Canal squatters in capital to face forced eviction

[Gunna]

Squatters do have rights if they have occupied land for a certain amount of time, done certain things to comply with the lands occupation. I saw the quote below on a legal web site. So not sure how, or if the land that is being taken back, is private or Government land.

So some, not all of these people may have a legal and legitimate claim on the lands.

Under Thai law, squatters who occupied another person's land without permission can eventually claim ownership of the said land parcels if the land's rightful owner was not able to evict them in a certain period of time. A Chanote title deed gives land owners 10 years to evict the squatters from their land before they lose their ownership. http://usa.siam-legal.com/property-thailand/title-deeds.php

Have you looked at the current photos ?

There are no Squatters Rights when you have illegally built your home on stilts over a klong or river.

As well as causing massive water pollution due to no sewers and dumping their rubbish, these people are one of the causes of flooding in Bangkok as they restrict the water flow by their stilts and filling canals with rubbish, plus they stop the authorities properly dredging the canals.

[Chris Lawrence]

Squatters do have rights if they have occupied land for a certain amount of time, done certain things to comply with the lands occupation. I saw the quote below on a legal web site. So not sure how, or if the land that is being taken back, is private or Government land.

So some, not all of these people may have a legal and legitimate claim on the lands.

Under Thai law, squatters who occupied another person's land without permission can eventually claim ownership of the said land parcels if the land's rightful owner was not able to evict them in a certain period of time. A Chanote title deed gives land owners 10 years to evict the squatters from their land before they lose their ownership. http://usa.siam-legal.com/property-thailand/title-deeds.php

This is certainly also true in Western countries, but then they have the rule of law.

There is a legal presumption that if someone lives on land openly, notoriously and continuously for ten years, no one else then has an interest in it so it must belong to the inhabitant. Surely if there was an owner they would have been evicted. (The number of years varies with jurisdictions, but the doctrine doesn't.)

I wish this was true (or enforced) in Thailand because if it were, Thailand would have to pay for or replace these dwellings. Governments usually have the right of "eminent domain" and can take someone's property for the public good. But they can't take it without paying for or providing an alternative.

I know these people have to move but they are truly on the bottom and they should be moved with respect and dignity after all of this time.

Unless you can quote a statute that outlines your case, it would appear that your opinion is an opinion with no meaning in property law.

Eminent Domain is about compulsory acquisition, which is normally the acquiring of land by a Government Department or statutory authority for public use?

"In the past, the King had privileges to expropriate the land as it is deemed expedient. There is a legal research that the King would always give the evicting people fair compensation or arrange for relocation to the new places.

When private property is taken under the right of “Eminent Domain”, a fair price is paid to the owner by governing authorities. If the owner refuses to accept the price offered, condemnation proceeding are bought by the government and commissioners are appointed to appraise the property. The appraised value is paid to the owner." http://thaisolicitor.com/?p=97

They would still be paid compensation under “Eminent Domain”?

Need to do some research before posting, Neversure?

What the Government will rely on is ignorance and the poverty of the people affected, together with their poor education levels. Some may have a case, not all, but some.

What in the heck did you say that I didn't say, and why do you have to be so rude?

1. I explained the doctrine of adverse possession - that someone could own land by occupying it openly, notoriously and continuously, and I said I wish that was true in Thailand.

2. I explained the law of eminent domain where a government could take land for its own use. If the people owned the land by adverse possession, then the government would have to take it under eminent domain and compensate for it. I said I wished that were true for these people.

Do you understand now, "Chris"?

Geez.

Are you a lawyer or property valuer?

[Chris Lawrence]

Squatters do have rights if they have occupied land for a certain amount of time, done certain things to comply with the lands occupation. I saw the quote below on a legal web site. So not sure how, or if the land that is being taken back, is private or Government land.

So some, not all of these people may have a legal and legitimate claim on the lands.

Under Thai law, squatters who occupied another person's land without permission can eventually claim ownership of the said land parcels if the land's rightful owner was not able to evict them in a certain period of time. A Chanote title deed gives land owners 10 years to evict the squatters from their land before they lose their ownership. http://usa.siam-legal.com/property-thailand/title-deeds.php

Have you looked at the current photos ?

There are no Squatters Rights when you have illegally built your home on stilts over a klong or river.

As well as causing massive water pollution due to no sewers and dumping their rubbish, these people are one of the causes of flooding in Bangkok as they restrict the water flow by their stilts and filling canals with rubbish, plus they stop the authorities properly dredging the canals.

No, but it would be up to a court to decide?

[greenchair]

Many years ago before Bangkok was ruined, thousands of Thais lived alongside the canals (klongs) as their transportation system was water based.

The culture is still used to attract tourist to faux floating markets. Today's problem is the klongs are used as sewers and drainage canals as well as garbage dumping areas in some places.

A look at a few of the pictures here will illustrate the wide variety of "klongside" dwellings. I imagine some residents have actual land titles to waterside property and are thus immune from the clean out.:https://www.google.com/search?q=canal+side+houses+in+bangkok&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=WqgfVYqiHc-eugSCtoCIBw&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAg&biw=1009&bih=606

No doubt once the squatters are removed and the flood embankments are installed, there will be a flood of greedy developers lined up wanting to build 'des res' waterfront condos for the yuppy Bangkokneys to buy. Will be useful in a few years when a Venetian lifestyle prevails in Bangkok.

And that is the crux of it.

Heroes saving bangkok from the floods my backside. The developers have had their eye on that area for a loooong time. The reason they could not get their greedy little hands on it were the human rights laws. It is true , Art 44 has cleared away those pesky human rights laws and the developers must be in salivating mode right now.

There will be a show of help to some of these very poor people, but I imagine most will be thrown out on their ear.

Smoke and mirrors. AGAIN.

???????

[kurce]

One solution for re-housing the squatters would be to utilize many of the abandoned, incomplete eyesore condo towers that are scattered throughout the capital.

A bit of work and they would be of a suitable living standard for a squatter.

Not sure I would like to hike it up 30 floors ( as they certainly won't have the luxury of a lift) to live in the penthouse, but it's a thought.

[metisdead]

A post containing an off topic image not related to Thailand has been removed.

[ToddinChonburi]

They refuse to finish the express way through Chonburi because residents say no but they have no problem kicking out the poor. Nice government , Keep up the good work Charlie.