Chief Faces Probe Over Demolitions: National Parks

[JurgenG]

There is no point to go further with our discussion.

I invite the readers of this forum to come and judge by themselves. It's close to Bangkok, around 3 to 4 hours by car. The area is very nice, people describe it as the Switzerland of Thailand. The weather is wonderful, cool, around 20-22 at night, you really don't need an air cond at night. During the winter months you may actually need an extra blanket and a jumper for breakfast. A wonderful place if you want to get away from the heat of the city.

And you will judge the situation by yourself. You will find the resort where you stay is in a very nice surrounding, close to the national park but actually in the middle of an agricultural area. No need to believe anybody, just come and judge by yourself. And in the process you will discover a very nice, very different side of Thailand

You continue to cloud the issue with irrelevancies. If the land is being used for purposes for which there are restrictions on the title, then it is illegal use, and that is why the court issued demolition orders. And it doesn't matter how long illegal use has occurred, it is still illegal use until the land is re-zoned. good luck with that, because it is not going to happen.

BTW You don't NEED air-conditioning to live in Thailand if you adapt yourself to the climate

Agree with you, it about re zoning. Decision have been made 40-50 years ago according to the realities of the time. These realities have changed, it happens everywhere all the time. Agricultural zone are changed to industrials zones, disaffected industrial areas are upgraded to commercial or residential areas ...

But rezoning is a boring word. People who oppose that prefer to use the term "encroachment", that creates a much more emotive reaction even with (and especially with) people with no real knowledge or understanding of the situation.

I don't know where you get it's not going to happen, I personally believe negotiation are on the right track probably one of the reason why our Judge Dredd was in such in a hurry to go ahead with his new role as Demolition Man. And soon he will be staring in "The Expendable"

[Reasonableman]

There is no point to go further with our discussion.

I invite the readers of this forum to come and judge by themselves. It's close to Bangkok, around 3 to 4 hours by car. The area is very nice, people describe it as the Switzerland of Thailand. The weather is wonderful, cool, around 20-22 at night, you really don't need an air cond at night. During the winter months you may actually need an extra blanket and a jumper for breakfast. A wonderful place if you want to get away from the heat of the city.

And you will judge the situation by yourself. You will find the resort where you stay is in a very nice surrounding, close to the national park but actually in the middle of an agricultural area. No need to believe anybody, just come and judge by yourself. And in the process you will discover a very nice, very different side of Thailand

You continue to cloud the issue with irrelevancies. If the land is being used for purposes for which there are restrictions on the title, then it is illegal use, and that is why the court issued demolition orders. And it doesn't matter how long illegal use has occurred, it is still illegal use until the land is re-zoned. good luck with that, because it is not going to happen.

BTW You don't NEED air-conditioning to live in Thailand if you adapt yourself to the climate

Agree with you, it about re zoning. Decision have been made 40-50 years ago according to the realities of the time. These realities have changed, it happens everywhere all the time. Agricultural zone are changed to industrials zones, disaffected industrial areas are upgraded to commercial or residential areas ...

But rezoning is a boring word. People who oppose that prefer to use the term "encroachment", that creates a much more emotive reaction even with (and especially with) people with no real knowledge or understanding of the situation.

I don't know where you get it's not going to happen, I personally believe negotiation are on the right track probably one of the reason why our Judge Dredd was in such in a hurry to go ahead with his new role as Demolition Man. And soon he will be staring in "The Expendable"

Even a list of resort options would be great. Which one is yours?

[JurgenG]

That sounds really lovely, JG. What resort would you recommend?

Last time (more than 5 years ago) I stay in a resort, it was owned, oh irony, by an officer of the forest department

[Reasonableman]

That sounds really lovely, JG. What resort would you recommend?

Last time (more than 5 years ago) I stay in a resort, it was owned, oh irony, by an officer of the forest department

Are you recommending that one, then? If you want folks to visit, they will need to know where to go. You are a local expert, so your suggestions are being sought. Where do you recommend?

Edited August 3, 2012 by Reasonableman

[JurgenG]

Even a list of resort options would be great. Which one is yours?

Smart move

But to avoid any speculation and any witch hunt, I don't think there is any resort in the area that is owned by a foreigner.

[OzMick]

There is no point to go further with our discussion.

I invite the readers of this forum to come and judge by themselves. It's close to Bangkok, around 3 to 4 hours by car. The area is very nice, people describe it as the Switzerland of Thailand. The weather is wonderful, cool, around 20-22 at night, you really don't need an air cond at night. During the winter months you may actually need an extra blanket and a jumper for breakfast. A wonderful place if you want to get away from the heat of the city.

And you will judge the situation by yourself. You will find the resort where you stay is in a very nice surrounding, close to the national park but actually in the middle of an agricultural area. No need to believe anybody, just come and judge by yourself. And in the process you will discover a very nice, very different side of Thailand

You continue to cloud the issue with irrelevancies. If the land is being used for purposes for which there are restrictions on the title, then it is illegal use, and that is why the court issued demolition orders. And it doesn't matter how long illegal use has occurred, it is still illegal use until the land is re-zoned. good luck with that, because it is not going to happen.

BTW You don't NEED air-conditioning to live in Thailand if you adapt yourself to the climate

Agree with you, it about re zoning. Decision have been made 40-50 years ago according to the realities of the time. These realities have changed, it happens everywhere all the time. Agricultural zone are changed to industrials zones, disaffected industrial areas are upgraded to commercial or residential areas ...

But rezoning is a boring word. People who oppose that prefer to use the term "encroachment", that creates a much more emotive reaction even with (and especially with) people with no real knowledge or understanding of the situation.

I don't know where you get it's not going to happen, I personally believe negotiation are on the right track probably one of the reason why our Judge Dredd was in such in a hurry to go ahead with his new role as Demolition Man. And soon he will be staring in "The Expendable"

Rezoning to "meet the realities of the time" is just a euphemism for slow encroachment. The cycle continues, powered by short term vision and greed, until the park becomes too small to be viable. When they cut down the last tree and put up a chocolate factory, it will really be the Switzerland of Thailand.

what would happen if you built an illegal resort in a Swiss national park?

[billd766]

A quick history of the area. The forest was cleared in the 70's by government order, the reason being it was a hideout for communist insurgents, too close to Bangkok for comfort. Two logging companies was contracted for the job. The owner of a small shopping complex on the main road came with one of the logging company, liked the area and decided to stay. She has a lot of interesting stories to tell if anybody is willing to interview her.

The land cleared was given to landless farmers. That was before the creation of the Thab Lan National park in 1981. It's from there that the confusion comes from. There is a national park and nobody contest that people who encroached on the national park should be evicted. And there is a zone that has been partly administered by the National Park but doesn't belong to the national park. And that's where the resorts are located. In 2000 there were a tentative to clarify this situation by officially excluding this area from the national park. Unfortunately the government collapse before they had time to vote the law.

So the resorts owners are rights when they say they are the rightful owners of their land. They bought them for the original owners, the farmers, and actually some resorts owners are the farmers who can trace their ownership of the land since the 70's. And that their land doesn't encroach on the national park.

Regarding the land being given to landless farmers... are you sure about that part? You seem to have a good feel for the situation and knowledge of the area so do you know if the land was actually legally owned by the farmers or were they given the right to use it but ownership remained with the government (I don't recall the different thai terms so I apologize for any lack of clarity)? I ask because ownership of land here seems to be rather murky with those who use or have the right to use a plot of land acting as if they own it and transferring it without having full title.

You may find this information useful.

http://www.isaanlawonline.com/thailand-land-ownership-title-deed-law.html

[FOODLOVER]

There is no point to go further with our discussion.

I invite the readers of this forum to come and judge by themselves. It's close to Bangkok, around 3 to 4 hours by car. The area is very nice, people describe it as the Switzerland of Thailand. The weather is wonderful, cool, around 20-22 at night, you really don't need an air cond at night. During the winter months you may actually need an extra blanket and a jumper for breakfast. A wonderful place if you want to get away from the heat of the city.

And you will judge the situation by yourself. You will find the resort where you stay is in a very nice surrounding, close to the national park but actually in the middle of an agricultural area. No need to believe anybody, just come and judge by yourself. And in the process you will discover a very nice, very different side of Thailand

You continue to cloud the issue with irrelevancies. If the land is being used for purposes for which there are restrictions on the title, then it is illegal use, and that is why the court issued demolition orders. And it doesn't matter how long illegal use has occurred, it is still illegal use until the land is re-zoned. good luck with that, because it is not going to happen.

BTW You don't NEED air-conditioning to live in Thailand if you adapt yourself to the climate

Agree with you, it about re zoning. Decision have been made 40-50 years ago according to the realities of the time. These realities have changed, it happens everywhere all the time. Agricultural zone are changed to industrials zones, disaffected industrial areas are upgraded to commercial or residential areas ...

But rezoning is a boring word. People who oppose that prefer to use the term "encroachment", that creates a much more emotive reaction even with (and especially with) people with no real knowledge or understanding of the situation.

I don't know where you get it's not going to happen, I personally believe negotiation are on the right track probably one of the reason why our Judge Dredd was in such in a hurry to go ahead with his new role as Demolition Man. And soon he will be staring in "The Expendable"

Rezoning to "meet the realities of the time" is just a euphemism for slow encroachment. The cycle continues, powered by short term vision and greed, until the park becomes too small to be viable. When they cut down the last tree and put up a chocolate factory, it will really be the Switzerland of Thailand.

what would happen if you built an illegal resort in a Swiss national park?

Seemed appropriate dude, peace.

[travelmann]

A quick history of the area. The forest was cleared in the 70's by government order, the reason being it was a hideout for communist insurgents, too close to Bangkok for comfort. Two logging companies was contracted for the job. The owner of a small shopping complex on the main road came with one of the logging company, liked the area and decided to stay. She has a lot of interesting stories to tell if anybody is willing to interview her.

The land cleared was given to landless farmers. That was before the creation of the Thab Lan National park in 1981. It's from there that the confusion comes from. There is a national park and nobody contest that people who encroached on the national park should be evicted. And there is a zone that has been partly administered by the National Park but doesn't belong to the national park. And that's where the resorts are located. In 2000 there were a tentative to clarify this situation by officially excluding this area from the national park. Unfortunately the government collapse before they had time to vote the law.

So the resorts owners are rights when they say they are the rightful owners of their land. They bought them for the original owners, the farmers, and actually some resorts owners are the farmers who can trace their ownership of the land since the 70's. And that their land doesn't encroach on the national park.

So full chanote then?

[travelmann]

Thanks for your admission of bias. You are therefore advocating a position in which you have a personal interest, and in support of your friends. It helps when advocates declare themselves, don't you think? Kinda clears the air and adds a contextual dimension to people's posts. Of course, we all feel terrible for any innocents affected, but to characterize all of the players as poor little old ladies is perhaps unintentionally misleading, wouldn't you agree?

Agree with you. But I think the way the newspapers describes the situation , probably influenced by the PR office of the forest department, is terribly misleading. I try to show the other side of the coin.

The real debate here should be what is the future of rural Thailand ? How eco tourism can help alleviate poverty in rural Thailand ? Under which condition ? Is this system of land title still relevant in Thailand in 2012 and how should it be modified to reflect the reality of the modern economy ? And the solution that will be found here can later be applied in other provinces of Thailand.

But these questions fly way above the head of our Judge Dredd from the forest department. That's why the first move should be to remove him from his position then to engage in a constructive debate with the representatives of all the parties involved in the area.

Is there rural poverty in Thailand?? from what Ive seen Its just see lazy drunk bums unwilling to work, I actually offered jobs to some of them to cut down some scrub and bushes on my wifes land, all they said is we havent got a machete, so i went out an bought them one, still no work done, but happy to sit there all day watching the Makro dig a hole

[Buchholz]

I invite the readers of this forum to come and judge by themselves. It's close to Bangkok, around 3 to 4 hours by car. The area is very nice, people describe it as the Switzerland of Thailand.

That sounds really lovely, JG. What resort would you recommend?

The place we visited that they actually named Switzerland in Thailand is interesting.

Only a few trees had to be felled to make room for Barney and Fred.

Edited August 3, 2012 by Buchholz

[JurgenG]

I invite the readers of this forum to come and judge by themselves. It's close to Bangkok, around 3 to 4 hours by car. The area is very nice, people describe it as the Switzerland of Thailand.

That sounds really lovely, JG. What resort would you recommend?

The place we visited that they actually named Switzerland in Thailand is interesting.

Only a few trees had to be felled to make room for Barney and Fred.

A great place, nice area, very beautiful scenery. It's great fun to play with the sheeps That's an other area we consider for our retirement.

There I've a great resort to recommend : http://www.latoscana...ort.com/en/home

_

Edited August 3, 2012 by JurgenG

[phiphidon]

Thanks for your admission of bias. You are therefore advocating a position in which you have a personal interest, and in support of your friends. It helps when advocates declare themselves, don't you think? Kinda clears the air and adds a contextual dimension to people's posts. Of course, we all feel terrible for any innocents affected, but to characterize all of the players as poor little old ladies is perhaps unintentionally misleading, wouldn't you agree?

Agree with you. But I think the way the newspapers describes the situation , probably influenced by the PR office of the forest department, is terribly misleading. I try to show the other side of the coin.

The real debate here should be what is the future of rural Thailand ? How eco tourism can help alleviate poverty in rural Thailand ? Under which condition ? Is this system of land title still relevant in Thailand in 2012 and how should it be modified to reflect the reality of the modern economy ? And the solution that will be found here can later be applied in other provinces of Thailand.

But these questions fly way above the head of our Judge Dredd from the forest department. That's why the first move should be to remove him from his position then to engage in a constructive debate with the representatives of all the parties involved in the area.

Is there rural poverty in Thailand?? from what Ive seen Its just see lazy drunk bums unwilling to work, I actually offered jobs to some of them to cut down some scrub and bushes on my wifes land, all they said is we havent got a machete, so i went out an bought them one, still no work done, but happy to sit there all day watching the Makro dig a hole

If I bought you a toilet brush would you clean my toilets?

[phiphidon]

I invite the readers of this forum to come and judge by themselves. It's close to Bangkok, around 3 to 4 hours by car. The area is very nice, people describe it as the Switzerland of Thailand.

That sounds really lovely, JG. What resort would you recommend?

The place we visited that they actually named Switzerland in Thailand is interesting.

Only a few trees had to be felled to make room for Barney and Fred.

Which one of the bunch was you buchholz? At first I thought it was the old gent with the glasses and cane, looked like some Col. or other?

[binjalin]

A quick history of the area. The forest was cleared in the 70's by government order, the reason being it was a hideout for communist insurgents, too close to Bangkok for comfort. Two logging companies was contracted for the job. The owner of a small shopping complex on the main road came with one of the logging company, liked the area and decided to stay. She has a lot of interesting stories to tell if anybody is willing to interview her.

The land cleared was given to landless farmers. That was before the creation of the Thab Lan National park in 1981. It's from there that the confusion comes from. There is a national park and nobody contest that people who encroached on the national park should be evicted. And there is a zone that has been partly administered by the National Park but doesn't belong to the national park. And that's where the resorts are located. In 2000 there were a tentative to clarify this situation by officially excluding this area from the national park. Unfortunately the government collapse before they had time to vote the law.

So the resorts owners are rights when they say they are the rightful owners of their land. They bought them for the original owners, the farmers, and actually some resorts owners are the farmers who can trace their ownership of the land since the 70's. And that their land doesn't encroach on the national park.

So full chanote then?

this is not the FOURTH time of asking............... CHANOTS? Khun JurgenG is ignoring requests for info on the Chanots although asked several times.

so K. JurgenG would you please answer? do they have FULL Chanots? if not it's illegal right? and you would not wish to promote illegal building right?

[binjalin]

I invite the readers of this forum to come and judge by themselves. It's close to Bangkok, around 3 to 4 hours by car. The area is very nice, people describe it as the Switzerland of Thailand.

That sounds really lovely, JG. What resort would you recommend?

The place we visited that they actually named Switzerland in Thailand is interesting.

Only a few trees had to be felled to make room for Barney and Fred.

A great place, nice area, very beautiful scenery. It's great fun to play with the sheeps That's an other area we consider for our retirement.

There I've a great resort to recommend : http://www.latoscana...ort.com/en/home

_

Chanots? mee or mai mee?

PS I'm sort of assuming you know what a 'Chanot' is? and a 'Full Chanot'?

Edited August 4, 2012 by binjalin

[JurgenG]

A disaster long in the making already, a slow train crash, destroying much of what once made Thailand an attractive destination for visitors and expats.

I wanted to come back first on this post. The argument that national parks are an important resource for the economy as they bring foreign visitors is completely wrong. In the two area cited above, 90% of the visitors are Thais. To attract foreign visitors we would need to build theme parks, golf resorts and go-go bars. I don't think that's what we want for these areas

Edited August 4, 2012 by JurgenG

[JurgenG]

A great place, nice area, very beautiful scenery. It's great fun to play with the sheeps That's an other area we consider for our retirement.

There I've a great resort to recommend : http://www.latoscana...ort.com/en/home

_

Chanots? mee or mai mee?

PS I'm sort of assuming you know what a 'Chanot' is? and a 'Full Chanot'?

I cut earlier posts for easier reading.

For people who haven't recognize the area, it's in the Ratchaburi province, a very beautiful area less than 2 hours from Bangkok.

Regarding the land titles, similar situation with Wang Nam Khieo, mostly Por Bor Tor, and similar problems with the forest department. There are so many area in Thailand that have similar problems, that's why it's important that a solution is found.

[binjalin]

A great place, nice area, very beautiful scenery. It's great fun to play with the sheeps That's an other area we consider for our retirement.

There I've a great resort to recommend : http://www.latoscana...ort.com/en/home

_

Chanots? mee or mai mee?

PS I'm sort of assuming you know what a 'Chanot' is? and a 'Full Chanot'?

I cut earlier posts for easier reading.

For people who haven't recognize the area, it's in the Ratchaburi province, a very beautiful area less than 2 hours from Bangkok.

Regarding the land titles, similar situation with Wang Nam Khieo, mostly Por Bor Tor, and similar problems with the forest department. There are so many area in Thailand that have similar problems, that's why it's important that a solution is found.

and so they do NOT have the Chanots that are required to build on and so they were right to remove the resorts, according to Thai law, right?

[Reasonableman]

http://www.thailandlawonline.com/article-blog/property-law-land-and-title-deeds.html

Por. Bor. Tor. 5 (P.B.T. 5), is an evidence showing that the occupier of a plot of land has been issued a tax number and has paid tax for using the benefit of the land. This confers no right at all but was formerly used to establish that the holder was occupying a plot of land and could apply for a Sor Kor 1.

[binjalin]

http://www.thailandl...itle-deeds.html

Por. Bor. Tor. 5 (P.B.T. 5), is an evidence showing that the occupier of a plot of land has been issued a tax number and has paid tax for using the benefit of the land. This confers no right at all but was formerly used to establish that the holder was occupying a plot of land and could apply for a Sor Kor 1.

This confers no right at all

case closed

Edited August 4, 2012 by binjalin

[JurgenG]

A great place, nice area, very beautiful scenery. It's great fun to play with the sheeps That's an other area we consider for our retirement.

There I've a great resort to recommend : http://www.latoscana...ort.com/en/home

_

Chanots? mee or mai mee?

PS I'm sort of assuming you know what a 'Chanot' is? and a 'Full Chanot'?

I cut earlier posts for easier reading.

For people who haven't recognize the area, it's in the Ratchaburi province, a very beautiful area less than 2 hours from Bangkok.

Regarding the land titles, similar situation with Wang Nam Khieo, mostly Por Bor Tor, and similar problems with the forest department. There are so many area in Thailand that have similar problems, that's why it's important that a solution is found.

and so they do NOT have the Chanots that are required to build on and so they were right to remove the resorts, according to Thai law, right?

No, because there was an appeal pending.

[JurgenG]

http://www.thailandl...itle-deeds.html

Por. Bor. Tor. 5 (P.B.T. 5), is an evidence showing that the occupier of a plot of land has been issued a tax number and has paid tax for using the benefit of the land. This confers no right at all but was formerly used to establish that the holder was occupying a plot of land and could apply for a Sor Kor 1.

This confers no right at all

case closed

Wrong again.

You have the right to buy and sell the land. Therefore the argument of the resort owners that they have legally purchased the land is valid. it's also prove that the argument of the forest department that they encroach on forest land is false and only used to create an emotive reaction from outsiders without knowledge of the problem.

The only problem is a zoning problem. These lands were originally for agricultural purpose. The only thing the resort owners are "guilty" of is to use the land for an other purpose the the originally intended one. You may notice that the courts orders are for the removing of the resorts, not to vacate the lands. Despite what some people want us to believe, there is no encroaching, no illegal occupation of the land here.

The last thing is these restriction on the use of the land was decided in the 70's, a very different time. There are currently negotiation to amend them to reflect the changes that have happened during the last 40 years.

Sorry for all the people who were expecting some juicy gossips about big names encroaching on national park and poaching wild life, it's just a boring zoning problem in rural areas.

[travelmann]

Thanks for your admission of bias. You are therefore advocating a position in which you have a personal interest, and in support of your friends. It helps when advocates declare themselves, don't you think? Kinda clears the air and adds a contextual dimension to people's posts. Of course, we all feel terrible for any innocents affected, but to characterize all of the players as poor little old ladies is perhaps unintentionally misleading, wouldn't you agree?

Agree with you. But I think the way the newspapers describes the situation , probably influenced by the PR office of the forest department, is terribly misleading. I try to show the other side of the coin.

The real debate here should be what is the future of rural Thailand ? How eco tourism can help alleviate poverty in rural Thailand ? Under which condition ? Is this system of land title still relevant in Thailand in 2012 and how should it be modified to reflect the reality of the modern economy ? And the solution that will be found here can later be applied in other provinces of Thailand.

But these questions fly way above the head of our Judge Dredd from the forest department. That's why the first move should be to remove him from his position then to engage in a constructive debate with the representatives of all the parties involved in the area.

Is there rural poverty in Thailand?? from what Ive seen Its just see lazy drunk bums unwilling to work, I actually offered jobs to some of them to cut down some scrub and bushes on my wifes land, all they said is we havent got a machete, so i went out an bought them one, still no work done, but happy to sit there all day watching the Makro dig a hole

If I bought you a toilet brush would you clean my toilets?

If Id got no work YES and Ive done far worse in my life than clean toilets, what I wouldnt do however is bleat on about being poor

[travelmann]

A disaster long in the making already, a slow train crash, destroying much of what once made Thailand an attractive destination for visitors and expats.

I wanted to come back first on this post. The argument that national parks are an important resource for the economy as they bring foreign visitors is completely wrong. In the two area cited above, 90% of the visitors are Thais. To attract foreign visitors we would need to build theme parks, golf resorts and go-go bars. I don't think that's what we want for these areas

Actually what would be best is if they closed them right off and left them to nature..............now that really would be protecting the environment

[travelmann]

A great place, nice area, very beautiful scenery. It's great fun to play with the sheeps That's an other area we consider for our retirement.

There I've a great resort to recommend : http://www.latoscana...ort.com/en/home

_

Chanots? mee or mai mee?

PS I'm sort of assuming you know what a 'Chanot' is? and a 'Full Chanot'?

I cut earlier posts for easier reading.

For people who haven't recognize the area, it's in the Ratchaburi province, a very beautiful area less than 2 hours from Bangkok.

Regarding the land titles, similar situation with Wang Nam Khieo, mostly Por Bor Tor, and similar problems with the forest department. There are so many area in Thailand that have similar problems, that's why it's important that a solution is found.

So they didnt build on them right???

http://www.samuiforsale.com/knowledge/thailand-land-title-deeds.html

NOTE: it is basically ONLY possible to register rights (sale, lease, usufruct, superficies, etc.) with the Land Department and obtain official building approval over land with a confirmed right of possession (the Nor.Sor.3 land titles) or full ownership title (Nor.Sor.4.Jor/ Chanote title deed)

[travelmann]

http://www.thailandl...itle-deeds.html

Por. Bor. Tor. 5 (P.B.T. 5), is an evidence showing that the occupier of a plot of land has been issued a tax number and has paid tax for using the benefit of the land. This confers no right at all but was formerly used to establish that the holder was occupying a plot of land and could apply for a Sor Kor 1.

This confers no right at all

case closed

Wrong again.

You have the right to buy and sell the land. Therefore the argument of the resort owners that they have legally purchased the land is valid. it's also prove that the argument of the forest department that they encroach on forest land is false and only used to create an emotive reaction from outsiders without knowledge of the problem.

The only problem is a zoning problem. These lands were originally for agricultural purpose. The only thing the resort owners are "guilty" of is to use the land for an other purpose the the originally intended one. You may notice that the courts orders are for the removing of the resorts, not to vacate the lands. Despite what some people want us to believe, there is no encroaching, no illegal occupation of the land here.

The last thing is these restriction on the use of the land was decided in the 70's, a very different time. There are currently negotiation to amend them to reflect the changes that have happened during the last 40 years.

Sorry for all the people who were expecting some juicy gossips about big names encroaching on national park and poaching wild life, it's just a boring zoning problem in rural areas.

So you also have the right to build, a resort on it too??

The land must be used for agriculture. Strictly in legal theory

Edited August 4, 2012 by travelmann

[JurgenG]

Thank you guys but I think we are now running around in circles. I hope people have now a more clear idea about what really is going there and I don't think an other link to a legal site explaining the different land titles is really necessary.

As reasonableman said, the ball is now in the camp of the government.

If there is a lesson for us at our small level, it is to advise our wife or local partner that, if it's not full chanote, don't buy.

[travelmann]

Thank you guys but I think we are now running around in circles. I hope people have now a more clear idea about what really is going there and I don't think an other link to a legal site explaining the different land titles is really necessary.

As reasonableman said, the ball is now in the camp of the government.

If there is a lesson for us at our small level, it is to advise our wife or local partner that, if it's not full chanote, don't buy.

Nor sor sam gor is safe to buy

[ginjag]

National parks are what they are, Should be blanket ban on any activity other than park conservation. Farming over yonks ago were allowed to farm. Wrong move.

Now a problem being selling to others who are not allowed to build/develop.

Whatever papers were handled by the local land office who oversees the use of the land. Planning permission ???? favours given ???? some mega gain in many areas.

Use the buidings to house forest rangers for protection of parks. Tourist rest areas. Animal rescue/vet. Imformation and map centres. etc.,