Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[ThaiBob]

I have today done the full 360 deg around vt7 as was earlier suggested.

I actually went out into the sea ( something the surveyor didn't do ,when ordered by Rayong to perform the 200m measurement ).

It looks horrific.

It is totally ugly, an eyesore, and imbalanced with JCC hanging out on one side there.

I walked further down Dongtan beach to the cable car, where the skyscrapers are well back from the beach.

You get this feeling of open-ness and expansive space as you walk the prom there.

Then you hit vt3 , Atlantic tower hotel , and the blue building skyscraper all in a row, close to the beach.

I lost that sense of space and open-ness, as the tall skyscrapers loomed in on me, and imposed themselves as the masters in that particular area; you have to walk it to appeciate it.

Can you imagine this being repeated all down the coast?

What would you say was best for the Thai's and their kids?

The courts have to rule for their own on this.

Well, using your own words, "You are entitled to your opinion but I wasn't asking you."

[ThaiBob]

.......

1.When vt first went to the SC the judges ammended the Rayong injunction ,and allowed the building to continue to 14m, per its reading of issue 9, not the 27 storeys vt7 were after.

Vt7 did not get the injunction lifted, but the court said vt7 could lawfully continue to 14m.

One from one for stop vt.

2.The Rayong court attempted to deny stopvt his right to appeal their ruling, and close the case.

The SC had the chance to close the case by denying stopvt the appeal.

They didn't, they allowed the appeal, he won.

Two from two for stopvt at the SC.

And the first ruling from Rayong, when things were on an even keel, prior to the subsequent antics there ,which everybody knows about.

In my book 3 good decisions to 1 (questionable) to stop vt.

......

1. You have obviously fallen for the stopVT7 propaganda. After this SC ruling stopVT7 was interviewed and quoted by the press. He pronounced that this was a great victory because the SC upheld Issue 9. Of course we know that was far from the truth. You and he can spin it anyway you want but the fact is he went into Court with construction stopped and left the Courtroom with the construction resuming. In fact, I am told that privately the litigants were very upset at the Court ruling.

2. He won the right to an Appeal not the Appeal (still pending). After the January 16th Rayong Court ruling, the SC could have and should stopped the construction again if the stopVT7 case was as strong as he claims. They didn't and that should tell you something.

"In my book 3 good decisions to 1 (questionable) to stop vt." In my book, one very questionable statement.

[Gary A]

I would guess that only the lawyers are getting satisfaction from this disaster. The question is how many years will the lawyers be paid for dragging this out. I look for this thing to drag along for years and the project will be finished and occupied while the lawyers are still making money. Will this thread live through next several years?

[Binkie]

I think that this thread will live long after VT777 has been built 198m from msl wherever that is.

I even think it will survive a nuclear holocaust.

[Wiresok]

I have today done the full 360 deg around vt7 as was earlier suggested.

I actually went out into the sea ( something the surveyor didn't do ,when ordered by Rayong to perform the 200m measurement ).

It looks horrific.

It is totally ugly, an eyesore, and imbalanced with JCC hanging out on one side there.

I walked further down Dongtan beach to the cable car, where the skyscrapers are well back from the beach.

You get this feeling of open-ness and expansive space as you walk the prom there.

Then you hit vt3 , Atlantic tower hotel , and the blue building skyscraper all in a row, close to the beach.

I lost that sense of space and open-ness, as the tall skyscrapers loomed in on me, and imposed themselves as the masters in that particular area; you have to walk it to appeciate it.

Can you imagine this being repeated all down the coast?

What would you say was best for the Thai's and their kids?

The courts have to rule for their own on this.

Well, using your own words, "You are entitled to your opinion but I wasn't asking you."

As usual, you have missed the point.

I was asking the earlier respondant to my post,but as a seeker of truth and justice I am always a listener to other peolple's opinion, however misguided.

Go on then Thaibob, tell us what you think is best for the Thai's and their kids, not just for now, but for generations to come.

Lets see if you can take your investors hat off, and see the big picture.

Really interested to know.

[Wiresok]

.......

1.When vt first went to the SC the judges ammended the Rayong injunction ,and allowed the building to continue to 14m, per its reading of issue 9, not the 27 storeys vt7 were after.

Vt7 did not get the injunction lifted, but the court said vt7 could lawfully continue to 14m.

One from one for stop vt.

2.The Rayong court attempted to deny stopvt his right to appeal their ruling, and close the case.

The SC had the chance to close the case by denying stopvt the appeal.

They didn't, they allowed the appeal, he won.

Two from two for stopvt at the SC.

And the first ruling from Rayong, when things were on an even keel, prior to the subsequent antics there ,which everybody knows about.

In my book 3 good decisions to 1 (questionable) to stop vt.

......

1. You have obviously fallen for the stopVT7 propaganda. After this SC ruling stopVT7 was interviewed and quoted by the press. He pronounced that this was a great victory because the SC upheld Issue 9. Of course we know that was far from the truth. You and he can spin it anyway you want but the fact is he went into Court with construction stopped and left the Courtroom with the construction resuming. In fact, I am told that privately the litigants were very upset at the Court ruling.

2. He won the right to an Appeal not the Appeal (still pending). After the January 16th Rayong Court ruling, the SC could have and should stopped the construction again if the stopVT7 case was as strong as he claims. They didn't and that should tell you something.

"In my book 3 good decisions to 1 (questionable) to stop vt." In my book, one very questionable statement.

1.I have informed you on several occasions now,as a seeker of truth and justice I examine the evidence put in front of me and form my own conclusion,and thus have propaganda filters.

I have to say they are active more often than not when I read your posts.

The SC had no choice other than to allow construction to resume and continue to 14m.

The SC read issue 9 and concluded that construction up to 14m was lawfull, as stated in issue 9.

They read issue 9 and decided that construction up to 14m was lawfull.

They did not allow construction to 27 storeys, which vt7 petitioned.

If you see spin there you need to change your optician.

Subsequently, due to the antics in Rayong and the expert witness arrow pointing down, Rayong allowed construction to 27 storeys.

I am intrigued by this arrow pointing down on the map.

The expert witness went to great lengths to explain it.

Myself, two such arrows indicate a distance between them and nothing more.

What did he have to say about the associated arrow pointing up on the map?

Surely it must carry just as much significance, its equal and opposite is it not?

Questions are going to be asked, have you any answers?.

2.Yes, as jpm76 states, the courts are following due process.

The SC have already stated that construction up to 14m is lawfull.

The SC have not changed their position on that.

Rayong gave a counter judgement, which vt7 followed,.

What I find extaordinary is that Rayong tried to close the case by denying stopvt his appeal.

It took the SC to correct this.

Surely Rayong would be in command of such a basic legal right?

Why did Rayong not allow this basic legal right to appeal?.

Have vt7 been denied any appeals up to now?

Denying such a basic, fundemental right raises a lot of questions about Rayong, and questions will be asked.

Now it is your vision that is misted by the rain,

On two occasions now the SC have given judgements in accordance with the law as they read it.

Both went against vt7.

On three occasions now Rayong have given judgements, one went for stopvt, two for vt7 (one questionable in view of the evidence, one plain and totally wrong, and subsequently corrected by the SC).

Does this not disturb you?

[Wiresok]

Here are only 3 of the areas in which VT7 could be proved to have acted unethically if not illegally.

One is the Environmental Impact report you mentioned. Some schmoozing is strongly indicated betwx. the JCC paid environmental advisor and VT7, causing the JCC advisor to recommend VT7 to the EIA and then disappear. Also, excellent reason to believe a vital connection betwx. the Consulting company which presented its case to the EIA and a person actually serving on the EIA. One could call this "roomer"! but if you look at the report that EIA submitted to city hall okaying VT7 you'll find it almost identical to VT's own presentation.

Second - JCC had a guaranteed walkway to the beach. It was informed by the land office that this walkway didn't in fact belong to them (as the JCC developer had claimed) BUT had been in use so long that it was now officially "community access". VT7 has erased the walkway - taken it over.

Third - VT7 (according to their EIA report) was to have used drills before inserting its pilings. The drills they had on site weren 't long enough, so - contrary to regulation and their own agreement - they pounded the piles into the additional required 2 mtrs. This shook JCC bldg. to its foundations and it is still not known how much damage was done.

As I have never seen the report, this is strictly rumour but worth noting: Good sources have stated that the VT7 site isn't stabile enough to hold a high-rise - in fact is the reason the JCC developer gave up its plans for a lowrise. I might have dismissed this out of hand, but all of us noted the amount of water (sea water?) seepage pooling around the construction site & some photographed it. The only way to find out for sure about this one would be to access the files of the engineering company who worked for JCC developers.

Finally, the "immunity" you mention is actually in the form of an insurance policy, paid for from condo funds, to protect all committee members from the consequences of lawsuits. If you think about it, it's a good idea to have something like this. I mean, why would anyone volunteer to be on a committee if it placed them in a position to be sued frivolously by some irate owner with a grudge? It's happened in JCC. Still, the policy almost certainly covers stopvt7.

Good wishes to you, as well.

Ripley

I dont see any reason why this important ,relevant information cannot be discussed.

It helps paint the full picture.

[ThaiBob]

I have today done the full 360 deg around vt7 as was earlier suggested.

I actually went out into the sea ( something the surveyor didn't do ,when ordered by Rayong to perform the 200m measurement ).

It looks horrific.

It is totally ugly, an eyesore, and imbalanced with JCC hanging out on one side there.

I walked further down Dongtan beach to the cable car, where the skyscrapers are well back from the beach.

You get this feeling of open-ness and expansive space as you walk the prom there.

Then you hit vt3 , Atlantic tower hotel , and the blue building skyscraper all in a row, close to the beach.

I lost that sense of space and open-ness, as the tall skyscrapers loomed in on me, and imposed themselves as the masters in that particular area; you have to walk it to appeciate it.

Can you imagine this being repeated all down the coast?

What would you say was best for the Thai's and their kids?

The courts have to rule for their own on this.

Well, using your own words, "You are entitled to your opinion but I wasn't asking you."

.....

Go on then Thaibob, tell us what you think is best for the Thai's and their kids, not just for now, but for generations to come.

Lets see if you can take your investors hat off, and see the big picture.

Really interested to know.

Simple. I say let the Thai people decide and not a group of farangs with an agenda of protecting their sea view.

And where was your outrage when VT5 was being built since you are "seeker of truth and justice" Mr. VT5 owner?

Edited September 22, 2008 by ThaiBob

[ThaiBob]

.......

1.When vt first went to the SC the judges ammended the Rayong injunction ,and allowed the building to continue to 14m, per its reading of issue 9, not the 27 storeys vt7 were after.

Vt7 did not get the injunction lifted, but the court said vt7 could lawfully continue to 14m.

One from one for stop vt.

2.The Rayong court attempted to deny stopvt his right to appeal their ruling, and close the case.

The SC had the chance to close the case by denying stopvt the appeal.

They didn't, they allowed the appeal, he won.

Two from two for stopvt at the SC.

And the first ruling from Rayong, when things were on an even keel, prior to the subsequent antics there ,which everybody knows about.

In my book 3 good decisions to 1 (questionable) to stop vt.

......

1. You have obviously fallen for the stopVT7 propaganda. After this SC ruling stopVT7 was interviewed and quoted by the press. He pronounced that this was a great victory because the SC upheld Issue 9. Of course we know that was far from the truth. You and he can spin it anyway you want but the fact is he went into Court with construction stopped and left the Courtroom with the construction resuming. In fact, I am told that privately the litigants were very upset at the Court ruling.

2. He won the right to an Appeal not the Appeal (still pending). After the January 16th Rayong Court ruling, the SC could have and should stopped the construction again if the stopVT7 case was as strong as he claims. They didn't and that should tell you something.

"In my book 3 good decisions to 1 (questionable) to stop vt." In my book, one very questionable statement.

1.I have informed you on several occasions now,as a seeker of truth and justice I examine the evidence put in front of me and form my own conclusion,and thus have propaganda filters.

I have to say they are active more often than not when I read your posts.

The SC had no choice other than to allow construction to resume and continue to 14m.

The SC read issue 9 and concluded that construction up to 14m was lawfull, as stated in issue 9.

They read issue 9 and decided that construction up to 14m was lawfull.

They did not allow construction to 27 storeys, which vt7 petitioned.

If you see spin there you need to change your optician.

Subsequently, due to the antics in Rayong and the expert witness arrow pointing down, Rayong allowed construction to 27 storeys.

I am intrigued by this arrow pointing down on the map.

The expert witness went to great lengths to explain it.

Myself, two such arrows indicate a distance between them and nothing more.

What did he have to say about the associated arrow pointing up on the map?

Surely it must carry just as much significance, its equal and opposite is it not?

Questions are going to be asked, have you any answers?.

2.Yes, as jpm76 states, the courts are following due process.

The SC have already stated that construction up to 14m is lawfull.

The SC have not changed their position on that.

Rayong gave a counter judgement, which vt7 followed,.

What I find extaordinary is that Rayong tried to close the case by denying stopvt his appeal.

It took the SC to correct this.

Surely Rayong would be in command of such a basic legal right?

Why did Rayong not allow this basic legal right to appeal?.

Have vt7 been denied any appeals up to now?

Denying such a basic, fundemental right raises a lot of questions about Rayong, and questions will be asked.

Now it is your vision that is misted by the rain,

On two occasions now the SC have given judgements in accordance with the law as they read it.

Both went against vt7.

On three occasions now Rayong have given judgements, one went for stopvt, two for vt7 (one questionable in view of the evidence, one plain and totally wrong, and subsequently corrected by the SC).

Does this not disturb you?

We go around in circles on this point (1). You can try to spin it any way you want but the SC could have easily ruled against the City and VT7 in April 2007 and denied the appeal. They could have said let's wait for the Rayong Court to make a ruling, but didn't. Instead they allowed construction to resume (with restrictions) until the Rayong Court ruled. Hardly a "win" for stopVT7.

You really have a problem understanding the annexed Issue 9 map. The arrows show the distance of the "Construction Control Boundary" from the MSL. The CCB is 100 meters seaward from the MSL. The Bangkok Dept. of Engineering, expert witness, Rayong Court and Supreme Court all understand this. Again, the Supreme Court wrote on June 19, 2008, "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 (VT7) is not in the boundary of 200 meters." That's pretty clear to me.

My understanding of the Rayong Court's denial of the litigants Appeal is simple. The RC ruled the litigants can't make an Appeal before the Court had even given its final ruling. However, the SC granted the Appeal citing clauses and articles of Thai law, and offering no opinions on the other legal issues of this case. I agree with the litigant’s right to an Appeal now and in the future.

[OhdLover]

Tell me then what I am mixing up .

Be specific please, not generics and generalities

Why do you not like the posts copied 63547 times, are they to close to the truth for you?

Ask yourself why there are 100 pages, isn't it obvious.

The people who will decide are still studying because the Bangkok Supreme Court allowed the corrective appeal, and are giving due process , isnt it obvious.

Give me some examples of opinions and facts I mix up, don't just say it,over to you then.

If you have problems with this thread then I'm sure you also have problems with issue 9.

I have just walked down jomtien beach road toward the police box.

VT 7 completely closes off the previously open vista.

It presents you bang in the face with a closed end.

It looks awfull, the great wall of Jomtien.

<snip.

Do you seriously want me to repeat everything that has been written by for example ThaiBob or jpm76?

If I am talking to somebody, I can understand they ask me to repeat something, because they couldn't hear it or missed something.

If it's written down, it's quite funny to ask "sorry... what did you write?".

I refuse to contribute to this topic by the copy-pasting that I attacked before.

So if you want to know about the mixing up: re-read. It's not too difficult.

I think the real facts fit 1 A4-sheet

Edited September 23, 2008 by OhdLover

[ripley]

We all know there are no winners here, but at last count in the courts I have:

JCC (stopvt7) had case accepted by R.A.C. - ----------------------------------Win for JCC

R.A.C. ruled that vt7 must cease construction beyond 14mtrs. hgt. ----------Win for JCC

R.A.C. ruled that injunction was lifted until their judgement is made ----------------------------Win for vt7

R.A.C. ruled that JCC couldn't appeal lifting of injunction----------------------------------------- Win for vt7

S.A.C. ruled that JCC could in fact appeal and they would hear the appeal - Win for JCC

[ripley]

=Win for vt7

S.A.C. ruled that JCC could in fact appeal and they would hear the appeal - Win for JCC

Edited September 23, 2008 by ripley

[ThaiBob]

We all know there are no winners here, but at last count in the courts I have:

JCC (stopvt7) had case accepted by R.A.C. - ----------------------------------Win for JCC

R.A.C. ruled that vt7 must cease construction beyond 14mtrs. hgt. ----------Win for JCC

R.A.C. ruled that injunction was lifted until their judgement is made ----------------------------Win for vt7

R.A.C. ruled that JCC couldn't appeal lifting of injunction----------------------------------------- Win for vt7

S.A.C. ruled that JCC could in fact appeal and they would hear the appeal - Win for JCC

Well this isn't a tennis match but I see a few minor faults:

R.A.C. JCC (stopvt7) had case accepted and all construcion stopped by R.A.C. - ----------------------------------Win for JCC

R.A.C. [Not R.A.C but S.A.C.]ruled that vt7 must cease construction beyond 14mtrs. hgt. ----------Win for JCC

R.A.C. ruled that injunction was lifted until their judgement is made ----------------------------Win for vt7

R.A.C. ruled that JCC couldn't appeal lifting of injunction----------------------------------------- Win for vt7

S.A.C. ruled that JCC could in fact appeal and they would hear the appeal - Win for JCC

Of course, I take issue with your second point but I suppose it all depends if you view the glass half full or half empty. VT7 went to Court wanting the injunction repealed. Of course, they new that chance was slim since there was no new evidence at that time. But they got what they wanted, the opportunity for construction to resume. The 14 meter restriction was inconsequential because they believed their case was strong and the survey would prove them right. That is why the litigants were upset (privately) at the ruling despite what they said publicly.

[Wiresok]

I have today done the full 360 deg around vt7 as was earlier suggested.

I actually went out into the sea ( something the surveyor didn't do ,when ordered by Rayong to perform the 200m measurement ).

It looks horrific.

It is totally ugly, an eyesore, and imbalanced with JCC hanging out on one side there.

I walked further down Dongtan beach to the cable car, where the skyscrapers are well back from the beach.

You get this feeling of open-ness and expansive space as you walk the prom there.

Then you hit vt3 , Atlantic tower hotel , and the blue building skyscraper all in a row, close to the beach.

I lost that sense of space and open-ness, as the tall skyscrapers loomed in on me, and imposed themselves as the masters in that particular area; you have to walk it to appeciate it.

Can you imagine this being repeated all down the coast?

What would you say was best for the Thai's and their kids?

The courts have to rule for their own on this.

Well, using your own words, "You are entitled to your opinion but I wasn't asking you."

.....

Go on then Thaibob, tell us what you think is best for the Thai's and their kids, not just for now, but for generations to come.

Lets see if you can take your investors hat off, and see the big picture.

Really interested to know.

Simple. I say let the Thai people decide and not a group of farangs with an agenda of protecting their sea view.

And where was your outrage when VT5 was being built since you are "seeker of truth and justice" Mr. VT5 owner?

You are sitting on the fence.

Whats your opinion of what is best for the Thai's and their kids.

I am certainly not outraged, just give my opinion.

You really ought to read and take in the posts,.

I have stated on several occasions I think vt5 illegal for the same reasons as vt7.

[Wiresok]

.......

1.When vt first went to the SC the judges ammended the Rayong injunction ,and allowed the building to continue to 14m, per its reading of issue 9, not the 27 storeys vt7 were after.

Vt7 did not get the injunction lifted, but the court said vt7 could lawfully continue to 14m.

One from one for stop vt.

2.The Rayong court attempted to deny stopvt his right to appeal their ruling, and close the case.

The SC had the chance to close the case by denying stopvt the appeal.

They didn't, they allowed the appeal, he won.

Two from two for stopvt at the SC.

And the first ruling from Rayong, when things were on an even keel, prior to the subsequent antics there ,which everybody knows about.

In my book 3 good decisions to 1 (questionable) to stop vt.

......

1. You have obviously fallen for the stopVT7 propaganda. After this SC ruling stopVT7 was interviewed and quoted by the press. He pronounced that this was a great victory because the SC upheld Issue 9. Of course we know that was far from the truth. You and he can spin it anyway you want but the fact is he went into Court with construction stopped and left the Courtroom with the construction resuming. In fact, I am told that privately the litigants were very upset at the Court ruling.

2. He won the right to an Appeal not the Appeal (still pending). After the January 16th Rayong Court ruling, the SC could have and should stopped the construction again if the stopVT7 case was as strong as he claims. They didn't and that should tell you something.

"In my book 3 good decisions to 1 (questionable) to stop vt." In my book, one very questionable statement.

1.I have informed you on several occasions now,as a seeker of truth and justice I examine the evidence put in front of me and form my own conclusion,and thus have propaganda filters.

I have to say they are active more often than not when I read your posts.

The SC had no choice other than to allow construction to resume and continue to 14m.

The SC read issue 9 and concluded that construction up to 14m was lawfull, as stated in issue 9.

They read issue 9 and decided that construction up to 14m was lawfull.

They did not allow construction to 27 storeys, which vt7 petitioned.

If you see spin there you need to change your optician.

Subsequently, due to the antics in Rayong and the expert witness arrow pointing down, Rayong allowed construction to 27 storeys.

I am intrigued by this arrow pointing down on the map.

The expert witness went to great lengths to explain it.

Myself, two such arrows indicate a distance between them and nothing more.

What did he have to say about the associated arrow pointing up on the map?

Surely it must carry just as much significance, its equal and opposite is it not?

Questions are going to be asked, have you any answers?.

2.Yes, as jpm76 states, the courts are following due process.

The SC have already stated that construction up to 14m is lawfull.

The SC have not changed their position on that.

Rayong gave a counter judgement, which vt7 followed,.

What I find extaordinary is that Rayong tried to close the case by denying stopvt his appeal.

It took the SC to correct this.

Surely Rayong would be in command of such a basic legal right?

Why did Rayong not allow this basic legal right to appeal?.

Have vt7 been denied any appeals up to now?

Denying such a basic, fundemental right raises a lot of questions about Rayong, and questions will be asked.

Now it is your vision that is misted by the rain,

On two occasions now the SC have given judgements in accordance with the law as they read it.

Both went against vt7.

On three occasions now Rayong have given judgements, one went for stopvt, two for vt7 (one questionable in view of the evidence, one plain and totally wrong, and subsequently corrected by the SC).

Does this not disturb you?

We go around in circles on this point (1). You can try to spin it any way you want but the SC could have easily ruled against the City and VT7 in April 2007 and denied the appeal. They could have said let's wait for the Rayong Court to make a ruling, but didn't. Instead they allowed construction to resume (with restrictions) until the Rayong Court ruled. Hardly a "win" for stopVT7.

You really have a problem understanding the annexed Issue 9 map. The arrows show the distance of the "Construction Control Boundary" from the MSL. The CCB is 100 meters seaward from the MSL. The Bangkok Dept. of Engineering, expert witness, Rayong Court and Supreme Court all understand this. Again, the Supreme Court wrote on June 19, 2008, "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 (VT7) is not in the boundary of 200 meters." That's pretty clear to me.

My understanding of the Rayong Court's denial of the litigants Appeal is simple. The RC ruled the litigants can't make an Appeal before the Court had even given its final ruling. However, the SC granted the Appeal citing clauses and articles of Thai law, and offering no opinions on the other legal issues of this case. I agree with the litigant's right to an Appeal now and in the future.

1.Seekers of truth and justice go in straight lines to achieve.

People with agendas go around in circles.

If the SAC held your view above, then why has it not thrown out the case by now on the two occasions it has had the chance.

Why ... because it takes an opposite view to you, why... because it has read issue 9.

It knows issue 9 was not written to allow skyscrapers closer to the sea than issue 8, all down the coast.

How is that any benefit to the Thai's and their kids?

As a seeker of truth and justice, your held theory does not lace stopvt7's boots.

And Rayong, how can this now go back to Rayong for fairness after its wrong decision to deny the stopvt7 appeal?

[Wiresok]

Tell me then what I am mixing up .

Be specific please, not generics and generalities

Why do you not like the posts copied 63547 times, are they to close to the truth for you?

Ask yourself why there are 100 pages, isn't it obvious.

The people who will decide are still studying because the Bangkok Supreme Court allowed the corrective appeal, and are giving due process , isnt it obvious.

Give me some examples of opinions and facts I mix up, don't just say it,over to you then.

If you have problems with this thread then I'm sure you also have problems with issue 9.

I have just walked down jomtien beach road toward the police box.

VT 7 completely closes off the previously open vista.

It presents you bang in the face with a closed end.

It looks awfull, the great wall of Jomtien.

<snip.

Do you seriously want me to repeat everything that has been written by for example ThaiBob or jpm76?

If I am talking to somebody, I can understand they ask me to repeat something, because they couldn't hear it or missed something.

If it's written down, it's quite funny to ask "sorry... what did you write?".

I refuse to contribute to this topic by the copy-pasting that I attacked before.

So if you want to know about the mixing up: re-read. It's not too difficult.

I think the real facts fit 1 A4-sheet

Well, silence is deafening.

I'll settle for four or five examples from you then please.

Should only take half an A4 sheet.

Now you really are mixing me up !

[Wiresok]

We all know there are no winners here, but at last count in the courts I have:

JCC (stopvt7) had case accepted by R.A.C. - ----------------------------------Win for JCC

R.A.C. ruled that vt7 must cease construction beyond 14mtrs. hgt. ----------Win for JCC

R.A.C. ruled that injunction was lifted until their judgement is made ----------------------------Win for vt7

R.A.C. ruled that JCC couldn't appeal lifting of injunction----------------------------------------- Win for vt7

S.A.C. ruled that JCC could in fact appeal and they would hear the appeal - Win for JCC

Well this isn't a tennis match but I see a few minor faults:

R.A.C. JCC (stopvt7) had case accepted and all construcion stopped by R.A.C. - ----------------------------------Win for JCC

R.A.C. [Not R.A.C but S.A.C.]ruled that vt7 must cease construction beyond 14mtrs. hgt. ----------Win for JCC

R.A.C. ruled that injunction was lifted until their judgement is made ----------------------------Win for vt7

R.A.C. ruled that JCC couldn't appeal lifting of injunction----------------------------------------- Win for vt7

S.A.C. ruled that JCC could in fact appeal and they would hear the appeal - Win for JCC

Of course, I take issue with your second point but I suppose it all depends if you view the glass half full or half empty. VT7 went to Court wanting the injunction repealed. Of course, they new that chance was slim since there was no new evidence at that time. But they got what they wanted, the opportunity for construction to resume. The 14 meter restriction was inconsequential because they believed their case was strong and the survey would prove them right. That is why the litigants were upset (privately) at the ruling despite what they said publicly.

vt7 did not get what they wanted from the SAC.

They got what the SAC said was lawful under issue 9, ie 14m.

[ThaiBob]

.....

You are sitting on the fence.

Whats your opinion of what is best for the Thai's and their kids.

.....

It's not a question of sitting on the fence. Nobody gives a dam about my opinion (or yours) on what's best for Thai's and their kids. The topic is "Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View".

[ripley]

Almost this entire page is quote/cut & paste. Put 'em in bold blue w/ emoticons and it's like the bad old days. We're not going for a record of the most pages on a thread here. Are we?

ThaiBob: "It's not a question of sitting on the fence. Nobody gives a dam about my opinion (or yours) on what's best for Thai's and their kids. The topic is "Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View".'"

I agree nobody but us gives a toss about our opinions here, but what is best for Thais & kids is very relevant to this case and will - or should -be the first consideration of the courts. As I've said before, this thread long ago went beyond disgruntled view-losers. We talk about the meaning/clarification of existing laws (NOT changing them, incidentally); the environment at Pattaya's beach; the impact on Thailand's seacoasts; the adherence to and enforcement of existing building and safety codes; hidden agendas; condo law & abuses; and, of course, English grammar & spelling. It's acceptable because all of these & more (except perhaps the last mentioned) are affected by the JCC vs VT7 lawsuit.

Edited September 25, 2008 by ripley

[ThaiBob]

....

1.Seekers of truth and justice go in straight lines to achieve.

People with agendas go around in circles.

If the SAC held your view above, then why has it not thrown out the case by now on the two occasions it has had the chance.

Why ... because it takes an opposite view to you, why... because it has read issue 9.

It knows issue 9 was not written to allow skyscrapers closer to the sea than issue 8, all down the coast.

How is that any benefit to the Thai's and their kids?

As a seeker of truth and justice, your held theory does not lace stopvt7's boots.

And Rayong, how can this now go back to Rayong for fairness after its wrong decision to deny the stopvt7 appeal?

You are no more a seeker of truth than stopVT7 was a Defender of Thai beaches. It is he who has the agenda.

I suggest you read the latest SC decision again because you are confused.

Isn't it ironic that we heard such praises of honesty and fairness by the complaintants and their supporters for the Rayong Court in April 2007 when that Court issued the temporary construction injunction, and now the contempt shown for this same Court, governmenental agencies and their witnesses. What was the Rayong Court's crime? They gathered evidence, ordered surveys but made a ruling that did not favor the complaintants.

[ThaiBob]

....

vt7 did not get what they wanted from the SAC.

They got what the SAC said was lawful under issue 9, ie 14m.

The point is they gained "time" and the ability to start construction again until the temporary SC order was removed.

Edited September 25, 2008 by ThaiBob

[OhdLover]

Well... finally stopvt7 got wise and decided to stop posting here, as he states on his blog.

The real reason will be he knows his chances of winning the case are gone, the reason he gives is that he is being censored on this site.

I think that the moderators here have been very patient with both sides of the VT7-posters,

and like to believe stopvt7 is running with his tail between his legs.

[Tammi]

Well... finally stopvt7 got wise and decided to stop posting here, as he states on his blog.

The real reason will be he knows his chances of winning the case are gone, the reason he gives is that he is being censored on this site.

I think that the moderators here have been very patient with both sides of the VT7-posters,

and like to believe stopvt7 is running with his tail between his legs.

Don't be silly. VT7 has been advised many times by sensible people to stop posting here.

[plasticpig]

If this is so. then i will say this.

My hat is off to you for trying Stopv7

From Plasticpig.

Edited September 26, 2008 by plasticpig

[SmartFarang]

I'm inclined to agree with you, Binkie. A quarter of a century of life in Asia & I haven't fully learned that line "East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet." Every 6 yrs or so I find myself saying "If we could only get things clear" then everything would be fine & we'd all know where we stand. What I keep forgetting is that Asia is not keen on getting things "too" clear. They're more comfortable with wiggle-room in which to do business, etc. And, to be honest, that probably produces the "decadence" you mention which is a sense of freedom that makes us fall in love with life here, and an escape from the stifling over-monitoring which one gets in the West.

But, like I said, I keep forgetting.

Very well said Sir. I also have been in Asia a long time, and I also find myself - mistakenly - coming to conclusions about developments in Asia with reference to my upbringing in the West. But at least I know to take a step back, reconsider and realise my mistake.

I am aware that in many Asian countries - especially those that were part of the British Empire, but also in those that were not; Westerners are perceived to be arrogant and Western practices, beliefs, and values are not usually admired or emulated. If fact, the reason for a lot of the weak regulation in Asian countries is that Asians refuse to follow Western practices - not because they believe that they are wrong - but just because they are Western practices and Asians want to do it their own way.

Westerners that come to Asia and plead for justice based on their understanding of "rule of law" are only going to receive a sore throat and an expensive lesson.

[jpm76]

I have today done the full 360 deg around vt7 as was earlier suggested.

I actually went out into the sea ( something the surveyor didn't do ,when ordered by Rayong to perform the 200m measurement ).

It looks horrific.

It is totally ugly, an eyesore, and imbalanced with JCC hanging out on one side there.

I walked further down Dongtan beach to the cable car, where the skyscrapers are well back from the beach.

You get this feeling of open-ness and expansive space as you walk the prom there.

Then you hit vt3 , Atlantic tower hotel , and the blue building skyscraper all in a row, close to the beach.

I lost that sense of space and open-ness, as the tall skyscrapers loomed in on me, and imposed themselves as the masters in that particular area; you have to walk it to appeciate it.

Can you imagine this being repeated all down the coast?

What would you say was best for the Thai's and their kids?

The courts have to rule for their own on this.

I honestly believe that the economic advantages far outweigh any "eyesore factor" or environmental factor that you contend for - I have seen poverty the world throughout, and know it to be a serious killer, and yet, whilst I am a surfer, and have worked with groups such as Surfrider, I do not believe that buildings 100m from the ocean are a major threat to the environment. For me, I honestly believe that developments such as VT7 are in the GREATER interest of Thailand, and the potential to stop VT7 here will have major ramifications for the Pattaya-Jomtien area.

I am fortunate to have ThaiBob and OHD here who post in the same sense and understanding as how I find my posts - we are not the propagandaists - we are the ones that have been fighting the propaganda, and if you look back, you will see that we were quite minor posters here until StopVT7 went way overboard with the propaganda. Furthermore, we were the first to content that we should not have an opinion because that was to be left to the experts, and we simply backed the professional opinions of ALL the experts vs the opinion of StopVT7 - I personally felt that they could not have ALL gotten it so wrong. It was only in the aftermath when all the evidence came out quite clearly that we have taken a position that StopVT7 CANNOT be unequivocably right, but these attacks on StopVT7's arguments are more on the due process of law (and actually the understanding of it, which I do not think that you have quite grasped, else you would not be posting against things that we have clearly tried to correct you on a number of occasions now), and the way that he has twisted all the facts. I cannot make an opinion on an engineering matter when I have not that expertise, but I would expect that the courts would be able to tell if the engineers were pulling the wool over their eyes, particularly when you have lawyers on the other side who I am sure have also consulted engineers opinions that favour their side of the case (else what are they able to argue in a technical matter on Issue 9). Both sides will be heard in court, and the judges of the land will decide when that time comes, but we mostly note that that time will still be far off, as we understand where we are in the due process of law ie early days.

I respect that you are a seeker of truth and justice, but would you recognise it if you see it? Since the litigants case is against VT7, and not vica versa, then I would think that StopVT7 has to bring something to the courts that brings uncontradictory evidence that VT7 is illegal - so far, there has been too much support for VT7 from engineers and courts to suggest that this is a clear cut and dry case as StopVT7 has alleged from the beginning (he was the one firing all the guns for how "he was all so roght, and everyone else wrong - only a short memory would deny this). And so, this is the truth. And I believe that you will eventually have your justice also when you take into account that VT7 has patiently followed the due processes of laws and obtained all the necessary approvals, to which they should be commended for, not reprimanded for, and VT7 is allowed to continue. Given the wide opinions on the interpretation of Issue 9, how can one be found a criminal for taking an interpretation of it, and conducting their business in a legal manner upon it - that would be incorrect, and so, I fail to see how VT7 could or should be singled out here for wrong-doing. Moreso, if the court does rule an interpretation of Issue 9, I would hope that the decision, and any corresponding law to be enacted, would come into effect AFTER VT7 court case ie it need not be retrospective (else all these buildings will be found illegal and all need to be torn down - how else could a retrospective decision take place?) The only reasonable solution to me then is to make any decision on this case take effect after the court case is resolved, and we all know that VT7 will be built by then. I truly believe that it is only FAIR that it should be built, else you single them out for following practices that are common to the region - UNFAIR when you considr how much they respected the laws and processes.

I think that, despite his manner of going about things, the loss of StopVT7 to this posting board prevents the wider debate (unless we keep track of StopVT7's blogspot) , but since this debate got so personal so long ago, and wavered off the tracks, especially if one wants reliable facts to base decisions upon, maybe it is best. A final word then...VT7 will be built, and whatever the opinions of some, it is reflective of truth and justice - maybe next time, the law will be written more clearly, and will not be points of contention, but then, this has always been the job of the courts ie to elucidate the meanings of not always so clear written words. The Thai courts will have done their job here, and done it well.

[lalana]

I have today done the full 360 deg around vt7 as was earlier suggested.

I actually went out into the sea ( something the surveyor didn't do ,when ordered by Rayong to perform the 200m measurement ).

It looks horrific.

It is totally ugly, an eyesore, and imbalanced with JCC hanging out on one side there.

I walked further down Dongtan beach to the cable car, where the skyscrapers are well back from the beach.

You get this feeling of open-ness and expansive space as you walk the prom there.

Then you hit vt3 , Atlantic tower hotel , and the blue building skyscraper all in a row, close to the beach.

I lost that sense of space and open-ness, as the tall skyscrapers loomed in on me, and imposed themselves as the masters in that particular area; you have to walk it to appeciate it.

Can you imagine this being repeated all down the coast?

What would you say was best for the Thai's and their kids?

The courts have to rule for their own on this.

I honestly believe that the economic advantages far outweigh any "eyesore factor" or environmental factor that you contend for - I have seen poverty the world throughout, and know it to be a serious killer, and yet, whilst I am a surfer, and have worked with groups such as Surfrider, I do not believe that buildings 100m from the ocean are a major threat to the environment. For me, I honestly believe that developments such as VT7 are in the GREATER interest of Thailand, and the potential to stop VT7 here will have major ramifications for the Pattaya-Jomtien area.

I am fortunate to have ThaiBob and OHD here who post in the same sense and understanding as how I find my posts - we are not the propagandaists - we are the ones that have been fighting the propaganda, and if you look back, you will see that we were quite minor posters here until StopVT7 went way overboard with the propaganda. Furthermore, we were the first to content that we should not have an opinion because that was to be left to the experts, and we simply backed the professional opinions of ALL the experts vs the opinion of StopVT7 - I personally felt that they could not have ALL gotten it so wrong. It was only in the aftermath when all the evidence came out quite clearly that we have taken a position that StopVT7 CANNOT be unequivocably right, but these attacks on StopVT7's arguments are more on the due process of law (and actually the understanding of it, which I do not think that you have quite grasped, else you would not be posting against things that we have clearly tried to correct you on a number of occasions now), and the way that he has twisted all the facts. I cannot make an opinion on an engineering matter when I have not that expertise, but I would expect that the courts would be able to tell if the engineers were pulling the wool over their eyes, particularly when you have lawyers on the other side who I am sure have also consulted engineers opinions that favour their side of the case (else what are they able to argue in a technical matter on Issue 9). Both sides will be heard in court, and the judges of the land will decide when that time comes, but we mostly note that that time will still be far off, as we understand where we are in the due process of law ie early days.

I respect that you are a seeker of truth and justice, but would you recognise it if you see it? Since the litigants case is against VT7, and not vica versa, then I would think that StopVT7 has to bring something to the courts that brings uncontradictory evidence that VT7 is illegal - so far, there has been too much support for VT7 from engineers and courts to suggest that this is a clear cut and dry case as StopVT7 has alleged from the beginning (he was the one firing all the guns for how "he was all so roght, and everyone else wrong - only a short memory would deny this). And so, this is the truth. And I believe that you will eventually have your justice also when you take into account that VT7 has patiently followed the due processes of laws and obtained all the necessary approvals, to which they should be commended for, not reprimanded for, and VT7 is allowed to continue. Given the wide opinions on the interpretation of Issue 9, how can one be found a criminal for taking an interpretation of it, and conducting their business in a legal manner upon it - that would be incorrect, and so, I fail to see how VT7 could or should be singled out here for wrong-doing. Moreso, if the court does rule an interpretation of Issue 9, I would hope that the decision, and any corresponding law to be enacted, would come into effect AFTER VT7 court case ie it need not be retrospective (else all these buildings will be found illegal and all need to be torn down - how else could a retrospective decision take place?) The only reasonable solution to me then is to make any decision on this case take effect after the court case is resolved, and we all know that VT7 will be built by then. I truly believe that it is only FAIR that it should be built, else you single them out for following practices that are common to the region - UNFAIR when you considr how much they respected the laws and processes.

I think that, despite his manner of going about things, the loss of StopVT7 to this posting board prevents the wider debate (unless we keep track of StopVT7's blogspot) , but since this debate got so personal so long ago, and wavered off the tracks, especially if one wants reliable facts to base decisions upon, maybe it is best. A final word then...VT7 will be built, and whatever the opinions of some, it is reflective of truth and justice - maybe next time, the law will be written more clearly, and will not be points of contention, but then, this has always been the job of the courts ie to elucidate the meanings of not always so clear written words. The Thai courts will have done their job here, and done it well.

The above 15 words which I've enlarged,pretty much sums up more that 2,200 posts .Economic advantages,and the whole range

of people that this applies to(both legimate and brown-paper-enveloper's)...let's face it,were always,almost certainly going to win

the day.I'm not expressing the view of the side of the fence I'm on over the whole issue...just that surely,surely,surely this was always

the way the cookie was going to crumble on this issue.Pity we had to go to such painful detail on it all though.As a foreigner

(or indeed a Thai).....buying a condo with a vacant piece of prime beachfront land in front of it is potential trouble personified.

Come on folks,this is Thailand...money&contacts win the day on an overwhelming number of occasions...and movers+shakers don't

give a toss what the legal/environmental co-existants are .

I can emphatise with any owners of the "Twin Towers"(losing your sea-view would piss me off too)....BUT the above 15 wise words

really summarise more than 2,200 posts,and make all the incredibly detailed discussion this thread has stirred-up, a bit of an

irrelevancy,I take no pleasure in saying.

Edited September 30, 2008 by lalana

[ripley]

Reply to above comment about vacant land in front of investment property as regards this case has already been made:

[/b]"Another thing I'm tired of hearing is why didn't JCC buy the land? Well, for one reason the owners had no reason to believe it was for sale. It was a part of the package they purchased which included a lowrise hotel & sports facility. Suddenly there were lots of "suits" prowling the building. Owners scampered about for information and were fed rumours and given red herrings to chase. Before they knew what was up & were still asking "Hey! Where's our lowrise hotel, sports facility and private beach access? The company that built JCC had sold the land along with some of the owners' mapped out common property! And what if they had known the land was for sale? They, along with most other condos around here - have trouble getting a quorum for an AGM and collecting basic maintenance from absentee owners, how were they supposed to come up with a few hundred million baht? (And will any part of this serve as a lesson to us all about what can happen if you don't pay close attention? I think not, judging from the underwhelming input to the Thai condo law thread"

Why the current repetitive spate of copy-paste? Trying to close the thread down from sheer boredom?

Edited October 2, 2008 by ripley

[prospero]

<br />Reply to above comment about vacant land in front of investment property as regards this case has already been made:<br /><br /><b>[/b]"Another thing I'm tired of hearing is why didn't JCC buy the land? Well, for one reason the owners had no reason to believe it was for sale. It was a part of the package they purchased which included a lowrise hotel & sports facility. Suddenly there were lots of "suits" prowling the building. Owners scampered about for information and were fed rumours and given red herrings to chase. Before they knew what was up & were still asking "Hey! Where's our lowrise hotel, sports facility and private beach access? The company that built JCC had sold the land along with some of the owners' mapped out common property! And what if they had known the land was for sale? They, along with most other condos around here - have trouble getting a quorum for an AGM and collecting basic maintenance from absentee owners, how were they supposed to come up with a few hundred million baht? (And will any part of this serve as a lesson to us all about what can happen if you don't pay close attention? I think not, judging from the underwhelming input to the Thai condo law thread"</b><br /><br />Why the current repetitive spate of copy-paste? Trying to close the thread down from sheer boredom?<br />

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

I say, CLOSE IT DOWN! This thread has become utterly, mind-numbingly boring! It's Groundhog Day meets Forrest Gump!

Many of us have stopped contributing in the hopes that others would follow, but there are those who derive what little self-worth they have by endlessly reciting doggerel about arcane arrows on maps, and piddling minutiae in transcripts from Thai court documents they can't read in the original.

These people are addicts. The only hope for them is to remove the source of their addiction. Enough already!

[ripley]

"Many of us have stopped contributing in the hopes that others would follow, but there are those who derive what little self-worth they have by endlessly reciting doggerel about arcane arrows on maps, and piddling minutiae in transcripts from Thai court documents they can't read in the original."

These people are addicts. The only hope for them is to remove the source of their addiction. Enough already!

Oh c'mon!! What happened? Refraining from contribution didn't shut down the thread. Obvious cut-paste tactics didn't work either. So you've decided to come on stronger and call everyone sickos? Just stop it. Why can't you leave this site alone & let the people who are interested enough to participate get on without enduring personal attacks and sabotage.