Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[marekm1]

I don’t know how destroying 50 or so building will benefit anybody. Throwing 10 of thousands Thais on the street won’t do any good to Thailand image. Where they all gonna live? I suppose they all stay on the beach. So when StopVT7 sits on his balcony watching the sunrise and see all these homeless people on the beach, rather disturbing view, he can say I have done all that.

And of course his next legal challenge will be to get rid of these homeless people from the beach because they upset his seaview.

I doubt that will ever happens.

And I wish StopVT7 very good and long holiday with one way ticket from Thailand.

[Tammi]

I don’t know how destroying 50 or so building will benefit anybody. Throwing 10 of thousands Thais on the street won’t do any good to Thailand image. Where they all gonna live? I suppose they all stay on the beach. So when StopVT7 sits on his balcony watching the sunrise and see all these homeless people on the beach, rather disturbing view, he can say I have done all that.

And of course his next legal challenge will be to get rid of these homeless people from the beach because they upset his seaview.

I doubt that will ever happens.

And I wish StopVT7 very good and long holiday with one way ticket from Thailand.

It is not possible to destroy 50 or so buildings. If they have been up for more than 5 years then I have been told by a lawyer nothing can be done about them.

Believe me there are no poor Thais living in waterfront properties. These properties are 51% owned by rich Thais who live in BKK and come to the beach at weekends. Many of them do not come at all! These expensive condos are so quiet which is very nice for the few foreigners who do live in them permanently. Many foreigners are also rich and only visit for a few months every year. If condos such as Jomthien condotel and all the VTs were fully occupied they would be unlivable because of noise and cooking smells, waiting for elevators, etc, etc.

[ThaiBob]

.....Which later Issue 8 was changed: [/b][/color]“to fix the 100 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map at the sea shore that building of the following types are not permitted for construction”. To Issue 9 “to fix the 200 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map at the sea shore that building of the following types are not permitted for construction”  So please tell use where it in Issue 9 it said to measure “at the seashore” into the sea 100 meters from the “control construction line” at MSL to a  maps “borderline”as claimed by the so-called expert witness? Now the Supreme Administrative Court knows where MSL is located in relation to the VT7 building they will make a clear order they to revoke Work Permit No. 162/2007.  ......

Nothing new here.  There are those on TV that have taken the time and know (and understand) the differences between the Issue 8 and Issue 9 maps and in particular the Construction Control boundary.  And so does the SC, ".....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." and "...the contrary building will be over 200 meters of the Construction Control Boundary, and also as stipulated in the aforementioned Ministerial Regulations."

[ThaiBob]

Dear Tammi

The statement “Yes, probably appeals lasting for years.”

A appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court only takes months. When the court agrees with our appeal and revokes VT7 building permit. That's it! No one can appeal the legal question any higher!

We expect a decision within 2 to 3more mouths.

Tammi, the plaintiffs Appeal asks the SC to revoke the order to lift the injunction before the final judgment of the Rayong Court. The SC has never given a clue on where it stands on this case nor should it. (Please stopVT7; do not drag out the old SC order from 2007.) It would be interesting to know when the Rayong Court will make its final judgment.

Meanwhile, VT7 adds a new floor about every 2 weeks. In 3 months they will be at about number 22.

[stopvt7]

Dear ThaiBob

You post a lot of BS! The boundary line is also 50 metres beyond Sukhumvit Road. The only reason you look a the boundary line on the map is find the area the regulation controls.

What are you trying to do? Convince yourself that city hall lawyer was right when he make up the story you measure into the sea at the first court hearing?

Their no “Construction Control Boundary” written in Issue 9 or on the map. But Issue 8 and 9 have a Construction Control Line which you find at the sea shore and is found on Issue 9 map at MSL. Then you measure onto the land 200 meters! Which made VT7 building permit illegal.

I read throw “Construction Control Acts” have you?

The edge of the blue area on Issue 8 and 9 maps represent the boundary lines. The yellow line represent the Construction Control Line at the sea shore.

[ThaiBob]

Dear ThaiBob

You post a lot of BS! The boundary line is also 50 metres beyond Sukhumvit Road. The only reason you look a the boundary line on the map is find the area the regulation controls.

What are you trying to do? Convince yourself that city hall lawyer was right when he make up the story you measure into the sea at the first court hearing?

Their no “Construction Control Boundary” written in Issue 9 or on the map. But Issue 8 and 9 have a Construction Control Line which you find at the sea shore and is found on Issue 9 map at MSL. Then you measure onto the land 200 meters! Which made VT7 building permit illegal.

I read throw “Construction Control Acts” have you?

The edge of the blue area on Issue 8 and 9 maps represent the boundary lines. The yellow line represent the Construction Control Line at the sea shore.

I don't have to convince myself of anything but I have the choice of believing the Bangkok Dept of Engineering Report as summarized in the latest Supreme Court document or that of an amateur want-a-be lawyer who technical expertise is questionable. The Borderline of the constution restricted area (A) (your spelling not mine) is clearly shown:

[Gary A]

Quote from Tammi;

Problem is that it is a tedious business to delete the pieces one wants to delete. Often the answer from ThaiVisa is that the

don't match and then one has to copy one's reply to Word and go back and try to do it correctly again and maybe again.

End quote

Tedious, difficult, Word? Is it that difficult to highlight, copy and paste in Fast Reply?

[ThaiBob]

Gary A

I understand your point and admit I am an offender. I will try to follow your suggestion.

[Tammi]

Gary A

I understand your point and admit I am an offender. I will try to follow your suggestion.

ThaiBob, let me know how you get on. I tried to post today and it was a disaster.

[stopvt7]

Dear ThaiBob

The “Borderline of the construction restricted area” is also shown as “Borderline of the construction restricted area” 50 metres beyond Sukhumvit Road. The regulation said nothing about measuring from or to the “Borderline of the construction restricted area”!

You measure from the “Construction Control Line” please read the regulation! ThaiBob I understand your dislike of the facts, but please accept one. The written fact! You measures from the construction control line at the sea shore.

Issue 8 “to fix the 100 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map at the sea shore that building of the following types are not permitted for construction”

Issue 9 “to fix the 200 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map at the sea shore that building of the following types are not permitted for construction”

How can you believe this so-called expert witness . Who at the first court hearing, which he appeared, testified that he don’t understand the ”technic” used by city hall lawyer. This city hall lawyer said you measure into the sea before you measure onto the land. This so-called expert witness could not answer some of judges question!

Then later he submits a report to the court which never answered the court order survey. This report claimed you measure into the sea without explain or using the wording of the regulation or the map. Now, you think the Supreme Administrative Court will not know the so-call expert witness was wrong in his report? This report to the court moved, building over 14 meters, 11 meters closer to the “Construction Control Line” at the sea side then Issue 8 allowed!

The city hall lawyer was ask where did he read about measure into the sea? He claimed a arrow pointing from the sea toward the land means you measure from the land into the sea 100 meters before you measure onto the land a 100 meters. Also he claims that Issue 8 and 9 had were the same place on the land from MSL. Do you understand that the so-called expert witness used a foolish lawyer for his source? And ignored Issue 9 and its map!

We think the Supreme Administrative Court will make a wise and correct decision.

Why do you think Pattaya is so special and above the law?

[ThaiBob]

I choose to believe an independent government agency and somebody who testified before the Court and swore to tell the truth as opposed to somebody who has their own agenda. Your own lawyers acknowledge the Construction Control border as shown on the Issue 9 map. If one is to create a 200 meter restricted construction zone it is only logical that the other border is 200 meters landward. You suggest measuring from the MSL which in fact creates a 300 meter wide restricted construction zone. The Court didn't by it and neither do I.

Edited July 29, 2008 by ThaiBob

[stopvt7]

Dear ThaiBob

Some adults people still believe in the tooth fairy! These are people who need mental attention!

[stopvt7]

Sorry ThaiBob

My above statement was just in fun!! I should not have make fun of the tooth fairy?

I was !

Some time spam unsets me!

Edited July 29, 2008 by stopvt7

[stopvt7]

ThaiBob please read the expert witness testimony and his report to the court.

“Witness Testimony Record

(Inquiring Stage)

Black Case No. 54/2551

GARUDA EMBLEM

The Administrative Court of Rayong

15 January 2008

Mr. Tenbuelt Aloysius Joannes Maria No. 1 and 9 Associates Litigants

Between

Pattaya City Local Official First Prosecuted Person

View Talay Jomthien Condominium Second Prosecuted Person

I have taken an oath to testify the following statement:

.My name is Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul

.I was born on 28 June B.E. 2500 age 50

.My profession is Legal Officer 7

.I reside at The Office of Building Control and Inspection within the Department of Public Works and Town & City Planning, Rama 6 Road, Khwang Samsennai, Khet Phayathai, Bangkok

.My relationship to the parties : Witness

My testimony shall be as follows:

The restricted zone of the building control area under the Royal Decree governing Building Construction Control B.E. 2521 shall be determined by the distance of 100 meter from Mean Sea Level outward to the sea.

In conducting the measuring, the witness did not measure from MSL towards the conflict building, but measured from the MSL to the 100 meters.

Mr. Veera Visuthirattanakul, Legal Officer 7 and Mr. Wattanchart Kajornsiri, the Civil Engineer 6 of the Department of Public Works are the witnesses of the case.

The Litigants apply the motion to clarify the point of law and fact dated 15 January 2008. The motion was accepted by the Court and copy of this motion was given to the two prosecuted persons today.

The testimony of the parties and witnesses have been recorded by the Court.

All parties and witnesses requested copies of the witness testimony records together with proceeding report of today. The Court approved such requests.

All witnesses received witness’ fee of Bht 300 each and transportation cost of Bht 1,000 each. Each witness received total 1,300 baht.

The hearing closed at 10.45 hours.

Signed ……………………………………………. Judge of the file

(Mr. Kritdanai Tromtat) “

Below is the survey report to the court in Rayong.

dated 18 December 2007

“MOST URGENT

“Execution to Court Order Report

1. Original Story

The Rayong Administrative Court has its Order Black Case No. 54/2550 between Mr. Tenbuelt Aloysius Joannes Maria, No. 1 and 9 Associates totaling 10 Litigants and the Pattaya City Local Official, No. 1 Prosecuted Person and the No. 2 Prosecuted Person, Order dated 19 September 2007 referred.

The Department of Public Works being the authorized agency as the authority who responsible for the issuance of the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 applying to some areas of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Klua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 and the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) amended by the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 executing the measurement of distance of Mean Sea Level under the provision of the above Decree to the building under conflict. The measured distance shall be reported to the Court supporting by the map, after measurement is complete, the Department shall submit report with supporting map to the Court.

The Department of Public Works has assigned the following 8 staff members from the Building Inspection and Control Division accompanied by the Engineers of the Structural and System Engineering Division to accomplish the measurement

2. Staff involved ....................................

4. Methods ...............................

5. Execution results:

The reading from telescopic survey process to identify MSL appeared in the horizontal line herewith attached (Attachment 2 refers) and from the examination on MSL, referred to in the Book printed in the memorial of the Meteorological Department on its 80th Anniversary Chapter 5 page 88, published on 10th January 2007 claimed that the MSL value equals to 0.00 meter. The MSL of 1.4477 meter is the reference MSL at Ko Lak area of Prachuab Khirikhan Province. This is the reference MSL used by the Ordnance Survey Department throughout the country by means of leveling transfer (Attachment 3 refers). Therefore, the measurement of MSL at the shoreline must be measured from MSL 0.00 seaward to the distance of 100 meter is the area for construction restriction appeared in the map (??) annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 applying to some areas of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Klua, and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521.

Where the measure from this point toward the land in front of the building construction for another 100 meter, the area shall be identified as the 200 meter restriction area for construction referred under Clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) amended by the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (2521) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 governing restriction of construction of the building exceeding 14 meter from ground level. Measurement result is appeared in the attached map (Attachment 4 refers).

Report prepared by

Mr. Wattanachart Kajornsiri"

Now read Issue 9. Do you think the co-called expert witness undershoot 9?

"Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521)

Issued under the Building Construction Control Act

B.E. 2479

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

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

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

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

“No 3. To specify the area within the 200 meters measurement from the construction control line see the map. Annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 in the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 at the seaside in which the following constructions shall not be built:

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

The key to understand Issue 9 is it applies within the boundary line of the map where you fine MSL at the sea side which is the constrution controll line were you measure 200 meters onto the land.

The expert witness measued from MSL to the boundary line (The maps edge) on the map. Then he sutracts that 100 meter measurement from the reqired 200 meters. Then he measures 100 meters from MSL onto the land. ???? Yjis is not what Issue 8 said to do!

The so-called expert did not follow Issue 9. Then he went on to write a confusing report with new claims which are not found in Issue 9. Using a “technique” to write his report that the so-called expert didn’t understand. As he previously testified in a Rayong court hearing. This smell of incompetence!

I think the Admin Supreme Court will understand the evidence!

[lookat]

Stopvt7

Give up on ThaiBob. You keep confused him with the facts!

Some people are not on the same intellectual plain as Sponge Bob.

[Sir Burr]

I've been following this thread for many months now. It's a bit like Coronation Street, the soap opera.

I don't live in Pattaya and have no stake on either side.

This is the way I see it.

If StopVT7 wins the case and a demand for the building to be torn down is made, then VT7 are going to sue Pattaya City.

VT7 have done nothing illegal. They did all the pre-building studies and submitted for building permission.

This permission was granted. The issuing authority is at fault here if it is judged that it was issued illegally.

There will be appeals on both sides and nothing will happen for years. Pattaya city will not be able to afford to knock the structure down, or, reimburse VT for the cost of the building.

I think the plaintiffs will either be looking at a smart, painted, new condominium, or, an abandoned condominium that will look like something out of Stalingrad in 1943.

Either way, the plaintiffs are in a lose / lose situation.

Personally, I think the courts are going to be pragmatic.

On the one hand, City Hall loses face and will be faced with a huge law-suit. Hundreds of angry buyers in VT7 and a well known property developer out millions of baht. OR, eight pis5ed off plaintiffs.

I know which way I would bet.

Edited July 30, 2008 by Sir Burr

[Tammi]

Personally, I think the courts are going to be pragmatic.

Pragmatic? No. It's the court's responsibility to decide where the 200 meters is and if JCC is right or VT is right under the Law as it now stands.

Of course, if the government acting in the best interests of the people of Thailand, decides in the future to amend and clarify the Law and thus protect 100 metres out to sea and allow hi-rises 100 meters closer to the sea then it will do so. But at the moment it would seem to we lay persons and it is the opinion of lawyers that hi-rises must be 200 metres back from mean sea level as were the first condos to be built.

Edited July 30, 2008 by Tammi

[Sir Burr]

You don't seem to understand that if you win, you are still going to be stuck with an ugly, abandoned condo for a loooooong time.

If I've read the posts right. The court has already made the decision. the supreme court has only ruled that you are allowed to make an appeal.

As for "Thailand is a country of laws", this is a bogus as stopVT7's claims that the case is about protecting the beaches.

Remember, if laws were enforced, the Interior minister's son, who shot and killed a man in cold blood in a night club in front of dozens of witnesses would be in jail now and not a governmental "special" advisor.

To make this claim is taking naivete to extremes.

Guess we'll have to wait and see. I still think the courts will be pragmatic and let VT7 stand. Don't underestimate the Thai compulsion for face-saving.

Edited July 30, 2008 by Sir Burr

[harrry]

As someone who has been away from Thailand for many years although planning to return in a few months to retire this has been an interesting topic to read through.

It sure has changed my thoughts of buying a condo, I will have to rent for sure.

I must say that stopvt is someone I admire, a real bulldog who fights for what he wants.

Of course it may all be in vain as City Hall is planning the embankment for the road along the coast in front of vt7 to be raised so that the building hight will only be 14m. of course this wilol enable the height of the building to be raised so more condos can be sold. Pity that they wont have a view either.

regards

harrry

[Tammi]

As someone who has been away from Thailand for many years although planning to return in a few months to retire this has been an interesting topic to read through.

It sure has changed my thoughts of buying a condo, I will have to rent for sure.

I must say that stopvt is someone I admire, a real bulldog who fights for what he wants.

Of course it may all be in vain as City Hall is planning the embankment for the road along the coast in front of vt7 to be raised so that the building hight will only be 14m. of course this wilol enable the height of the building to be raised so more condos can be sold. Pity that they wont have a view either.

regards

harrry

If you can afford to rent it is the way to go. You don't have to get hot and bothered by how the condo is run by the Juristic Person Manager, the General Manager and particularly by your co-owners who are on the Committee. Are there any well run condos in Pattaya and Jomthien - in Thailand for that matter? Did the new Condo Act come into force on 4 July 08? No accounts have been posted on the bulletin board in this condo but maybe that will start next month. I won't hold my breath.

[ripley]

"If StopVT7 wins the case and a demand for the building to be torn down is made, then VT7 are going to sue Pattaya City.VT7 have done nothing illegal. They did all the pre-building studies and submitted for building permission."

The case against VT7 happens to be based on the argument about issue 9. That's what the courts will examine because that's what the plaintiffs feel will be the easiest and clearest to prove. But don't believe for one minute that VT7 played by the rules. Their achievement of EIA permission is just one repulsive story in this saga.

" must say that stopvt is someone I admire, a real bulldog who fights for what he wants. "

One might say rather a pitbull who will scruple at nothing for what he wants. But yes, he is as tenacious as a lobster and has dealt some blows to the VT empire which the arrogant jerks never expected!

Edited July 30, 2008 by ripley

[Tammi]

Don't underestimate the Thai compulsion for face-saving.

You are quite right, it is not to be underestimated and it may well lose the case for StopVT7 group.

[ThaiBob]

stopVtT7, I have read both the expert witness's report and Bangkok Dept. of Engineering Report on your blog. I agree with the witness's testimony when put in context with Issue 9 map. Your own lawyers understand the Construction Control Boundary line better than you do (stopVT7 lawyer ""Border line of the construction restricted area" set 100 meters into the sea was also to prevent further violations"). You have never posted anything new or presented new evidence. I see nothing in your arguments to sway the SC. Your Appeal was granted on technical legal application of Thai law (Clause 49?) and as another poster has pointed out the Court will be very pragmatic when deciding this case. Some day there may be a new Ministerial Regualion (Issue 10?) which will say to measure 200 meters from the MSL but until that day.....sorry.

[stopvt7]

The comment “courts are going to be pragmatic”. Their no way for the courts will be pragmatic because of the clear issue involved. Issue 9 said measure 200 meters and the drafting minutes said you measure only one way, on to the land.

Do you read the Bangkok English papers? The court take serious their duty to clean up government.

[ripley]

"If I've read the posts right. The court has already made the decision. the supreme court has only ruled that you are allowed to make an appeal."

The Rayong court made the decision to lift the injunction against VT7 building above 14 mtrs. It has still to make a ruling on whether the building is legal at 27 floors. As I understand it, until Rayong makes its decision, the SC doesn't accept an appeal on whether or not the bldg can be built. They can only overturn the Rayong judgement to lift the injunction.

Rayong's loooong deliberation on the case, while VT7 builds to the sky, is - I think - the Thai face-saving tactic which was expected by us all. Unless the SC restores the injunction, I don't think there is any way to bring pressure to bear on the Rayong court to finalize its decision. If the SC restores & Rayong decides in favor of VT7, there is a possibility of appeal to the SC, and they can sit on it for quite some time. That being the case, we can take it as read that the building will be completed and inhabited.

I find it sad. The fight started for a private sea view & then everyone got aware of the ramifications of letting VT7 have its way. The mega corporations have the connections, the money, share the culture and know the ropes. A concrete seacoast and even more polluted environment loom in the future.

"They pave paradise & put up a parking lot..."

[stopvt7]

Check the article Bangkok Post Property in the Business Section below page 4B: Any VT investors could be overpaying?

http://www.bangkokpost.com/310708_Business...l2008_biz47.php

Thursday July 31, 2008 PROPERTY

Residential, resort oversupply seen

NINA SUEBSUKCHAROEN

For those who went through the 1997 property and finance meltdown, it may be disturbing to see the past mirror itself in today's heavyweight residential and resort sectors. Robert Collins, managing director of the property agency Savills Thailand, said that some aspects of the residential and resort sectors now show similarities to Thailand's pre-1997 office market. He notes the sheer volume of residential supply, particularly condominiums, not just in Bangkok but in key resorts as well, which is being brought into the market by big, experienced developers plus some newcomers.

''It's not necessarily a huge bubble growing. We are seeing sort of a mirroring of how the office market pre-1997 was particularly overdeveloped,'' he says.

He recalls office vacancy rates of 40% a decade ago, but notes also how the market adjusted to reality fairly smoothly. For several years no new supply entered the market and existing supply was absorbed, the result being a relatively stable market today.

''Office rentals today are only really just back to where they were in 1992, and they are very stable, it's been a long recovery process.''

Fast-forward to today's residential and resort markets, and signs that there could potentially be a downturn in certain sectors if the volume of the new supply entering the market continues at the current level.

Mr Collins sees a potential impact on his own industry, given that several brokerages have entered the market, especially in Phuket, Samui, Pattaya and Hua Hin since 2000-01. ''Any protracted slowdown in the marketplace is going to have quite a significant impact on all these new players.''

He notes that in the years immediately following 1997 the number of property agents in Bangkok contracted sharply, with several major international companies either withdrawing or drastically reducing their services and staff numbers.

The risk that new brokerages now face is greatly magnified by their dependence on foreign buying which, Mr Collins pointed out, is losing steam amid the current global slowdown.

Brokers and others are counting on land values in resort markets, particularly Phuket and Samui, holding firm. However, the reason these values have held up is mainly due to a lot of trading by speculators and agents.

''But those value points really need to be underpinned by highest investment use, from a retail perspective in the resort or pure five-star hotels. On the villa sales trade I think we are likely to see a slowdown, probably not that protracted.

''While buyers in the very high-end villa sector aren't mortgage-dependent ... they need to be cash buyers in the first place. We are seeing that the global slowdown has affected the UK and parts of the US to a great extent, that easy availability of cash is not there to the same extent it was before.''

Another weak point is that the Thai resort market is dependent on regional buyers, particularly out of Hong Kong, and developers in other parts of the world where prices are coming down are now trying to attract the same buyers.

Given current conditions, there is likely to be pressure on high-end property in Thailand in the medium term. ''It's fair to say, though, that the market domestically still has a few bright spots, particularly well-planned and well-executed developments in good locations conceived by financially strong developers. Those projects that fall into this grouping are still performing very well.''

Another area that should thrive is property with equally good demand from both domestic and international buyers. ''Condominiums that appeal to Thais and foreigners really outperform the market trend. Where there is equal demand, the projects are very healthy.''

Where individual owners are concerned, Mr. Collins says that those owning a completed unit are unlikely to see prices go down because construction costs have risen considerably.

''I think the pressure is going to be placed on the new supply that is off-plan ... as was the case after 1997, property prices had come down quite sharply yet completed property sold quite well in that immediate period.

''This time going forward, with construction costs up so sharply, we may see that a lot of new supply that is planned in the medium term may in fact be put off for quite some time. We are not predicting that existing supply will lose value. The pressure is going to be in the lofty expectations of some of the new supply that's due to come online.''

Edited July 31, 2008 by stopvt7

[stopvt7]

"If I've read the posts right. The court has already made the decision. the supreme court has only ruled that you are allowed to make an appeal."

The Rayong court made the decision to lift the injunction against VT7 building above 14 mtrs. It has still to make a ruling on whether the building is legal at 27 floors. As I understand it, until Rayong makes its decision, the SC doesn't accept an appeal on whether or not the bldg can be built. They can only overturn the Rayong judgement to lift the injunction.

Rayong's loooong deliberation on the case, while VT7 builds to the sky, is - I think - the Thai face-saving tactic which was expected by us all. Unless the SC restores the injunction, I don't think there is any way to bring pressure to bear on the Rayong court to finalize its decision. If the SC restores & Rayong decides in favor of VT7, there is a possibility of appeal to the SC, and they can sit on it for quite some time. That being the case, we can take it as read that the building will be completed and inhabited.

I find it sad. The fight started for a private sea view & then everyone got aware of the ramifications of letting VT7 have its way. The mega corporations have the connections, the money, share the culture and know the ropes. A concrete seacoast and even more polluted environment loom in the future.

"They pave paradise & put up a parking lot..."

Dear ripley

No! Now the Admin Supreme Court is considering our original appeal of February 2008.

To read the whole appeal.

Go to http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

Below you can find the ending of our appeal. The Admin Supreme Court can revoke the building permit!

“Appeal the order of lifting the injunction

or the protection procedure” - Date 15 February 16, 2008.

“As for the interpretation of intentions and purposes of the Ministerial Regulation of Issue 9, referring to the annexed remark of the aforesaid regulations which stated that, the area of construction control is expanded. The expansion of construction control stipulated in Section 3. ( 1 )- ( 8 ), the construction control area must be measured from the MSL, onto the land for 200 meters, then it will fulfill the intentions of the regulations of Issue 9 and it will be operative , and truly useful for public. This case has no cause to lift the aforesaid injunction / or revoke the protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment. With all reasons, facts and matters of laws submitting in this appeal to the Supreme Court of Administration, 9 Litigants need to request for court’s kind consideration to give court’s decision or order to revoke the order of lifting injunction or protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment of the Administrative Court of Rayong province, as requested by 9 Litigants and with the operative result further on.

Yours Faithfully,

Signed: The Approved Person of 9 Litigants

Mr. Surachai Trong-ngam”

[Sir Burr]

......and if they revoke the builing permit, you'll end up with a bigger eye-sore than if VT7 was completed (for many years).

A Pyrrhic victory indeed.

[prospero]

<br />......and if they revoke the builing permit, you'll end up with a bigger eye-sore than if VT7 was completed (for many years).<br />A Pyrrhic victory indeed.<br />

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

It could be turned into a tourist attraction! A monument to stupidity and greed.

[CRUNCHER]

<br />......and if they revoke the builing permit, you'll end up with a bigger eye-sore than if VT7 was completed (for many years).<br />A Pyrrhic victory indeed.<br />

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

It could be turned into a tourist attraction! A monument to stupidity and greed.

How about an up market shopping mall. Jomtien is overdue for one.