Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[Thaifan2]

I was on Dongtan beach last Sunday and it struck me looking up at the Jomtien Complex ,that nobody has lost their sea view .

[johng]

I was on Dongtan beach last Sunday and it struck me looking up at the Jomtien Complex ,that nobody has lost their sea view .

Your're joking ..right ????

[sotsira]

I was on Dongtan beach last Sunday and it struck me looking up at the Jomtien Complex ,that nobody has lost their sea view .

Your're joking ..right ????

Most of the south tower does actually still have sea view looking towards Jomtien beach, but nearly all of the north tower has lost their sea view entirely.

[prospero]

I was on Dongtan beach last Sunday and it struck me looking up at the Jomtien Complex ,that nobody has lost their sea view .

Your're joking ..right ????

Most of the south tower does actually still have sea view looking towards Jomtien beach, but nearly all of the north tower has lost their sea view entirely.

Even worse when Views Talay 5A and 5B are built, creating Jomtien's biggest future slum.

[sotsira]

Even worse when Views Talay 5A and 5B are built, creating Jomtien's biggest future slum.

I think your jumping the gun a little prospero, regarding VT5 A&B being built, it could well be true but i keep hearing conflicting stories about this ever happening.

My personal opinion is that it would be a complete economic disaster on the developers Viewtalay, as they are already struggling to sell the remaining 40-50% of the units in 5C&D especially on the Jomtien side due to the speculation of 5A&B and also the blocked views that VT7 has now emerged.

So if you were the developers would you spend all that money building 5A&B knowing that there won't be hardly any units with any decent views apart from the front corners, who in their right minds would invest 2M bt per unit to look straight at another balcony a few metres away.

Are there that many stupid farlangs out there? or would that be wishful thinking on Viewtalay's behalf.

[IamAgel]

Even worse when Views Talay 5A and 5B are built, creating Jomtien's biggest future slum.

I think your jumping the gun a little prospero, regarding VT5 A&B being built, it could well be true but i keep hearing conflicting stories about this ever happening.

My personal opinion is that it would be a complete economic disaster on the developers Viewtalay, as they are already struggling to sell the remaining 40-50% of the units in 5C&D especially on the Jomtien side due to the speculation of 5A&B and also the blocked views that VT7 has now emerged.

So if you were the developers would you spend all that money building 5A&B knowing that there won't be hardly any units with any decent views apart from the front corners, who in their right minds would invest 2M bt per unit to look straight at another balcony a few metres away.

Are there that many stupid farlangs out there? or would that be wishful thinking on Viewtalay's behalf.

There are plenty of stupid farangs and more arriving day by day and falling in love with their new "friends"

A View Talay love nest is just about within their budgets even in these hard times. There is also the monthly payment plan offered by View Talay where gullable punters will pay up even though they know that there is a chance there "investment" could literaly crumble before their teary eyes on the whim of a court judgement

I wouldn't call it "Wishful Thinking" - more like "Wishful Marketing"

[Guderian]

I just had a quick check on the blog, and stopvt7 has posted the details of the submissions made to the court. All well and good, but when you look at the comments made so far, they include multiple death threats against Richard Haines. I'm shocked, to be honest, that's totally uncalled for. If VT7 investors are so sure that they are in the right, why resort to such crude, childish threats? Haines should hand the evidence over to the police and let them find the idiots making death threats.

[Barack]

I just had a quick check on the blog, and stopvt7 has posted the details of the submissions made to the court. All well and good, but when you look at the comments made so far, they include multiple death threats against Richard Haines. I'm shocked, to be honest, that's totally uncalled for. If VT7 investors are so sure that they are in the right, why resort to such crude, childish threats? Haines should hand the evidence over to the police and let them find the idiots making death threats.

I just read that blog and I find it sick. I also read this record long thread. I would not take any of those threats from "anonymous" posters seriously. Could he have made some of those posts himself? He certainly appears to like the "limelight". After reading this thread, one concludes his lift obviously does not go to the top floor.

[Guderian]

I just had a quick check on the blog, and stopvt7 has posted the details of the submissions made to the court. All well and good, but when you look at the comments made so far, they include multiple death threats against Richard Haines. I'm shocked, to be honest, that's totally uncalled for. If VT7 investors are so sure that they are in the right, why resort to such crude, childish threats? Haines should hand the evidence over to the police and let them find the idiots making death threats.

I just read that blog and I find it sick. I also read this record long thread. I would not take any of those threats from "anonymous" posters seriously. Could he have made some of those posts himself? He certainly appears to like the "limelight". After reading this thread, one concludes his lift obviously does not go to the top floor.

I've been told that the reason some of his posts seem a bit whacko is that he's dyslexic. They didn't realise this when he was appointed to run the stopvt7 campaign (no idea if he knew it himself).

I think the point is that it's difficult to figure out who 'Anonymous' posting the death threats is, unless you have the full IP log. However, while morally deranged cowards hide behind their 'Anonymous' badges, pretty much everyone knows who stopvt7 is, and certainly where he lives, so the poor guy is very exposed if one of these nutters is for real.

[ripley]

Assuming Rayong ruled against JCC (No hullabaloo on stopvt7 site), anyone know if there will be appeal? Weird rumours...

[kwonitoy]

6) By Summary, the Judicial who states the case sees that this case should be dismissed.

Mr. Sujin Juthathipatai

- Signed -

- Judicial who states the Case

Judge of the Rayong Provincial Administrative Court

Posted on StopVT7's website Apr 12

[Guderian]

Assuming Rayong ruled against JCC (No hullabaloo on stopvt7 site), anyone know if there will be appeal? Weird rumours...

I thought that both sides had already said that, no matter what the ruling, the loser will appeal.

[ThaiBob]

Assuming Rayong ruled against JCC (No hullabaloo on stopvt7 site), anyone know if there will be appeal? Weird rumours...

I thought that both sides had already said that, no matter what the ruling, the loser will appeal.

The latest news is somewhat anti-climatic but confirms what realtors and View Talay told me. StopVT7 and his supporters have implied that there could be more litigation but we'll have to wait and see. The City and View Talay have never said anything about more litigation, in fact they don't post here and any "news" or "facts" we get is just stopVT7 propaganda. The Court ruling was pretty straight forward. StopVT7 must have some basis for an appeal. One doesn't appeal just because they are not happy with the last ruling. Also, reading the Court decision, the stopVT7 "paid" witness under cross-examination admitted:

"...by Issue 9 is fixed to measure at the MSL only ( Documents No: 65 / 1 – 65 / 2 ) and from Witness’ Testimony including the opposite party’s Testimony on inquiry can summarize that the measurement to find the distance from the CCB (Construction Control Boundary) must be measured from the MSL by measuring outward into the sea for 100 meters. And when measure from the Coast Line at MSL inward onto the land for 100 meters, then it will be the area within the distance of 200 meters measuring from the CCB which prohibits buildings taller than 14 meters from road surfaces.

This is been the City’s interpretation of Issue 9 from the beginning.

Any future questions about litigation might be, "Will there be counter lawsuits by VT7, the ex-Mayor, or his former lawyer?" StopVT7 thinks he is immune from counter-suits but he has been wrong SO many times.

[coldfeet]

The Supreme Administrative Court appeal of Rayong Court Decision of 31 March 2009

is well written.

Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) even fixes clearer to measure from the Coastline at MSL and even expands the Construction Control Area outward into the sea as well for another 100 meters from Coastline at MSL which originally, the Construction Control Area did not cover areas in the sea, therefore any constructions which applied for a license after December 31, 2521 must have followed Clause 3 which amended by the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) by the measurement must be made inward onto the land for 200 meters from CCL / or from Coastline at MSL inward onto the land for 100 meters. It will gain the same space of the Construction Prohibited Area on land as same as each other, both in Clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (B.E. 2519 ) and Clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521), thereby the starting point for measurement is at the Mean Sea Level”.

Page 27/

Details as shown in the Attachment No. 6: the letter of the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning No: Mor. Tor. 0710 / 3362, Dated: April 30, 2551, To Juristic Person manager of Jomthien Complex Condotel.

Which the opinions given by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning

shown in both letters as mentioned above show that the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning did not analyze both aforementioned Ministerial Regulations in every detail carefully and it was the interpretation without knowledgeable standard whatsoever because by considering both of letters from the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning which analyzed the interpretation of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (B.E. 2519 ) and Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) in both letters, they then show some contrary statements to each other. The letter dated on June 19, 2550 to the Director-General of the Rayong Administrative Court, Clause 2 of Page 8 written that,

“ The distance of 100 meters by Clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (B.E. 2519 ) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 and The distance of 200 meters by Clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) promulgated to be in accordance with the Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 are not the same line because the Coastline by the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (B.E. 2519 ) does not fix at MSL but by the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) fixes at MSL only.

But the letter of April 30, 2551, sent to Juristic Person manager of Jomthien Complex Condotel ( The Condotel which the 8 Plaintiffs live in ) written with the essence summarized that,

“…. therefore any constructions which applied for a license after December

31, 2521 must have followed Clause 3 which amended by the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) by the measurement must be made inward onto the land for 200 meters from CCL / or from Coastline at MSL inward onto the land for 100 meters. It will gain the same space of the Construction Prohibited Area on land as same as each other, both in Clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (B.E. 2519 )

Page 28/

and Clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521), thereby the starting point for measurement is at the Mean Sea Level”.

From the interpretation which stated that the Starting point of measurement to find the Construction Control Line which is the Prior matter of this case which stipulated in Clause 3 of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (B.E. 2519 ) and the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) are not the same distance shown in the Letter dated on June 19, 2550 to the Director-General of the Rayong Administrative Court, and then later it just explained to Juristic Person of the 8 Plaintiffs that it is the same point, shown in the letter of April 30, 2551 as explained to the court. This shows the interpretation which is absolutely different from both letters. It is clearly shown that the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning did not use Knowledgeable Standard in the interpretation of law including did not study the intention of issuing both Regulations whatsoever, for whatever reasons, the 8 Plaintiffs however are not aware of. But the interpretation of the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning on both Regulations effect living conditions of the Residents of Jomthien Complex Condotel which including the 8 Plaintiffs and it also effect the Economy of country and the look of Thailand in foreigners’ eye as will be clarified to the court in the later statement of this Appeal.

Therefore the Decision given by the Rayong Administrative Court by using the fact given by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning which stated that the Measurement to find the distance from Construction Control Line must starting from the Coastline at MSL first to find Construction Control Line by measuring from Coastline at MSL outward into the sea for 100 meters then it will be the Construction Control Line as shown in the Annexed Map of aforementioned Royal Decree. Then measuring from the Construction Control Line inward onto the land for 200 meters, then it will be the area within the distance of 200 meters measuring from the Construction Control Line….” however, the 8 Plaintiffs can not be in agreement with the aforementioned Decision because it was the interpretation and enforcing of law by taking reasons from one side only which was the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning and

Page 29/

did not take the reason submitted by the 8 Plaintiffs which have brought up the point concerning the Intention of issuing the law which is the Main matter of Interpretation of law when there are some unclear laws or stipulations or laws which having any stipulation which is in contrary with the “Note” that is attached with that law. In other meaning is the Intention of issuing the law. Therefore when the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning is still unable to interpret clearly that the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (B.E. 2519 ) and the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) fix the starting point to measure the Construction Control Line to be the same or different line herein which as shown in both Letters sent by the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning which consist of statements, opinions which are in contrary with itself completely until it is hard to believe the Standard that the Department of Civil Engineer and City Planning used to interpret the law. So it is considered that the interpretation of the starting point to measure the Construction Control Line of both Regulations is still unclear which may lead to miss-enforcing the law from its Intention. Therefore it is necessity to bring up the Intentions, Principles and Reasons of law to interpret in order for the law to be enforced correctly and fairly.

Therefore the 8 Plaintiffs would like to stated to the Supreme Administrative Court that when the intention of both Regulations intend to take control certain types of construction especially those which being built on land along the beaches, and do not intend to take control down in the sea because the Types of construction under control as shown in Clause 3 (1) – (8) of the Ministerial Regulations Issue 8 (B.E. 2519 ) and the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) as mentioned, it is seen that they are the types of construction which by their conditions and operation purposes, they are needed to be built on land, absolutely not in the sea which the 8 Plaintiffs already submitted the details of this point in Clause 2.2. Apart from that, if the interpretation is made following the Decision of the Rayong Administrative Court as mentioned, it will allow 2nd Plaint to be able to build its construction which is taller than 14 meters closer to the beach which is in contrary with the Intention of Issuing both Regulations as mentioned as stated by the 8 Plaintiffs already in Clause 2.3.

Go read the appeal at stopvt7.blogstop

[wpcoe]

The Supreme Administrative Court appeal of Rayong Court Decision of 31 March 2009 is well written.

It may be "well written," but can you summarize in plain English, in one sentence or less, what it means?

Suggestions: either (a) "View Talay 7 is legal because it is 100m from the required measuring marker," or ( "View Talay 7 is illegal because it is not 200m from the required measuring point?"

[ThaiBob]

For those interested persons, here are a few pics of the VT7 construction area:

[ripley]

Any idea why the nasty green cover is on the JCC side? You'd think, if it's for protection from the elements, it would face the sea.

[ThaiBob]

My guess it is not protection from the elements but to contain construction dust and debris on the east side. The JCC pool is nearby. VT7 casts an afternoon shadow and for the first time I can see a large number of people actually using that pool.

[coldfeet]

My guess it is not protection from the elements but to contain construction dust and debris on the east side. The JCC pool is nearby. VT7 casts an afternoon shadow and for the first time I can see a large number of people actually using that pool.

Would someone from the VT7 choir explain to us why Rayong Court ignored, then disregarded of the drafting minutes?

Read the "Meeting on the Drafting of Ministerial Regulation No. 8", which said. "There have been several amendments made during the Meeting ……….. The meeting held later on further amended "setting of 100 meters from the construction control line referred to the map annexed."…………………………

This was later amended to read "The area of 100 meters measured from the construction control line according to the map annexed, from the sea towards the shore shall not be permitted to construct the following types of buildings"

(8) Building of 14 meters above the road surface.

Further amendment was to delete the wording "towards the shore" since the wording was clearly understood, then the following wording was used instead "to fix the 100 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map at the sea shore that building of the following types are not permitted for construction"……………………

The amendments were consented by the meeting because the meeting wanted to protect the beach by controlling the construction, which may impact the natural look of sea beach area. "

Points regarding "Meeting on the Drafting" the Rayong Court ignored, overlooked or the disregarded. Why?

1. "Meeting on the Drafting of Ministerial Regulation No. 8" letter informs us that it established a "construction control line" that is only measured 100 meters from the edge of the sea only onto the land.

2. The Issue 8 map shows you that the "construction control line" is at the edge of the sea. But the edge of the sea is a moving point because of tidal cycles. It is later defined as MSL in the update of Issue 9.

3. Issue 9 was update to increase the "construction restricted area" by establishing a new "borderline" and not to move the "construction control line" which had already been identified at the edge of the sea. This was made clear in the "Meeting on the Drafting of Ministerial Regulation No. 8."

4. Issue 9 never moved the "construction control line" as claimed by Pattaya City Hall. It established a new "Borderline of the construction restricted area" which increased the governance by this undated regulation.

5. "Control construction line" was always shown as being at the land edge where it meets the sea and measured in one direction; this is clearly shown in the Meeting on the Drafting of Ministerial Regulation No. 8.

<snip>

Edited June 14, 2009 by soundman
Please do not publicly criticize any Thai Court's decision.

[ripley]

Under the heading "Be Careful What You Wish For".... VT7 has begun lowering the 7 veils. Geez! That is one ugly puppy!

[ThaiBob]

Under the heading "Be Careful What You Wish For".... VT7 has begun lowering the 7 veils. Geez! That is one ugly puppy!

VT started planting landscaping and groom that ugly puppy just for you!!

[JR Texas]

Under the heading "Be Careful What You Wish For".... VT7 has begun lowering the 7 veils. Geez! That is one ugly puppy!

VT started planting landscaping and groom that ugly puppy just for you!!

It reminds me of one of the concrete coffins on soi 7.........can't recall the name........just another concrete coffin, but it is blocking the view from another concrete coffin

[ripley]

Vt7's submitted drawings represented what was still a plug-ugly bldg., but featuring balconies of trailing bougainvillea (a la Royal Garden), which was better (even tho I don't think anyone believed it). They can make their grounds into a bonsai rain forest & it won't have any effect on the monster looming above.

On a trip to the new Central Festival I took a moment to look at VT's prison-block architectural style in a different context. Nope. Like all the others, it's an Insta-Slum. No pride, no respect for its surroundings, a real shame, and no sign of change of heart or aesthetics from the VT slumlords. If they showed any of these considerations I wonder whether their neighbours would object so strenuously.

[coldfeet]

Some one need to update the photos of all the dead trees at vt7. The puppy is getting uglier

[xminator]

Vt7's submitted drawings represented what was still a plug-ugly bldg., but featuring balconies of trailing bougainvillea (a la Royal Garden), which was better (even tho I don't think anyone believed it). They can make their grounds into a bonsai rain forest & it won't have any effect on the monster looming above.

On a trip to the new Central Festival I took a moment to look at VT's prison-block architectural style in a different context. Nope. Like all the others, it's an Insta-Slum. No pride, no respect for its surroundings, a real shame, and no sign of change of heart or aesthetics from the VT slumlords. If they showed any of these considerations I wonder whether their neighbours would object so strenuously.

But still a bloody good location, and one of my favourites if I could afford to move from Europe right now... If the place have active owners, like VT2 now have, then it might even have a life of more then 10 years...

[Gary A]

Vt7's submitted drawings represented what was still a plug-ugly bldg., but featuring balconies of trailing bougainvillea (a la Royal Garden), which was better (even tho I don't think anyone believed it). They can make their grounds into a bonsai rain forest & it won't have any effect on the monster looming above.

On a trip to the new Central Festival I took a moment to look at VT's prison-block architectural style in a different context. Nope. Like all the others, it's an Insta-Slum. No pride, no respect for its surroundings, a real shame, and no sign of change of heart or aesthetics from the VT slumlords. If they showed any of these considerations I wonder whether their neighbours would object so strenuously.

But still a bloody good location, and one of my favourites if I could afford to move from Europe right now... If the place have active owners, like VT2 now have, then it might even have a life of more then 10 years...

Yeah. it's a great location for sure. Less than a hundred meters from mean sea level.

[coldfeet]

Vt7's submitted drawings represented what was still a plug-ugly bldg., but featuring balconies of trailing bougainvillea (a la Royal Garden), which was better (even tho I don't think anyone believed it). They can make their grounds into a bonsai rain forest & it won't have any effect on the monster looming above.

On a trip to the new Central Festival I took a moment to look at VT's prison-block architectural style in a different context. Nope. Like all the others, it's an Insta-Slum. No pride, no respect for its surroundings, a real shame, and no sign of change of heart or aesthetics from the VT slumlords. If they showed any of these considerations I wonder whether their neighbours would object so strenuously.

But still a bloody good location, and one of my favourites if I could afford to move from Europe right now... If the place have active owners, like VT2 now have, then it might even have a life of more then 10 years...

Yeah. it's a great location for sure. Less than a hundred meters from mean sea level.

So is Issue 9 a 100 or 200 meter from the CCL at MSL?

I think we understand why could not the court understand?

[billaaa777]

Will this thread EVER end. You lost, it is OVER. The building is almost finished. What do you think there going to do, tear it down?

[ripley]

Yeah - sure looks like Vt7 won & are feeling pretty cocky about it (and why not?). They're now erecting another building & maybe two of as yet unknown height on the Tappraya side of their property. So far no pile-driving activity. But these additional buildings were NOT presented in the plans passed by EPA or any others shown to date. VT7 has the green light now & will do as they please. Also busy as bees chopping & excavating on the VT5 side and guess we all know what that heralds - no surprises there.

Interestingly, the stopvt site has stuttered to a halt. These pillocks played with themselves for a while inventing some 550 moronic and deranged "comments" and self destructing the last of any credibility left to them. Since then not a whisper of recent vt7 construction or anything else.

There's a lesson for condo owners in this seemingly endless tale. Does anyone know what it is? I don't.

[TheWalkingMan]

...

There's a lesson for condo owners in this seemingly endless tale. Does anyone know what it is? I don't.

The lesson is as follows: The money you have paid for your beautiful view of the ocean/beach does mean it will last longer than you can say, "Hold the chillies please."

TheWalkingMan