beach.

Edited July 22, 2008 by Tammi

[ThaiBob]

Dear marekm1

Your wrong the rail around the swimming pool is 14 meters and the building in front is pool high. It must have 2 windows per floor?

The art work is not to scale but it is obviously a nine story building. Perhaps the artist knew more about Thai law than JCC buyers.

[JaiDeeFarang]

Take a look at this picture, why is JCC so far behind other old condos in that area? Look at Grand Condo, Jomtien Condotel and how far forward Jomtien Plaza is! I get the feeling that VT7 or something similar have been on the cards for many, many years. Just look at all the prime development land in front of JCC!

I feel from the last few posts from the stopVT7 gang that they have been more than a bit naive believing nothing higher than 14 metres could be built in front of JCC. To me it looks pretty obvious that sooner or later something BIG was gointg to be built there. Unless you own absolute beach front property forget protecting your seaview or even your hypocritical fight to save Thailand's beaches. How many years have you been sitting on your balconies looking at that huge piece of land, just wondering what will they ever do with it? Well now you know, and it will never be brought down to 14 metres.

And the same goes for Jomthien Condotel as they did not 'secure' the land between the hi-rises and the beach. The developer told clients that everything belonged to Jomthien Condotel. Big Fat Lie. The Regatta site seems to have been abandoned but I think the developer is biding his time until the Court rules in favor of View Talay and then the Regatta will be reconfigured to how many storeys? The sky is the limit. That is if the developer has the money. But of course he will sell off the plan and take God knows how many years to build. Drove past what's it called again that 91 storey thing? Seems that site is being used to make cement for something else.

I have heard that Jomthien Condo Complex did own the land between its hi-rises and the beach but they went and sold it in the firm belief that they were protected by Law from having anything over 14 m built on the land.

But, as usual, JaiDeeFarang talks a lot of nonsense. Because the Law expressly forbids hi-rises within the 200 metres from the beach it could not be obvious to anyone that hi-rises would be built closer to the beach.

I understand the concrete being produced on the site of the 91 storey thing is being delivered just around the corner to VT7, watch the trucks and you'll see what I mean.

As for talking nonsense Tammi, I think you are the one talking out of your behind. Where in Thai law does it say you cannot build a high rise within 200 metres from the beach. I believe the correct terminology is the construction control line (as many now know including stopVT7), which is neither the beach nor the MSL. It is the interpretation of the measurement from the CCL which is in dispute, not the beach as you so lovingly call it whilst gazing through your rose tinted spectacles.

[Gary A]

When JCC did NOT complete their advertised project, that's when the unit owners should have filed a lawsuit. Had JCC not lied, this would have never happened.

[prospero]

<br />

Take a look at this picture, why is JCC so far behind other old condos in that area? Look at Grand Condo, Jomtien Condotel and how far forward Jomtien Plaza is! I get the feeling that VT7 or something similar have been on the cards for many, many years. Just look at all the prime development land in front of JCC!<br /><br />I feel from the last few posts from the stopVT7 gang that they have been more than a bit naive believing nothing higher than 14 metres could be built in front of JCC. To me it looks pretty obvious that sooner or later something BIG was gointg to be built there. Unless you own absolute beach front property forget protecting your seaview or even your hypocritical fight to save Thailand's beaches. How many years have you been sitting on your balconies looking at that huge piece of land, just wondering what will they ever do with it? Well now you know, and it will never be brought down to 14 metres.

<br /><br />And the same goes for Jomthien Condotel as they did not 'secure' the land between the hi-rises and the beach. The developer told clients that everything belonged to Jomthien Condotel. Big Fat Lie. The Regatta site seems to have been abandoned but I think the developer is biding his time until the Court rules in favor of View Talay and then the Regatta will be reconfigured to how many storeys? The sky is the limit. That is if the developer has the money. But of course he will sell off the plan and take God knows how many years to build. Drove past what's it called again that 91 storey thing? Seems that site is being used to make cement for something else.<br /><br />I have heard that Jomthien Condo Complex did own the land between its hi-rises and the beach but they went and sold it in the firm belief that they were protected by Law from having anything over 14 m built on the land.<br /><br />But, as usual, JaiDeeFarang talks a lot of nonsense. Because the Law expressly forbids hi-rises within the 200 metres from the beach it could not be obvious to anyone that hi-rises would be built closer to the beach.<br />

<br />I understand the concrete being produced on the site of the 91 storey thing is being delivered just around the corner to VT7, watch the trucks and you'll see what I mean.<br /><br />As for talking nonsense Tammi, I think you are the one talking out of your behind. Where in Thai law does it say you cannot build a high rise within 200 metres from the beach. I believe the correct terminology is the construction control line (as many now know including stopVT7), which is neither the beach nor the MSL. It is the interpretation of the measurement from the CCL which is in dispute, not the beach as you so lovingly call it whilst gazing through your rose tinted spectacles.<br />

<br /><br /><br />

Congratulations, Jai Dee Farang, on your appointment to the Supreme Administrative Court of Thailand! I have always been in awe of your legal erudition and profundity. I'm certain your interpretation of the law is the correct one.

[stopvt7]

Dear JaiDeeFarang

1. The Construction Control Line

2. At the Seaside

3. MSL

All three above location are at the same point on the map which you measure from. Then you measure one direction onto the land 200 meters.

Tammi should add MSL in his statement. Or said “Because the Law expressly forbids hi-rises within the 200 metres from the beach” (at MSL) “it could not be obvious to anyone that hi-rises would be built closer to the beach”.

JaiDeeFarang please read Issue 9 below.

"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

JaiDeeFarang this is simple regulation which even you should be able to understand!

[stopvt7]

The yellow line on the Issue 9 map is where measure are made.

The yellow line on the maps is the following three places.

1. The Construction Control Line

2. At the Seaside

3. MSL (on on Issue9 map)

Now measure from the yellow line at the seadide onto the land!

[JaiDeeFarang]

It's not me you have to convince at the end of the day is it? Will the Admin Supreme Court see it the way you do and will you accuse them of being corrupt when they don't?

[Wiresok]

I See the pro vt7 lobby are re-repeating the old construction control line theory again in an attempt to "legalise" vt7,and they accuse the stop vt7 group of repetition charges.

It even got a mention in one of the intoxicated rants on here.

Anyway, taking this argument that the CCL is not the same as MSL, how would you position this CCl relative to MSL?, it would be 100m seaward from MSL would it not.

ie You measure into the sea 100m from MSL, which is precisely what the stop vt7 have said.

It dont read anything in issue 9 about measuring 100m into the sea from MSL?

Again, if this CCL datum did exist then measuring 200m landward from it would allow building closer to the sea than before under issue 8.Do you consider this was the intention of the lawmakers in writing issue 9, can you seriously believe this?

Further, if this CCL datum is out there, 100m into the sea from MSL , then this means that issue 9 specifically prohibits the following structures from being built in the sea, in the 100m gap, between MSL and this CCL.

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.

I mean, why just pick on these structures to prohibit.

What would this then allow to be built 100m out into the sea, anybody any ideas?, how about a runway like hong kong.

Sadly, for the pro vt7 guys this whole CCL argument is fundemetaly flawed, and was never heard of untill the "expert witness" invented it; clearly the Bangkok Supreme Court have problems with it ,as twice now they have admonished the Rayong court.

Regards your vt7 sea views....dont hold your breath while you are waiting.

[stopvt7]

It's not me you have to convince at the end of the day is it? Will the Admin Supreme Court see it the way you do and will you accuse them of being corrupt when they don't?

We have had two Admin Supreme Court rulings! Both were very fare and I have a very high opinion of their rulings. I’m looking forward to their decision.

I do not accuse any court of corruption!! I think the Admin Supreme Court clearly understand Issue 9.

I think the VT7 investors are going to be sorry! Sorry!

[beginner]

I See the pro vt7 lobby are re-repeating the old construction control line theory again in an attempt to "legalise" vt7,and they accuse the stop vt7 group of repetition charges.

Sadly, for the pro vt7 guys this whole CCL argument is fundemetaly flawed, and was never heard of untill the "expert witness" invented it; clearly the Bangkok Supreme Court have problems with it ,as twice now they have admonished the Rayong court.

Regards your vt7 sea views....dont hold your breath while you are waiting.

Hello Wiresok.

I have no doubt that in your mind you have logically and comprehensively demonstrated a flaw in the pro VT7 case.

Well done. You have won the argument. You may now rest your case. There is no need to repeat it another dozen or so times.

Unfortunately for such a simplistic outcome 'We are not in Bloomsbury now' to quote the ex Prime Minister of Singapore.

Now must be added the fact we are in Thailand.

Do you even in your most fanciful moods, really believe that Pattaya City will be ordered by the Court to order VT7 to demolish the building? Who would pay? The City can't even find the cash for parking garages or park and ride facilities. Look at Threppaya Road on Pratunmak Hill for an indication of its budgetry priories and abilities.

VT7 has been built according to specification with a valid building permit and having passed through all other required planning procedures successfully.

The new Condominium Act specifies 100,000 baht fine for serious infringements of the Act. Maybe that would be the fair (in Thai terms) penalty for the City to pay for its maladministration if indeed they lose their case.

Maybe a token compensation could be paid to those who lose their sea views. Maybe a letter of apology. Maybe absolutely nothing will happen. The owners of an illegal and dangerous building extension in Bangkok refused to cooperate with Bangkok City for more than ten years. It was finally redeveloped after partial collapse and a resulting death.

This sure ain't Kansas Toto!

[Tammi]

It's not me you have to convince at the end of the day is it? Will the Admin Supreme Court see it the way you do and will you accuse them of being corrupt when they don't?

Hopefully the Admin Supreme Court will see it the way the Stop VT7 lawyer sees it. As far as I know the Admin Supreme Court is the end of the road and have heard it is in the hands of fine, honest, upstanding persons who have been charged by His Majesty to remain so.

[Tammi]

Hello Wiresok.

Do you even in your most fanciful moods, really believe that Pattaya City will be ordered by the Court to order VT7 to demolish the building? Who would pay? The City can't even find the cash for parking garages or park and ride facilities. Look at Threppaya Road on Pratunmak Hill for an indication of its budgetry priories and abilities.

VT7 has been built according to specification with a valid building permit and having passed through all other required planning procedures successfully.

Pattaya City has oodles of money. Isn't it always digging up the roads? And, of course, you remember those green erections on the sidewalks all over the place with greenery growing on them - they were erected and then dismantled. And Pratumak Hill on the Thuppaya Road - must be costing a fortune to landscape that with those huge rocks. And the Pattaya public buses? And the beautification of Pattaya Beach with all those green statue things. And our Hollywood style sign.

Won't take long to bring down VT7 with a wrecking ball and VT5 too if anyone has the inclination to go after it.

[Wiresok]

Well said beginner.

It’s as obvious as the nose on your face.

In instances of this kind where one party cobbles things up to accommodate a particular point of view, it is always the application of the inverse logic technique that exposes the implausible.

I know your having a bit of a laugh there, but I don’t see anything from the pro vt7 group that seriously corroborates the “expert witness” testimony, and give me,or the SC cause to re-consider.

I notice you don’t offer anything either, only hope the SC doesn’t have the balls to enforce issue 9.

I think you are in for a shock, if the SC didn’t mean business here, it wouldn’t still be on the case.

You seem to be getting a little bit ahead of yourself in your hypothesis.

One step at a time, the immediate point of issue is the SC court judgement on the legality of vt7 against Ministerial Regulation 9.

The SC will rule if vt7 building permit was issued legally or not.

Pattaya City Hall and vt7 will be legally bound by the SC decision.

Then, we will see the accuracy of your prediction.

[ThaiBob]

I See the pro vt7 lobby are re-repeating the old construction control line theory again in an attempt to "legalise" vt7,and they accuse the stop vt7 group of repetition charges.

It even got a mention in one of the intoxicated rants on here.

Anyway, taking this argument that the CCL is not the same as MSL, how would you position this CCl relative to MSL?, it would be 100m seaward from MSL would it not.

ie You measure into the sea 100m from MSL, which is precisely what the stop vt7 have said.

It dont read anything in issue 9 about measuring 100m into the sea from MSL?

Again, if this CCL datum did exist then measuring 200m landward from it would allow building closer to the sea than before under issue 8.Do you consider this was the intention of the lawmakers in writing issue 9, can you seriously believe this?

Further, if this CCL datum is out there, 100m into the sea from MSL , then this means that issue 9 specifically prohibits the following structures from being built in the sea, in the 100m gap, between MSL and this CCL.

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.

I mean, why just pick on these structures to prohibit.

What would this then allow to be built 100m out into the sea, anybody any ideas?, how about a runway like hong kong.

Sadly, for the pro vt7 guys this whole CCL argument is fundemetaly flawed, and was never heard of untill the "expert witness" invented it; clearly the Bangkok Supreme Court have problems with it ,as twice now they have admonished the Rayong court.

Regards your vt7 sea views....dont hold your breath while you are waiting.

You are clearly mistaken. The old CCL theory is not a theory but is clearly stated in Issue 9 and supported by the annexed map. The City of Pattaya has consistently applied Issue 9 for many years. It is the stopVT7 choir in their attempt to re-write Issue 9 who continually repeat old and now discredited arguments. Again and again stopVT7 tells us to measure 200 meters from the MSL but NEVER does Issue 9 state to measure from the MSL. These are not my words but quoting from the LATEST Supreme Court document ".....summarizing that, to fix the coast line at Mean Sea Level, the measurement must be started at the point of 0.00 meters of the Mean Sea Level. When the measurement is made 100 meters outward to the sea, then it will be the Construction Control Boundary that shown on the Annexed Map of the Royal Decree, stimulated to use the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479 to take control over the regions of Banglamung, Nongplalai, Nakluea, and Nongprue Sub-districts of Banglamung District, Chonburi Province, B.E. 2521, then made another 100 meters from the aforesaid point into the land, then it will be the distance of 200 meters of the Construction Control Boundary, as stipulated in clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 8 ( B.E. 2519 ), stipulated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, which had been amended by adding the Ministerial Regulations of Issue 9 ( B.E. 2521), which stipulated to be in accordance with The Construction Control Acts of B.E. 2479, which stated to prohibit the building with the height over 14 meters from the road surface. The measurement result reported that the building of 2nd Plaint Receiver is not in the boundary of 200 meters."

The SC did not "admonish" the lower Court but corrected the lower Court's technical interpretation of particular sections (Clauses 77 and 100) of Thai law. The Rayong Court told the plaintiffs you can't appeal an order while the Court is still in progress but the SC basically said "Oh Yes you can". StopVT7 must be under big pressure to deliver a "big" win with all the time and JCC money being spent so far, but the facts do not support his case. To believe the stopVT7 case you have to believe in a 300 meter measurement which is sheer nonsense.