Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[Wiresok]

Wiresok,

I tried to answer your questions or "flaws" using arguments from stopVT7's own lawyers but you are unconvinced. That's Ok because nobody has to convince you but more importantly the stopVT7 arguments did not convince the Courts either. I see nothing in the stopVt7 case to overturn Issue 9 and the way it has been interpreted for about the last 30 years.

In an earlier post (#1226) you said you were a VT5 owner. Frankly, your position on VT7 seems a little "strange" considering there are some posters (Tammi) that advocate demolishing VT5 if stopVT7 wins his case. I personally feel the Avalon Resort and VT5 were nice additions to Dongtarn Beach and would not refer to your unit as you do as a "low cost rental".

Thaibob; I form my own opinions about vt7 and don't have a starting point or agenda.

Being a seeker of truth and justice I have reviewed the information put in front of me and reached my own conclusions, I also think vt5 is illegal for the same reasoning, but will cross that bridge if the time comes.

If I saw it the other way I would say so, but I don't.

[Tammi]

Wiresok,

I tried to answer your questions or "flaws" using arguments from stopVT7's own lawyers but you are unconvinced. That's Ok because nobody has to convince you but more importantly the stopVT7 arguments did not convince the Courts either. I see nothing in the stopVt7 case to overturn Issue 9 and the way it has been interpreted for about the last 30 years.

In an earlier post (#1226) you said you were a VT5 owner. Frankly, your position on VT7 seems a little "strange" considering there are some posters (Tammi) that advocate demolishing VT5 if stopVT7 wins his case. I personally feel the Avalon Resort and VT5 were nice additions to Dongtarn Beach and would not refer to your unit as you do as a "low cost rental".

--The Nation 2007-03-27

Haines alleged View Talay 7 was illegal because it is more than 14 metres in height and within 200 metres of the sea. Buildings of this height are prohibited within 200 metres of the shore by planning law, he said. Pattaya Mayor Niran Wattana-sartsathorn said the city correctly issued building permission. "I'm not worried that some foreigners are suing the city in the Administrative Court because we are just an agent to mediate this problem. "If the foreigners succeed it will be a precedent for others and maybe developers will think before getting into problems like this,"

I advocate that interested parties take VT5 to court now. And the ex-mayor's comments above seem to suggest that VT7 (and VT5) are outside the Law.

[Tammi]

You don't seem to "get it", ThaiBob. AsiaLawWorks, the attorney for the Stop VT7 group, submitted a brief to the Rayong court that agreed with the so-called "expert" witness hired by the defendants -- that is, City Hall and the View Talay developer. This was contrary to what they told their clients they would do.

Now, what would motivate a lawyer to betray the interests of his client? Let's see. . .

Perhaps Amnat and Markus deeply and sincerely believed that the "expert" witness was correct. Could that be it?

Or maybe Amnat and Markus want to see a beautiful building like View Talay 7 grace Dongtarn beach, their clients be damned. Could that be it?

Another possible conclusion is that they were "persuaded" -- either by carrot or stick -- to deceive their clients and throw the case to their opponents. This is only a possiblity, I grant, but, here in Thailand, it is, at the very least, conceivable. Khun Amnat's later election to the City Council is certainly an interesting coincidence, don't you agree?

Now . . . the Supreme Administrative Court was founded by the Monarch to counter corruption. That would include bribery, intimidation, and a host of other tactics used to get around the law. If, by some outside chance, it were to become obvious to the judges that some of those tactics were used to secure the building permit for VT7, then it would be incumbant upon the court to abrogate the permit and force the developer to obey the legal limits stated in Issue 9.

In case you missed it, ThaiBob, what I am saying is that the very argument you use, that AsiaLawWorks agreed with City Hall, is a sign that something is rotten. Let us hope that the stench makes its way to Bangkok.

I think that Markus didn't know what was going on.

[prospero]

<br />

You don't seem to "get it", ThaiBob. AsiaLawWorks, the attorney for the Stop VT7 group, submitted a brief to the Rayong court that agreed with the so-called "expert" witness hired by the defendants -- that is, City Hall and the View Talay developer. This was contrary to what they told their clients they would do.<br /><br />Now, what would motivate a lawyer to betray the interests of his client? Let's see. . . <br /><br />Perhaps Amnat and Markus deeply and sincerely believed that the "expert" witness was correct. Could that be it?<br /><br />Or maybe Amnat and Markus want to see a beautiful building like View Talay 7 grace Dongtarn beach, their clients be damned. Could that be it?<br /><br />Another possible conclusion is that they were "persuaded" -- either by carrot or stick -- to deceive their clients and throw the case to their opponents. This is only a possiblity, I grant, but, here in Thailand, it is, at the very least, conceivable. Khun Amnat's later election to the City Council is certainly an interesting coincidence, don't you agree?<br /><br />Now . . . the Supreme Administrative Court was founded by the Monarch to counter corruption. That would include bribery, intimidation, and a host of other tactics used to get around the law. If, by some outside chance, it were to become obvious to the judges that some of those tactics were used to secure the building permit for VT7, then it would be incumbant upon the court to abrogate the permit and force the developer to obey the legal limits stated in Issue 9. <br /><br />In case you missed it, ThaiBob, what I am saying is that the very argument you use, that AsiaLawWorks agreed with City Hall, is a sign that something is rotten. Let us hope that the stench makes its way to Bangkok.

<br /><br />I think that Markus didn't know what was going on.<br /><br />

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

AsiaLawWorks charged huge amounts of money for their services, claiming that they were better than other local lawyers and that they handle things professionally. They charged by the hour, which is unheard of in Pattaya. They ran up the meter every time they answered a phone call.

Markus was the shill for Amnat. If he didn't know what was going on, he is a fool. Time after time, Markus told the residents of both Jomtien Condotel and Jomtien Complex that they had a strong case, thereby raking in hundreds of thousands of baht.

If Markus really didn't know what was going on, he should say so and refund the money AsiaLawWorks took under false pretenses. He should then resign from the firm. I have far less respect for him than for Amnat. One is a knave, the other, a gull.

If he and his partner had done this in a western country, they would have been disbarred and open to a major lawsuit.

[stopvt7]

ThaiBob statement

"I agree with many of your comments and I have never condoned the actions of Asia Law Works. The litigants should have and did fire them. But, my comments were directed specifically to the stopVT7's "Explanations" (see stopVT7 blog ) filed with Court when they attempted to explain the CCL on the Issue 9 map. This was month's prior to Rayong Court ruling on Jan.. 16.

Dear ThaiBob

We filed a "Explanation" with the Rayong Admin Court when we attempted to explain the CCL on the Issue 9 map. We offer support information after the expert witness first appeared at court in Rayong. But Rayong refused us a hearing. And they never considered our filing when they wrote the January 16 court order lifting the injunction.

Rayong waited for the expert witness report before they held a hearing. This so-called expert witness's report convey a different meaning for Issue 9, with out evidence, then Supreme Administrative Court already understands. This so-called expert witness's report restated a claim the Supreme Administrative Court has already rejected from VT7 appeal filed on 8th May 2007. Which was post on Friday, June 22, 2007 at the Blog: http://openvt7.blogspot.com/

Read "T7 - Supreme Administrative Court Appeal" which the outcome of this appeal was the Supreme Administrative Court August 2007 "order".

The appeal stated: "Mr. Pongsakdi Piyakamolrat, Civil Engineer 7, recipient of approval from plaint receiver 1 testified that the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) and Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the Buildings Control Act 2547 which were still in use. In accordance with the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8, point 3 the stipulated 100 m. from area of Buildings Control as per the map attached to the Act B.E. 2499. Then there had been an alteration and amendment to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 where the distance had been increased to 200 m. from the Buildings Control area" (what? you measure from the "Construction Control Line" at MLS) "as per map attached to the Act B.E. 2521 which had been extended into the sea. Therefore, the 100 m. as per the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 and the distance of 200 m. as per the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 was the same point. In accordance with the Act year B.E. 2521 the Controlled Building area shall thus be extended 100 m. further from the shoreline at MSL, the medial sea level, was at the highest point of the sea at natural high tide, the building of the plaint receiver 2 was situated about 205 m. from the Controlled Building area as per the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9."

Feather on the appeal said:

"5) When the alignment of the building construction control is known, seafront side as in 4) and a measurement is taken from the alignment of the building construction control, seafront side on land for 200 m., where that point fell that area, all of it is the area that a building is higher than 14 m. will not be able to be built.

6) When the alignment of the seashore at mean sea level is known, has a distance from the alignment of building construction control, seafront side at 100 m., measured up on shore a further 100 m., where that fell the measured alignment shall be the point that a

7) high building is prohibited, which the result received from the procedure in accordance with this parenthesis shall be the same alignment as measured in accordance with 5) it's the same."

All these above arguments were reject by the Supreme Administrative Court and they ordered "The Supreme Court, therefore, gives an order to amend the order of the Administrative Court of First Instance. That the Defendant No. 2 shall cease the construction performed, under the Work Permit No. 162/2007 dated 28 November 2007, on the part exceeding 14 meter height." The Supreme Administrative Court August 2007 "order" make it clear they understood where to measure from and what direction to measure.

Inclusion City hall, VT7 and the so-called expert witness report brought nothing new to the Rayong Admin Court on January 15, 2008. But a old argument which had been rejected by the Supreme Administrative Court .

Do you understand why we feel confident about the upcoming Supreme Administrative Court decision?

Edited August 5, 2008 by stopvt7

[ThaiBob]

ThaiBob statement

"I agree with many of your comments and I have never condoned the actions of Asia Law Works. The litigants should have and did fire them. But, my comments were directed specifically to the stopVT7's "Explanations" (see stopVT7 blog ) filed with Court when they attempted to explain the CCL on the Issue 9 map. This was month's prior to Rayong Court ruling on Jan.. 16.

Dear ThaiBob

We filed a "Explanation" with the Rayong Admin Court when we attempted to explain the CCL on the Issue 9 map. We offer support information after the expert witness first appeared at court in Rayong. But Rayong refused us a hearing. And they never considered our filing when they wrote the January 16 court order lifting the injunction.

Rayong waited for the expert witness report before they held a hearing. This so-called expert witness's report convey a different meaning for Issue 9, with out evidence, then Supreme Administrative Court already understands. This so-called expert witness's report restated a claim the Supreme Administrative Court has already rejected from VT7 appeal filed on 8th May 2007. Which was post on Friday, June 22, 2007 at the Blog: http://openvt7.blogspot.com/

Read "T7 - Supreme Administrative Court Appeal" which the outcome of this appeal was the Supreme Administrative Court August 2007 "order".

The appeal stated: "Mr. Pongsakdi Piyakamolrat, Civil Engineer 7, recipient of approval from plaint receiver 1 testified that the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) and Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the Buildings Control Act 2547 which were still in use. In accordance with the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8, point 3 the stipulated 100 m. from area of Buildings Control as per the map attached to the Act B.E. 2499. Then there had been an alteration and amendment to the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 where the distance had been increased to 200 m. from the Buildings Control area" (what? you measure from the "Construction Control Line" at MLS) "as per map attached to the Act B.E. 2521 which had been extended into the sea. Therefore, the 100 m. as per the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 and the distance of 200 m. as per the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 was the same point. In accordance with the Act year B.E. 2521 the Controlled Building area shall thus be extended 100 m. further from the shoreline at MSL, the medial sea level, was at the highest point of the sea at natural high tide, the building of the plaint receiver 2 was situated about 205 m. from the Controlled Building area as per the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9."

Feather on the appeal said:

"5) When the alignment of the building construction control is known, seafront side as in 4) and a measurement is taken from the alignment of the building construction control, seafront side on land for 200 m., where that point fell that area, all of it is the area that a building is higher than 14 m. will not be able to be built.

6) When the alignment of the seashore at mean sea level is known, has a distance from the alignment of building construction control, seafront side at 100 m., measured up on shore a further 100 m., where that fell the measured alignment shall be the point that a

7) high building is prohibited, which the result received from the procedure in accordance with this parenthesis shall be the same alignment as measured in accordance with 5) it's the same."

All these above arguments were reject by the Supreme Administrative Court and they ordered "The Supreme Court, therefore, gives an order to amend the order of the Administrative Court of First Instance. That the Defendant No. 2 shall cease the construction performed, under the Work Permit No. 162/2007 dated 28 November 2007, on the part exceeding 14 meter height." The Supreme Administrative Court August 2007 "order" make it clear they understood where to measure from and what direction to measure.

Inclusion City hall, VT7 and the so-called expert witness report brought nothing new to the Rayong Admin Court on January 15, 2008. But a old argument which had been rejected by the Supreme Administrative Court .

Do you understand why we feel confident about the upcoming Supreme Administrative Court decision?

So your "Explanations" were filed and accepted by the Rayong Court but your September 2007 "Request for Hearing" ( http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/search?updated...p;max-results=7 ) prior to the Court ordered survey was rejected. I read that Request and understand why the Court had to reject it. In that request your lawyers asked the Court to modify the survey order and include a 200-meter measurement. But, there were conditions which the Court could not accept or appear not to be impartial. A 200-meter measurement was unnecessary as all that is important is how far the building is from the MSL. If it is less than 100 meters from MSL then it fails the test by everyone's standard; if it greater than 100 meters from MSL then it is legal or illegal depending on what marker the Court finally decides to use. So please, do not plead for sympathy that the Court was somehow against your case when they saw through your lawyer's clever legal tactic to accept your side of the argument. (Looks like AsiaLaw Works did lots of things right too!)

The rest of your post can be dismissed as another cut and paste exercise from your Appeal. You then try to convince people that the SC sees your side of the argument when in fact all their legal writings shows impartiality and they do not give clues or hints as to their thinking. Of course, you do not see that because you read with peripheral vision and disregard conditional words and "if" statements (as pointed out by others). This leads to your convoluted and illogical conclusions.

[Tammi]

As I've said before but will say again: There's really no need for you all, including StopVT7, to keep writing up your opinions. We have heard it all and it is with the Court and the lawyers. Justice will prevail. Relax.

[ripley]

Discovered interesting little exchange of info which might turn out to be practical resource on new condo law repercussions, etc.

I punched "Real Estate....blah" then the one about Condo Amendments 2008. Discussion about penalties now legal for those who withhold payments.

[stopvt7]

Dear ThaiBob

Your statement: "Of course, you do not see that because you read with peripheral vision and disregard conditional words and "if" statements (as pointed out by others). This leads to your convoluted and illogical conclusions"

I read with peripheral vision ? Sorry, I do not ignore statement from the Supreme Administrative Court or the Thai government like you. Example!

1) The Supreme Administrative Court August 2007 "order" which said: "Therefore, if the Construction Permit No. 162/2007 dated 28 November 2006 granted by the Defendant No. 1 (Pattaya City Hall) to the Defendant No. 2 (VT7) should appear to be unlawful against the Ministerial Regulation (Issue 9) thereto as being claimed by the ten plaintiffs, the Court of First Instance (Rayong Admin Court) 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 (VT7) Which this "order" was revised by Rayong Admin Court on January 18, 2008 !

Ops Rayong!! It is not nice to make SAC judges look bad..

2) The Meeting on the Drafting of Ministerial Regulation which said:"Further amendment was to delete the wording "towards the shore" since the wording was clearly understood,"

3) The wording of the regulation Issue 8 and 9 and the real difference:

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

4) a map which has a arrow pointing from the sea toward the land which was used By city hall lawyer to claim you measure into the sea before you measure onto the land. Sponge Bob can understand a arrow on a map is use to point! Nothing more!!

5) The facts that city hall, VT7 or the so-called expert witness report brought nothing new to the Rayong Admin Court on January 15, 2008. They only restated a old argument which had been rejected by the Supreme Administrative Court in their August 2007 decision!

Some think some how someone will buy the ASC? If they could? It would of been over last August (2007).

Thailand is a country of laws and honorable judges.

[fredKroket]

Wiresok,

I tried to answer your questions or "flaws" using arguments from stopVT7's own lawyers but you are unconvinced. That's Ok because nobody has to convince you but more importantly the stopVT7 arguments did not convince the Courts either. I see nothing in the stopVt7 case to overturn Issue 9 and the way it has been interpreted for about the last 30 years.

In an earlier post (#1226) you said you were a VT5 owner. Frankly, your position on VT7 seems a little "strange" considering there are some posters (Tammi) that advocate demolishing VT5 if stopVT7 wins his case. I personally feel the Avalon Resort and VT5 were nice additions to Dongtarn Beach and would not refer to your unit as you do as a "low cost rental".

--The Nation 2007-03-27

Haines alleged View Talay 7 was illegal because it is more than 14 metres in height and within 200 metres of the sea. Buildings of this height are prohibited within 200 metres of the shore by planning law, he said. Pattaya Mayor Niran Wattana-sartsathorn said the city correctly issued building permission. "I'm not worried that some foreigners are suing the city in the Administrative Court because we are just an agent to mediate this problem. "If the foreigners succeed it will be a precedent for others and maybe developers will think before getting into problems like this,"

I advocate that interested parties take VT5 to court now. And the ex-mayor's comments above seem to suggest that VT7 (and VT5) are outside the Law.

Both Tammi and stopVT7 don't seem to understand the word "If"

[stopvt7]

Dear fredKroket

The quote from the Nation newspaper: "I'm not worried that some foreigners are suing the city in the Administrative Court because we are just an agent to mediate this problem. "If the foreigners succeed it will be a precedent for others and maybe developers will think before getting into problems like this,"

Both Tammi and stopVT7 don't seem to understand the word "If" "

The word “if” despite the possibility or fact that thing will change! The Administrative Court is the court to make the change which will enforce Issue 9 regulation which will protect the Thai beach!

[fredKroket]

Dear fredKroket

The quote from the Nation newspaper: "I'm not worried that some foreigners are suing the city in the Administrative Court because we are just an agent to mediate this problem. "If the foreigners succeed it will be a precedent for others and maybe developers will think before getting into problems like this,"

Both Tammi and stopVT7 don't seem to understand the word "If" "

The word "if" despite the possibility or fact that thing will change! The Administrative Court is the court to make the change which will enforce Issue 9 regulation which will protect the Thai beach!

Counting Chickens before they hatch again. Do you mean the Administrative Court or the Supreme Administrative Court?

No mention of protecting the beaches in the newspaper article, not even in Richard's quote. I only see four mentions of blocking unobstructed sea views.

Edited August 6, 2008 by fredKroket

[stopvt7]

Dear fredKroket

Our appeal is currently at the Supreme Administrative Court? We wait to read their decision!.

Issue 9 is a regulation to protect the beaches!

Edited August 6, 2008 by stopvt7

[Tammi]

--The Nation 2007-03-27

Haines alleged View Talay 7 was illegal because it is more than 14 metres in height and within 200 metres of the sea. Buildings of this height are prohibited within 200 metres of the shore by planning law, he said. Pattaya Mayor Niran Wattana-sartsathorn said the city correctly issued building permission. "I'm not worried that some foreigners are suing the city in the Administrative Court because we are just an agent to mediate this problem. "If the foreigners succeed it will be a precedent for others and maybe developers will think before getting into problems like this,"

I advocate that interested parties take VT5 to court now. And the ex-mayor's comments above seem to suggest that VT7 (and VT5) are outside the Law.

Both Tammi and stopVT7 don't seem to understand the word "If"

You, FredKroket, are unable to analyse the ex-mayor's statement. He stated that maybe developers will think before asking for permits to build hi-rises within the 200 metre zone; that developers who do not read and understand the Law will have the problem of being taken to court; that we await the decision of the court to see IF the StopVT7 group will prevail or VT7.

Hopefully, this clears things up for you?

[ripley]

Tammi 2008-08-06 08:01

"As I've said before but will say again: There's really no need for you all, including StopVT7, to keep writing up your opinions. We have heard it all and it is with the Court and the lawyers. Justice will prevail. Relax."

Tammi 2008-08-06 13:05

"You, FredKroket, are unable to analyse the ex-mayor's statement. He stated that maybe developers will think before asking for permits ....etc. "

Welcome back to the cracker barrel, Tammi!

Edited August 6, 2008 by ripley

[ThaiBob]

Dear ThaiBob

Your statement: "Of course, you do not see that because you read with peripheral vision and disregard conditional words and "if" statements (as pointed out by others). This leads to your convoluted and illogical conclusions"

I read with peripheral vision ? Sorry, I do not ignore statement from the Supreme Administrative Court or the Thai government like you. Example!

1) The Supreme Administrative Court August 2007 "order" which said: "Therefore, if the Construction Permit No. 162/2007 dated 28 November 2006 granted by the Defendant No. 1 (Pattaya City Hall) to the Defendant No. 2 (VT7) should appear to be unlawful against the Ministerial Regulation (Issue 9) thereto as being claimed by the ten plaintiffs, the Court of First Instance (Rayong Admin Court) 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 (VT7) Which this "order" was revised by Rayong Admin Court on January 18, 2008 !

Ops Rayong!! It is not nice to make SAC judges look bad..

2) The Meeting on the Drafting of Ministerial Regulation which said:"Further amendment was to delete the wording "towards the shore" since the wording was clearly understood,"

3) The wording of the regulation Issue 8 and 9 and the real difference:

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

4) a map which has a arrow pointing from the sea toward the land which was used By city hall lawyer to claim you measure into the sea before you measure onto the land. Sponge Bob can understand a arrow on a map is use to point! Nothing more!!

5) The facts that city hall, VT7 or the so-called expert witness report brought nothing new to the Rayong Admin Court on January 15, 2008. They only restated a old argument which had been rejected by the Supreme Administrative Court in their August 2007 decision!

Some think some how someone will buy the ASC? If they could? It would of been over last August (2007).

Thailand is a country of laws and honorable judges.

After reading this I don't know whether to laugh or cry. In deference to Tammi I will keep this brief and try not to repeat myself in replying to the latest dribble and propaganda.

1. Your latest quote in a classic example of ignoring conditional phrases ("if") and conveniently omits the last sentence of the Order, "On a temporary basis until the Court has ordered otherwise." Well the Court has ruled otherwise which is summarized by the SC in their latest June 19 document. All this makes the ASC judges look bad? Right, only by your convoluted logic.

2. The point is? Everybody is in agreement here. The Court wants to measure toward the shore but from the restricted construction border line on the Issue 9 map.

3. Besides the increase from 100 meters to 200 meters the "real difference" understands that Issue 8 and Issue 9 maps are not same. I see you have also tried to change the meaning by inserting "(at MSL)"

4. Arrows are the not issue here but the “restricted construction border line” on the Issue 9 map (see attached). Your lawyers understood the significance better than you so perhaps they can it explain it to you (and try listening for a change).

5. Very funny, the SC has not rejected any argument, yours or the Court’s. I suggest you read the latest SC document again.

StopVT7 have you considered hiring a good public relations spokesperson? I think it would be very helpful.

[stopvt7]

Dear ThaiBob

Have you been drinking tonight?

I inserted (at MSL) because on the map at the "sea shore" or "seaside", depending on who did the translation, is found at "MSL". So you measure from the "Construction Control Line" at the "sea shore" or "seaside" which you fine on the map at "MSL". Please get some help reading the map.

All three points

1) "Construction Control Line"

2) at the "sea shore" or "seaside"

3) "MSL" you fine on the map.

are found at the same place on the map. Now measure 200 meters onto the land!

You do not measure from the "Borderline of the construction restricted area" which is one of the map borderlines. You find this "Borderline of the construction restricted area" 100 meters into the sea measuring from: 1) "Construction Control Line"

2) at the "sea shore" or "seaside"

3) "MSL"

Their no where in the written regulation, Issue 9, it tell you to measure into the sea.

Edited August 6, 2008 by stopvt7

[lalana]

Just out of curiosity's sake I was wondering if anyone has thought or looked into whether or not this thread

may be coming close to some kind of "World Record" (seriously).

A topic on a Web-Discussion-Board that has had over 128,000 views and pages upon pages of incredibly detailed

(+ possibly much-regurgitated and repetitive point making) is mind-boggling.

Before I'm shot down in flames,I know that it's the democratic perogative of people to keep on

posting and posting and posting and posting and posting and posting and posting and posting and posting

ad. infinitium about the issue..............................................

but I was thinking(again seriously) that more effort + written,detailed subject matter has gone into this Real Estate Saga

than has gone into previous NASA SPACE MISSION Programmes on the International Space Station.

[Tammi]

Lalana, it is not possible to stop some people from disagreeing with StopVT7 group and writing screeds on this topic to which StopVT7 and supporters feel they have to respond.

The anti-StopVT7 people are upset that they may lose out on investments they have made on VT7 and very much want to read the Law differently. They don't seem to realize that however many posts they make it is now up to the Supreme Admin Court to decide what the intent of the Law is and maybe that will happen soon or it may happen years from now when VT7 is occupied and the residents are wishing they hadn't bought into another cereal box (modified) in an increasingly built-up area - I walk the beach from time to time and see only very grumpy looking farangs and Thais and no beauty.

And, of course, there are all the problems of condo living in Thailand that, in spite of best efforts by a few people to get condo owners interested in Condo Law and Regulations, will continue until the building(s) get into a state that even the most disinterested cannot ignore. It could be that many VT investors will rent out their units and that brings me to another thought which is how much tax does the Thai government levy on income from rental properties?

Another worry to VT7 investors is the fall in property prices in the past few months. According to HSBC, last month UK house prices fell by 1.7%, more than double June's 0.8%, resulting in an annual decline of 8.1%, the largest since records began in 1991.

[stopvt7]

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

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

Dear lookat

I coming to understand what the statement means! Sponge Bob teaches right and wrong behavior, goodness and moral behavior.

I think Sponge Bob would care about Issue 9 and protecting the Jomtien beaches. He would care about breaking a law to destruct someone nice see view.

The anti-StopVT7 investment gang are about the evils money can bring? To them the money gods will arrange a win some how? They have no interest in protecting the local beach!

It's obliviously they did not watch the Howdy Doody show growing up!

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/H/htmlH/...howdydoodys.htm

Edited August 7, 2008 by stopvt7

[Sir Burr]

They have no interest in protecting the local beach!

And of course, you do. Nothing to do with your views at all, eh?

Hypocrite!

[ripley]

"It's obliviously they did not watch the Howdy Doody show growing up!"

stopvt7 - are you trying to beat your own record? This one almost knocks "attack the massager" out of the first place in our Goofy Grammar & Silly Spelling Book of Records! Great stuff!

Edited August 7, 2008 by ripley

[stopvt7]

"It's obliviously they did not watch the Howdy Doody show growing up!"

stopvt7 - are you trying to beat your own record? This one almost knocks "attack the massager" out of the first place in our Goofy Grammar & Silly Spelling Book of Records! Great stuff!

Sorry, it should be obvious! Enjoy the laugh!

That darn as you type spell correction.

[prospero]

<br />

They have no interest in protecting the local beach!

<br />And of course, you do. Nothing to do with your views at all, eh?<br />Hypocrite!<br /><br />

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

Why hypocrite?

It is possible for someone to pursue a private interest in a court of law, and achieve a result that is also in the common interest.

Obviously, Jomtien Complex co-owners wouldn't have filed the lawsuit if their views weren't at stake. Duhhhhh!

But if they win, the common good will benefit. A huge, ugly eyesore will be removed and other beachfront areas will be spared over development.

I hope you are capable of understanding that there is not a contradiction here.

[Sir Burr]

He's a hypocrite because he says it isn't about the views but about saving the beach, even though he posts a picture of his present view with a tower-crane in sight. Now why would he post that picture if it isn't about the views.

As for VT7 being dismantled, you're dreaming.

As I've said before, if stopVT7 wins the case, VT7 will promptly announce banckruptcy, then sue Pattaya City for wrongfully issuing a building permit. VT7 hasn't done anything wrong, the case is about Pattaya City issuing a building permit illegally.

Pattaya City doesn't have the money to pay for dismantling and hauling away VT7, or, reimbursing VT7 for the construction costs. The court case will be strung out for years and years as VT7 slowly rots away.

What stopVT7 can't seem to get through his thick head is that he is in a lose/lose situation. If he isn't already the most unpopular resident in his complex after forcing all members in the complex to pay for legal action that most of them didn't want, he surely will be after this court case is decided.

Either they lose the case and everyone will blame him for pi55ing their money away, or, they win and will be left with an ugly, bombed out shell of a condominium to look at for a decade.

Personally, I don't think he's thought this out properly. I have brought this up before, but, he doesn't want to comment on what will happen if he wins. Seems that stopVT7 thinks that VT7 will be torn down in a week and everything will be peachy.

Ain't gonna happen.

Edited August 7, 2008 by Sir Burr

[ZZZ]

He's a hypocrite because he says it isn't about the views but about saving the beach, even though he posts a picture of his present view with a tower-crane in sight. Now why would he post that picture if it isn't about the views.

As for VT7 being dismantled, you're dreaming.

As I've said before, if stopVT7 wins the case, VT7 will promptly announce banckruptcy, then sue Pattaya City for wrongfully issuing a building permit. VT7 hasn't done anything wrong, the case is about Pattaya City issuing a building permit illegally.

Pattaya City doesn't have the money to pay for dismantling and hauling away VT7, or, reimbursing VT7 for the construction costs. The court case will be strung out for years and years as VT7 slowly rots away.

What stopVT7 can't seem to get through his thick head is that he is in a lose/lose situation. If he isn't already the most unpopular resident in his complex after forcing all members in the complex to pay for legal action that most of them didn't want, he surely will be after this court case is decided.

Either they lose the case and everyone will blame him for pi55ing their money away, or, they win and will be left with an ugly, bombed out shell of a condominium to look at for a decade.

Personally, I don't think he's thought this out properly. I have brought this up before, but, he doesn't want to comment on what will happen if he wins. Seems that stopVT7 thinks that VT7 will be torn down in a week and everything will be peachy.

Ain't gonna happen.

To protect the view is just one part of protecting the beach. By limiting construction to 200m from the beach you open up that area and give everyone a much better view.

Has it been proven that VT7 has done nothing wrong?? City hall would most likely not issue a permit to VT7 unless there was some "incentive" in it

If VT7 has to be demolished it will be done pretty quick. VT7 will pay for it for several reasons; if there was an "incentive" involved neither VT7 or City Hall would like this to lead to further investigations, the demolishing costs would not be very high, they would need to clear the space for alternative construction (shopping mall??) to recoup investments.

I think is was proven earlier in the thread that a majority of owners was in favor to pay for the legal fees.

[Sir Burr]

Firstly, how could you prove there was an "incentive"?

Secondly, you seem to forget that VT7 would also be obliged to pay back all the people that bought. If you think that they will pay for dismantling and hauling away thousands of tons of concrete and make a huge loss, then I'm afraid you are dreaming, too.

They will go to court. As someone has already mentioned, the 101 businesses on walking street were supposed to have been demolished years ago. Have they been?

Without being able to prove that VT7 offered an incentive, you are left with the fact that VT7 did nothing illegal. the blame will lie at the door of Pattaya City. No way VT7 is going to just start dismantling without exhausting every legal method first, and that will take years.

Seems to be a lot of naivety and wishful thinking by stopVT7 supporters.

As for the majority of the complex owners supporting this legal action, please supply a link to the post, or, thread.

Edited August 7, 2008 by Sir Burr

[prospero]

<br />Firstly, how could you prove there was an "incentive"?<br />Secondly, you seem to forget that VT7 would also be obliged to pay back all the people that bought. If you think that they will pay for dismantling and hauling away thousands of tons of concrete and make a huge loss, then I'm afraid you are dreaming, too.<br />They will go to court. As someone has already mentioned, the 101 businesses on walking street were supposed to have been demolished years ago. Have they been?<br /><br />Without being able to prove that VT7 offered an incentive, you are left with the fact that VT7 did nothing illegal. the blame will lie at the door of Pattaya City. No way VT7 is going to just start dismantling without exhausting every legal method first, and that will take years.<br /><br />Seems to be a lot of naivety and wishful thinking by stopVT7 supporters.<br />

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

If VT7 announces bankruptcy, that would be the end of the entire Talay operation. VT7 investors would be screaming. Hundreds of lawsuits would be initiated.Nobody would ever buy a unit in any View Talay project. That would be the end.

The VT7 empty shell would stand as a permanent reminder of the company's humiliation and City Hall's mendacity.

All in all, not a bad set of consequences!

[Sir Burr]

Another very good reason why VT7 won't dismantle if they lose, is that if they can keep the case in court with appeals, they won't have to pay any buyers back.

Why would they tear the place down and take a definite loss when they can keep it in court with a slim chance of coming out with a profit?

As I said before, you stopVT7 supporters just haven't thought this thing out to a logical conclusion should you win (and I don't think you will).

[JaiDeeFarang]

<br />Firstly, how could you prove there was an "incentive"?<br />Secondly, you seem to forget that VT7 would also be obliged to pay back all the people that bought. If you think that they will pay for dismantling and hauling away thousands of tons of concrete and make a huge loss, then I'm afraid you are dreaming, too.<br />They will go to court. As someone has already mentioned, the 101 businesses on walking street were supposed to have been demolished years ago. Have they been?<br /><br />Without being able to prove that VT7 offered an incentive, you are left with the fact that VT7 did nothing illegal. the blame will lie at the door of Pattaya City. No way VT7 is going to just start dismantling without exhausting every legal method first, and that will take years.<br /><br />Seems to be a lot of naivety and wishful thinking by stopVT7 supporters.<br />

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

If VT7 announces bankruptcy, that would be the end of the entire Talay operation. VT7 investors would be screaming. Hundreds of lawsuits would be initiated.Nobody would ever buy a unit in any View Talay project. That would be the end.

The VT7 empty shell would stand as a permanent reminder of the company's humiliation and City Hall's mendacity.

All in all, not a bad set of consequences!

This isn't going to happen because VT7 will go all the way, but if it was left a bare empty shell I'm sure it would attract the finest squatters, thieves and drug dealers Pattaya has to offer, which would do wonders for property prices in that location! An eye sore and blot on the landscape for year to come, just like Jomtien Complex.

Edited August 7, 2008 by JaiDeeFarang