IrishIvan Posted January 19, 2013 Share Posted January 19, 2013 Im curious does it apply to the parking at the top of the property? The one that is on the left just before the little rickety bridge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NamKangMan Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 As stated earlier in the thread, this sign is obviously written by a westerner. No Thai from that family could have come up with that. Is the dive shop guy charging? They could have easily talked with the dive shop guy and came up with the wording between them. I don't see why the dive shop guy would care about weddings, nor can I see how the restaurant cares about divers. Although the one thing in common is weddings usually come in mini buses and divers around here usually come in Songtaws. So the point I think they are trying to make is; if you want to conduct your business while parked in their rather small parking area at the bottom of the road, pay or go park somewhere else. I understand what you are saying, and I see the point that they are trying to make. The question is, do they officially own, or are leasing, the land in question, and do they have the legal right to put up a sign post and start charging people for the use of the land at this particular location? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Im curious does it apply to the parking at the top of the property? The one that is on the left just before the little rickety bridge Go and find out,my offer stands. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 The question is, do they officially own, or are leasing, the land in question, and do they have the legal right to put up a sign post and start charging people for the use of the land at this particular location? Yes, they do, and therefor have the right to charge for use of that land. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 As stated earlier in the thread, this sign is obviously written by a westerner. Why, because only westerners make spelling mistakes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishIvan Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 The question is, do they officially own, or are leasing, the land in question, and do they have the legal right to put up a sign post and start charging people for the use of the land at this particular location? Yes, they do, and therefor have the right to charge for use of that land. They own the beach? hmm thats a new one, did the land ownership laws change in the last couple of days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fiddlehead Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Years ago I remember reading somewhere that the family that runs the place extended their lease or agreement to continue their business there. I imagine they are paying someone for the use. 12 years ago, that road that goes steeply down to the small parking lot in question was dirt and almost unpassable. They concreted it themselves I believe. I see their point as the dive companies that do business on that first little beach do take a lot of parking spaces it seems. If I built that road, and businesses were coming in and taking up my parking, I'd probably do the same thing. They are trying to be fair IMO by saying they are charging businesses only. Like I said before, I was down there about 2 weeks ago and no one tried to charge me anything. Nice people IMO. Those bashing them are just showing their ignorance of the situation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 The question is, do they officially own, or are leasing, the land in question, and do they have the legal right to put up a sign post and start charging people for the use of the land at this particular location? Yes, they do, and therefor have the right to charge for use of that land. They own the beach? hmm thats a new one, did the land ownership laws change in the last couple of days? Don't put words in my mouth. AFAIK they are leasing the land there, which includes the parking lot and the land the bungalows and restaurant is on. This all was for sale some time ago, Baan Krating bought it but could not get it financed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebike Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 (edited) The question is, do they officially own, or are leasing, the land in question, and do they have the legal right to put up a sign post and start charging people for the use of the land at this particular location? Yes, they do, and therefor have the right to charge for use of that land. They own the beach? hmm thats a new one, did the land ownership laws change in the last couple of days? Nice straw man! NKM ask if they own/lease the land. steven says yes, then you switch to owning the beach which no one was talking about... Try to say with the conversation. Edited January 20, 2013 by mikebike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebike Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 As stated earlier in the thread, this sign is obviously written by a westerner. No Thai from that family could have come up with that. Is the dive shop guy charging? No the dive shop guy is not charging 'cause he sub-leases just the shop from the family... its their land/parking.It is entirely feasible that one of the family wrote the the sign. the father and older kids have very good english language skills. My Thai landlord a few years ago (a 68 year old Phuket native) had below average spoken english, but could write a grammatically perfect letter in english. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NamKangMan Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 (edited) The question is, do they officially own, or are leasing, the land in question, and do they have the legal right to put up a sign post and start charging people for the use of the land at this particular location? Yes, they do, and therefor have the right to charge for use of that land. They own the beach? hmm thats a new one, did the land ownership laws change in the last couple of days? Nice straw man! NKM ask if they own/lease the land. steven says yes, then you switch to owning the beach which no one was talking about... Try to say with the conversation. This conversation came up recently with the whole Syndictive New Years Eve party debarcle. It was clearly stated in the PG, by Thai officials, that beaches are public land. The issue was no one should have the right to fence it off a beach and charge an entrance fee. You are effectively using public land to run your business. If it's a private road with a private carpark, fine. Charge a parking fee. I have no problem with that. Soi Sansabai is a private road and you pay to park your bike there. On any given night, there are hundreds of bikes parked there, for a fee. If a minivan drives down the road to the car park, and lets out a dozen people to have a wedding on the sand, and then drives away, how can they charge for that? The ceremony will be held on the sand, not in the carpark. The beach is public land. How can they charge 300 baht? I'm not complaining about it, just questioning their legal right to do so. Maybe it should be renamed from Ao Sane Beach - to In Sane Beach. :) :) Edited January 20, 2013 by NamKangMan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishIvan Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 (edited) The question is, do they officially own, or are leasing, the land in question, and do they have the legal right to put up a sign post and start charging people for the use of the land at this particular location? Yes, they do, and therefor have the right to charge for use of that land. They own the beach? hmm thats a new one, did the land ownership laws change in the last couple of days? Don't put words in my mouth. AFAIK they are leasing the land there, which includes the parking lot and the land the bungalows and restaurant is on. This all was for sale some time ago, Baan Krating bought it but could not get it financed. Ahhh I should have known, your friends with the dive shop owner. If that had been a tuk tuk stand instead of a dive shop extorting people you would have been all over it. I guess Im losing my touch, I used to be a lot quicker.The whole group of buildings there sticks out onto the land therefore it is land encroachment. Even the dive shop is in a suspect spot, @NKM3000 baht there buddy to have a wedding, put your glasses on and take a closer look. Edited January 20, 2013 by IrishIvan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NamKangMan Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 As stated earlier in the thread, this sign is obviously written by a westerner. No Thai from that family could have come up with that. Is the dive shop guy charging? No the dive shop guy is not charging 'cause he sub-leases just the shop from the family... its their land/parking.It is entirely feasible that one of the family wrote the the sign. the father and older kids have very good english language skills. My Thai landlord a few years ago (a 68 year old Phuket native) had below average spoken english, but could write a grammatically perfect letter in english. They could also just type what they want to say in Thai into google translate, and then just copy the translation onto the sign. It's never completely accurate, but good enough to get the message across. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikebike Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 If a minivan drives down the road to the car park, and lets out a dozen people to have a wedding on the sand, and then drives away, how can they charge for that? The ceremony will be held on the sand, not in the carpark. The beach is public land. How can they charge 300 baht? I'm not complaining about it, just questioning their legal right to do so. Maybe it should be renamed from Ao Sane Beach - to In Sane Beach. The deal is they do WEDDING PHOTOS there, not weddings themselves. The wedding photographer is conducting his biz and earning. In the west wedding photographers must pay to shoot at certain locations I really see no difference. If the wedding party and photographer arrive by longtail and stay on the beach, not on said land then there wouldn't be a 3000 baht charge. Its all pretty simple and no one's ripping anyone off... Ivanhoe - tuk-tuk mafia is in another thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishIvan Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 If a minivan drives down the road to the car park, and lets out a dozen people to have a wedding on the sand, and then drives away, how can they charge for that? The ceremony will be held on the sand, not in the carpark. The beach is public land. How can they charge 300 baht? I'm not complaining about it, just questioning their legal right to do so. Maybe it should be renamed from Ao Sane Beach - to In Sane Beach. The deal is they do WEDDING PHOTOS there, not weddings themselves. The wedding photographer is conducting his biz and earning. In the west wedding photographers must pay to shoot at certain locations I really see no difference. If the wedding party and photographer arrive by longtail and stay on the beach, not on said land then there wouldn't be a 3000 baht charge. Its all pretty simple and no one's ripping anyone off... Ivanhoe - tuk-tuk mafia is in another thread! So if a group of people walks down to Ao Sane from the Purvana Hotel and takes wedding photos they are liable for a 3000 baht fee? Do they provide receipts so the VAT can be collected back at the airport? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NamKangMan Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 @ irishlvan Thanks for pointing that out. I enlarged the picture. Yep, 3000 baht to have your wedding on the sand. What a joke. I can't see any legal right they have to charge this. It's public land. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Ahhh I should have known, your friends with the dive shop owner. If that had been a tuk tuk stand instead of a dive shop extorting people you would have been all over it. I guess Im losing my touch, I used to be a lot quicker.The whole group of buildings there sticks out onto the land therefore it is land encroachment. Even the dive shop is in a suspect spot, @NKM3000 baht there buddy to have a wedding, put your glasses on and take a closer look. You're barking up the wrong tree, I am not 'all over tuktuk's'. And yes, I know the guy, of course I do, but have no idea what is happening there but am curious, hence my offer which you are ignoring to lend you a full set of diving gear and find out what happens., Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NamKangMan Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 (edited) If a minivan drives down the road to the car park, and lets out a dozen people to have a wedding on the sand, and then drives away, how can they charge for that? The ceremony will be held on the sand, not in the carpark. The beach is public land. How can they charge 300 baht? I'm not complaining about it, just questioning their legal right to do so. Maybe it should be renamed from Ao Sane Beach - to In Sane Beach. The deal is they do WEDDING PHOTOS there, not weddings themselves. The wedding photographer is conducting his biz and earning. In the west wedding photographers must pay to shoot at certain locations I really see no difference. If the wedding party and photographer arrive by longtail and stay on the beach, not on said land then there wouldn't be a 3000 baht charge. Its all pretty simple and no one's ripping anyone off... Ivanhoe - tuk-tuk mafia is in another thread! My understanding of the law, which is pretty much an international law, is you are allowed to photograph anything, and anyone, that is visable from a public place. So, I can walk down Bangla Road and take photos of whatever I want, because it's a public place. If I want a photo of myself standing on Bangla Road, outside the Tiger complex, do I have to pay The Tiger Group - no. If I hire The Tiger Disco for a photo shoot, do I have to pay - yes. If these wedding photos are on private land, sure, no problem, charge a fee. Maybe even grow some flowers in the background, mow the grass, prune the trees. Not a problem. Charge 10,000 baht. If the photos are talken on the sand, which is a public place, then I can't see how they can legally charge a fee. Your argument is the photographer is "working" on the sand, which is technically illegal, but so is charging a fee to allow people to work on the sand. What if I had my wedding on the sand and just got a friend to take some photos - no one working on the sand???? What right have they got to obstruct me, or call the police? What law have I breached? Maybe they could arrest the photographer, but what about everyone else? I think it's a piss take. Do they really expect you to pay 3000 baht for some photos like this one, just because it's a wedding? (first one off a google seach - it's not me) Edited January 20, 2013 by NamKangMan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishIvan Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 Ahhh I should have known, your friends with the dive shop owner. If that had been a tuk tuk stand instead of a dive shop extorting people you would have been all over it. I guess Im losing my touch, I used to be a lot quicker.The whole group of buildings there sticks out onto the land therefore it is land encroachment. Even the dive shop is in a suspect spot, @NKM3000 baht there buddy to have a wedding, put your glasses on and take a closer look. You're barking up the wrong tree, I am not 'all over tuktuk's'. And yes, I know the guy, of course I do, but have no idea what is happening there but am curious, hence my offer which you are ignoring to lend you a full set of diving gear and find out what happens., What makes you think I dont have my own dive gear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishIvan Posted January 20, 2013 Share Posted January 20, 2013 If a minivan drives down the road to the car park, and lets out a dozen people to have a wedding on the sand, and then drives away, how can they charge for that? The ceremony will be held on the sand, not in the carpark. The beach is public land. How can they charge 300 baht? I'm not complaining about it, just questioning their legal right to do so. Maybe it should be renamed from Ao Sane Beach - to In Sane Beach. The deal is they do WEDDING PHOTOS there, not weddings themselves. The wedding photographer is conducting his biz and earning. In the west wedding photographers must pay to shoot at certain locations I really see no difference. If the wedding party and photographer arrive by longtail and stay on the beach, not on said land then there wouldn't be a 3000 baht charge. Its all pretty simple and no one's ripping anyone off... Ivanhoe - tuk-tuk mafia is in another thread! My understanding of the law, which is pretty much an international law, is you are allowed to photograph anything, and anyone, that is visable from a public place. So, I can walk down Bangla Road and take photos of whatever I want, because it's a public place. If I want a photo of myself standing on Bangla Road, outside the Tiger complex, do I have to pay The Tiger Group - no. If I hire The Tiger Disco for a photo shoot, do I have to pay - yes. If these wedding photos are on private land, sure, no problem, charge a fee. Maybe even grow some flowers in the background, mow the grass, prune the trees. Not a problem. Charge 10,000 baht. If the photos are talken on the sand, which is a public place, then I can't see how they can legally charge a fee. Your argument is the photographer is "working" on the sand, which is technically illegal, but so is charging a fee to allow people to work on the sand. What if I had my wedding on the sand and just got a friend to take some photos - no one working on the sand???? What right have they got to obstruct me, or call the police? What law have I breached? Maybe they could arrest the photographer, but what about everyone else? I think it's a piss take. Do they really expect you to pay 3000 baht for some photos like this one, just because it's a wedding? (first one off a google seach - it's not me) just another sick money grab from these lovely locals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Ahhh I should have known, your friends with the dive shop owner. If that had been a tuk tuk stand instead of a dive shop extorting people you would have been all over it. I guess Im losing my touch, I used to be a lot quicker.The whole group of buildings there sticks out onto the land therefore it is land encroachment. Even the dive shop is in a suspect spot, @NKM3000 baht there buddy to have a wedding, put your glasses on and take a closer look. You're barking up the wrong tree, I am not 'all over tuktuk's'. And yes, I know the guy, of course I do, but have no idea what is happening there but am curious, hence my offer which you are ignoring to lend you a full set of diving gear and find out what happens., What makes you think I dont have my own dive gear? Nothing, under your previous username I know you did have your own stuff, but I thought I'd offer anyway. But no worries, as usual you're just provoking here and not interested in what's really happening at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishIvan Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 Ahhh I should have known, your friends with the dive shop owner. If that had been a tuk tuk stand instead of a dive shop extorting people you would have been all over it. I guess Im losing my touch, I used to be a lot quicker.The whole group of buildings there sticks out onto the land therefore it is land encroachment. Even the dive shop is in a suspect spot, @NKM3000 baht there buddy to have a wedding, put your glasses on and take a closer look. You're barking up the wrong tree, I am not 'all over tuktuk's'. And yes, I know the guy, of course I do, but have no idea what is happening there but am curious, hence my offer which you are ignoring to lend you a full set of diving gear and find out what happens., What makes you think I dont have my own dive gear? Nothing, under your previous username I know you did have your own stuff, but I thought I'd offer anyway. But no worries, as usual you're just provoking here and not interested in what's really happening at all. Im not sure what you mean by previous name, you must have me mistaken with someone else. I am interested in this, its alarming that anyone can just paint a sign and thats law. I notice they have put a sign up saying no pittbulls or rotweilers allowed on the beach either. Im not a dog owner but I find this odd too as there are dogs everywhere.A little off topic but I was talking to a friend about this and she did a beach clean up with Chalong Sea Sports and Gajonkiet (cant spell it) School at Ya Nui beach a couple of months ago and the owner of the beach charges 200 baht for divers also. Chalong Sea Sports had to pay around 2000 baht for 10 divers to clean up a public beach, now this mindless idiot that runs the little bamboo shack brigade on Ya Nui Beach will be wishing the beach cleanup happens a bit more, perhaps a weekly event! So the message to him is: Make mess charge money for farang to come clean up. Happy now I can go sing kareoke and have more mia noi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellred Posted January 21, 2013 Share Posted January 21, 2013 First I've heard of this beach. Will be sure to drop in next time. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walker600 Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Seems to me alot of the comments here are based on people's interpretation of the sign..... If in fact they are trying to charge to use the beach then that's not fair, but if they own (have the rights to the car park) and only want their patrons to park there then fair enough. In fact, if the latter is true and yet they don't mind if a member of the public wants to park there just to visit the beach and are possibly just getting fed up with other businesses taking advantage of 'their' car park, then that's more than fair. Has anyone bothered going down there to check exactly what point they're trying to make? My interpretation of the sign is the latter. Seems to me to dispute of over use of the car park not the beach..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JetsetBkk Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 The last time I was there (years ago) the car park was just a small strip of gravel to the side of the road at the top of a very steep slope to the beach. Is this bit of gravel the "car park" that they are talking about, or is there something more down that steep gradient? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimi007 Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 The last time I was there (years ago) the car park was just a small strip of gravel to the side of the road at the top of a very steep slope to the beach. Is this bit of gravel the "car park" that they are talking about, or is there something more down that steep gradient? Do keep up! LOL! They built a rather steep partially cemented road down to where the sign is located. Everyone can see it. There's another sign now talking about a 1,000 Baht fine for parking on the curve right before this sign. We rode over there yesterday about 5 PM. It was totally packed with minibuses, a fat idiot very white woman in a "bikini" standing in the middle of the road, cars jockeying for parking spaces, and it smelled like some rather large animal died by the roadside... Another small bit of paradise ruined... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Seems to me alot of the comments here are based on people's interpretation of the sign..... If in fact they are trying to charge to use the beach then that's not fair, but if they own (have the rights to the car park) and only want their patrons to park there then fair enough. In fact, if the latter is true and yet they don't mind if a member of the public wants to park there just to visit the beach and are possibly just getting fed up with other businesses taking advantage of 'their' car park, then that's more than fair. Has anyone bothered going down there to check exactly what point they're trying to make? My interpretation of the sign is the latter. Seems to me to dispute of over use of the car park not the beach..... That's what I said to the irish guy many times: go and check in stead of moaning here on the forum without even knowing if what you're moaning about really is the case. But that would mean the regulars here actually run the risk of less moaning opportunities, not an option for a lot of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NamKangMan Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Seems to me alot of the comments here are based on people's interpretation of the sign..... If in fact they are trying to charge to use the beach then that's not fair, but if they own (have the rights to the car park) and only want their patrons to park there then fair enough. In fact, if the latter is true and yet they don't mind if a member of the public wants to park there just to visit the beach and are possibly just getting fed up with other businesses taking advantage of 'their' car park, then that's more than fair. Has anyone bothered going down there to check exactly what point they're trying to make? My interpretation of the sign is the latter. Seems to me to dispute of over use of the car park not the beach..... That's what I said to the irish guy many times: go and check in stead of moaning here on the forum without even knowing if what you're moaning about really is the case. But that would mean the regulars here actually run the risk of less moaning opportunities, not an option for a lot of them. I'm not complaining, and I'm not getting married anytime soon, but my understanding is they are not allowed to charge people using the beach. Under Thai law, the beach is public land, even for farang. If they own the carpark, no problem. If they own the road - that's a tricky one because effectively they would be setting up a toll way, and I wouldn't think they have the right to do that. Is it just possible that the people who errected the sign are breaking the law by charging for the use of the beach? 3000 baht for wedding photos taken on the sand - before accusing me of "moaning" or "complaining" perhaps you can explain to me where they get the legal right to charge for this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IrishIvan Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Seems to me alot of the comments here are based on people's interpretation of the sign..... If in fact they are trying to charge to use the beach then that's not fair, but if they own (have the rights to the car park) and only want their patrons to park there then fair enough. In fact, if the latter is true and yet they don't mind if a member of the public wants to park there just to visit the beach and are possibly just getting fed up with other businesses taking advantage of 'their' car park, then that's more than fair. Has anyone bothered going down there to check exactly what point they're trying to make? My interpretation of the sign is the latter. Seems to me to dispute of over use of the car park not the beach..... That's what I said to the irish guy many times: go and check in stead of moaning here on the forum without even knowing if what you're moaning about really is the case. But that would mean the regulars here actually run the risk of less moaning opportunities, not an option for a lot of them. I'm not complaining, and I'm not getting married anytime soon, but my understanding is they are not allowed to charge people using the beach. Under Thai law, the beach is public land, even for farang. If they own the carpark, no problem. If they own the road - that's a tricky one because effectively they would be setting up a toll way, and I wouldn't think they have the right to do that. Is it just possible that the people who errected the sign are breaking the law by charging for the use of the beach? 3000 baht for wedding photos taken on the sand - before accusing me of "moaning" or "complaining" perhaps you can explain to me where they get the legal right to charge for this. Dont you get it? The German guy is a friend of Stevenl's, he is using the Thais to help him have the monopoly of diving on that beach. If it was a different beach and a different dive company Stevenl would be on our side. So stevenl, what do you think of the Thai guy charging 200baht for divers on Ya Nui beach? I know it is a bit off topic but its in the same bay as Ao Sane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenl Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 Dont you get it? The German guy is a friend of Stevenl's, he is using the Thais to help him have the monopoly of diving on that beach. If it was a different beach and a different dive company Stevenl would be on our side. So stevenl, what do you think of the Thai guy charging 200baht for divers on Ya Nui beach? I know it is a bit off topic but its in the same bay as Ao Sane Please refrain from writing nonsense about me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpeg.3f241ec0ca37ff9a998f452f392b00b7.jpeg)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now