Tense clash over demolitions at Mahakan Fort community

[rooster59]

Tense clash over demolitions at Mahakan Fort community

TANATPONG KONGSAI,
PRATCH RUJIVANAROM
THE NATION

 

 

BANGKOK: BMA warns of more lawsuits, forced relocation if people stop them taking down three homes.

 

FORCED relocation and lawsuits will be inevitable if residents continue to block the demolition of three houses in Mahakan Fort community, Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) warned yesterday.

The ultimatum came after an intense confrontation between the community and a BMA team led by Vallop Suwandee, a head adviser to the Bangkok governor. The two sides eventually reached an agreement that the house owners can enter the community to clear out their houses on October 6.

 

Full story: http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Tense-clash-over-demolitions-at-Mahakan-Fort-commu-30296635.html

 

 

-- © Copyright The Nation 2016-10-01

 

 

 

[Docno]

Visited the community back in June as a friend of my girlfriend lives there. There was palpable tension in the air because they have no idea when people might show up to evict them, and the people even seemed to regard us with some suspicion until my gf found her friend. After that they were very warm. They have a well-kept small community that's been there for over 150 years, and most of the people there have lived there for decades. It's a much more interesting place now than some sort of phony 'tourist park' that they will probably build there. Sad that its days are coming to an end.

An anthropology prof from Harvard, Michael Herzfeld, has been advocating for them for years and has even written a book on the issue... you can Google his name.  And here is a paper by a Thai-based architecture prof: http://cahr.kmutt.ac.th/file/editor/pdf/Papers/Community Design and Human Rights-illus.pdf  

[Grubster]

I wish they would say if these people are being fairly compensated for their lost homes or not. If they end up building a big condo or something there, I would be tempted to burn it down if I was one of those kicked out. If they are being displaced just because the land is very valuable and not for a New highway, bridge, railway, etc. Then I am for the residents. If it is for one of those reasons the residents should end up with a better property in a good spot paid for by the government.

[Grubster]

17 hours ago, Docno said:

Visited the community back in June as a friend of my girlfriend lives there. There was palpable tension in the air because they have no idea when people might show up to evict them, and the people even seemed to regard us with some suspicion until my gf found her friend. After that they were very warm. They have a well-kept small community that's been there for over 150 years, and most of the people there have lived there for decades. It's a much more interesting place now than some sort of phony 'tourist park' that they will probably build there. Sad that its days are coming to an end.

An anthropology prof from Harvard, Michael Herzfeld, has been advocating for them for years and has even written a book on the issue... you can Google his name.  And here is a paper by a Thai-based architecture prof: http://cahr.kmutt.ac.th/file/editor/pdf/Papers/Community Design and Human Rights-illus.pdf  

I apologize, I didn't clic on your post before. Now I see it is being taken away because it is a nice area. This is no reason to do this and I would fight like hell to keep my community of a 100 years plus intact. These folks were smart enough to build their home in a beautiful area, why should they be punished now.

[fruitman]

17 hours ago, Docno said:

Visited the community back in June as a friend of my girlfriend lives there. There was palpable tension in the air because they have no idea when people might show up to evict them, and the people even seemed to regard us with some suspicion until my gf found her friend. After that they were very warm. They have a well-kept small community that's been there for over 150 years, and most of the people there have lived there for decades. It's a much more interesting place now than some sort of phony 'tourist park' that they will probably build there. Sad that its days are coming to an end.

An anthropology prof from Harvard, Michael Herzfeld, has been advocating for them for years and has even written a book on the issue... you can Google his name.  And here is a paper by a Thai-based architecture prof: http://cahr.kmutt.ac.th/file/editor/pdf/Papers/Community Design and Human Rights-illus.pdf  

 

Oh yes anthropology.....  very usefull sir....

[ddavidovsky]

I'm afraid they'll have to go eventually, and they know it. It's quaint to have a village in the centre of a big city, but villages are for the countryside - a city is constantly developing and the pressure to put land to the most profitable use is irresistible.  If they were paid enough they'd go happily enough. They are holding out for a better deal - good luck to them.

[Brer Fox]

Any other day or any other location this place would probably be referred to as part of Thai culture. In this case it seems it is more to do with the culture of the almighty baht and the greed of a few well connected fat cats.

Returning happiness to certain chosen people (sic).

[Docno]

6 hours ago, fruitman said:

 

Oh yes anthropology.....  very usefull sir....

Ah, ignorance ... you must be very blissful my friend

[fruitman]

47 minutes ago, Docno said:

Ah, ignorance ... you must be very blissful my friend

 

I've been married to a anthropologist for years, she had studied the importance of penistubes on Borneo...serious!  What a nonsense-occupation that is 

[Xircal]

On 10/1/2016 at 1:25 PM, Docno said:

  And here is a paper by a Thai-based architecture prof: http://cahr.kmutt.ac.th/file/editor/pdf/Papers/Community Design and Human Rights-illus.pdf  

 

I get a warning from my Internet security application that the site you've linked to is hosting malware.

[Xircal]

7 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

I'm afraid they'll have to go eventually, and they know it. It's quaint to have a village in the centre of a big city, but villages are for the countryside - a city is constantly developing and the pressure to put land to the most profitable use is irresistible.  If they were paid enough they'd go happily enough. They are holding out for a better deal - good luck to them.

 

It's not a village in the true sense of the word but rather more a collection of buildings which has grown together to form a tight knit community. The BMA wants to tear it down to develop a park to attract tourism.

 

With tourism comes greed and the entrance fee for farangs will be a minimum 500 baht and very likely considerably more. 

 

The BMA should leave it be. Let poor communities live where they wish. They have very little already. Why take what little they have left away from them.

 

As for your thoughtless remark about them holding out for a better deal money cannot compensate for the community spirit they enjoy now. Forcing them to relocate in the interests of capitalism and greed is reprehensible.

[ddavidovsky]

2 hours ago, Xircal said:

 

It's not a village in the true sense of the word but rather more a collection of buildings which has grown together to form a tight knit community. The BMA wants to tear it down to develop a park to attract tourism.

 

With tourism comes greed and the entrance fee for farangs will be a minimum 500 baht and very likely considerably more. 

 

The BMA should leave it be. Let poor communities live where they wish. They have very little already. Why take what little they have left away from them.

 

As for your thoughtless remark about them holding out for a better deal money cannot compensate for the community spirit they enjoy now. Forcing them to relocate in the interests of capitalism and greed is reprehensible.

 

I agree, if it was my decision, I'd let them stay, because I'm sentimental. I'm still capable of being objective about it though, because economics isn't sentimental.

And I can't help thinking that  if this same group of people had their community outside of town, like all the thousands of little communities happily dotted around the country, no one would be much interested in them.

[Xircal]

7 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

I agree, if it was my decision, I'd let them stay, because I'm sentimental. I'm still capable of being objective about it though, because economics isn't sentimental.

And I can't help thinking that  if this same group of people had their community outside of town, like all the thousands of little communities happily dotted around the country, no one would be much interested in them.

 

Look at the faces of the kids in the OP. You think they want to move to the 10th floor of some obnoxious concrete block in the middle of nowhere where they don't have room to play and have to adapt to living with people they don't know.

 

And what on earth has economics got to do with a park and why does it require the upheaval of a whole community which has thrived there for decades.

 

If a park is so essential, let them go develop it on waste ground. Plenty of that around in Bangkok.

[tifino]

 

yeah, why not make a fun park - out of that derelict 747 in that big empty suburban lot!!

 

[ddavidovsky]

14 hours ago, Xircal said:

 

Look at the faces of the kids in the OP. You think they want to move to the 10th floor of some obnoxious concrete block in the middle of nowhere where they don't have room to play and have to adapt to living with people they don't know.

 

And what on earth has economics got to do with a park and why does it require the upheaval of a whole community which has thrived there for decades.

 

If a park is so essential, let them go develop it on waste ground. Plenty of that around in Bangkok.

 

As I said, if it was up to me I'd let them stay. I'm just looking at the way it's happening everywhere else and pointing out that they are doomed.

 

They should be given somewhere reasonable to live, of course. I don't know what they've been offered, but living in flats is good enough for everyone else, including me. Bangkok is full of developments that have pushed out former villages. It's the natural evolution of every city. Protect one and you have to protect them all, and that isn't going to work.

 

They say it's to be a tourist park. Big economic value in tourism development of course, and with the proximity to Khaosan and the river boat to town, the location makes sense.

[Docno]

On 02/10/2016 at 8:39 PM, Xircal said:

 

I get a warning from my Internet security application that the site you've linked to is hosting malware.

Strange... I only viewed it on my iPad. Legit PDF came up. The main site looks legit also.... for the Centre for Architecture and Human Rights. Not the sort of click bait site that would host malware. Not sure what to make of it. 

[HoboKay]

On 10/2/2016 at 7:39 PM, Xircal said:

 

I get a warning from my Internet security application that the site you've linked to is hosting malware.

 

11 minutes ago, Docno said:

Strange... I only viewed it on my iPad. Legit PDF came up. The main site looks legit also.... for the Centre for Architecture and Human Rights. Not the sort of click bait site that would host malware. Not sure what to make of it. 

 

No security issues on my end, seems legit and safe for access.

[halloween]

On 02/10/2016 at 10:59 PM, Xircal said:

 

It's not a village in the true sense of the word but rather more a collection of buildings which has grown together to form a tight knit community. The BMA wants to tear it down to develop a park to attract tourism.

 

With tourism comes greed and the entrance fee for farangs will be a minimum 500 baht and very likely considerably more. 

 

The BMA should leave it be. Let poor communities live where they wish. They have very little already. Why take what little they have left away from them.

 

As for your thoughtless remark about them holding out for a better deal money cannot compensate for the community spirit they enjoy now. Forcing them to relocate in the interests of capitalism and greed is reprehensible.

In many cities the knocking down of decrepit buildings for "green space" would be considered a good idea. But if a tourist should go there, it becomes rampant commercialism due to an imaginary fee?

[Xircal]

10 hours ago, Docno said:

Strange... I only viewed it on my iPad. Legit PDF came up. The main site looks legit also.... for the Centre for Architecture and Human Rights. Not the sort of click bait site that would host malware. Not sure what to make of it. 

 

Probably just a false positive then. I thought I would mention it though just in case the site had been compromised.