City Hall gets last laugh in dispute with Beach Road peddlers

[Rimmer]

City Hall gets last laugh in dispute with Beach Road peddlers

PATTAYA:--Pattaya City Hall has demolished a narrow walkway in front of Pizza Company where street vendors had taken up shop.

 

Maintenance chief Buddhiset Charonepoj led a crew to the Beach Road pizzeria Sept. 21 where jackhammers and chisels were used to dismantle the sidewalk.

 

The demolition was Legal Department Director Sretapol Boonsawat’s answer to the refusal of street vendors using the walkway to disperse a week earlier.

 

Told not to sell in front of shopping centers, the vendors countered they were working on private property and that the top lawyer, who has led a crusade against peddlers since taking office, had no jurisdiction there.

 

See more: http://www.pattayamail.com/news/city-hall-gets-last-laugh-dispute-beach-road-peddlers-150996

 

PATTAYA MAIL 2016-10-07

 

[konfuzed]

brilliant... don't want street vendors blocking the street, so let's just demolish the street so NOBODY can use it...

what an absolute genius... give this guy a prize!!!

[siam2007]

3 minutes ago, konfuzed said:

brilliant... don't want street vendors blocking the street, so let's just demolish the street so NOBODY can use it...

what an absolute genius... give this guy a prize!!!

 

 

who says nobody can use it? The construction workers visibly were able to use it and I m sure they had a blast (and even got paid for that)   ;-)

[smedly]

ok so there is something obvious here.

 

If the land is private the local council has no right to move them but..................on the other hand - do they have a valid trading licence to trade there or even if they do have a licence then revoke it, it seems that the Pizza company or someone else doesn't want them there

[smedly]

1 hour ago, konfuzed said:

brilliant... don't want street vendors blocking the street, so let's just demolish the street so NOBODY can use it...

what an absolute genius... give this guy a prize!!!

yes rather extreme to say the least, saving face No1

[williamgeorgeallen]

cutting off the face to spite the head?

 

[Benmart]

Extreme behavior (subject to interpretation), often results in an extreme response. For those living in Pattaya, it is obvious that the vendors, peddlers and scooter renters have outlived their welcome. When pedestrians and wheelchair disabled are forced to walk and ride in the streets, then perhaps, extreme measures are warranted. In this case, City Hall seems to have prevailed.

[Cake Monster]

Pizza Co are now probably really miffed at thew loss of rental revenue from the traders.

Expect to pay more for your Pizza from now on.

[Enoon]

6 hours ago, Benmart said:

Extreme behavior (subject to interpretation), often results in an extreme response. For those living in Pattaya, it is obvious that the vendors, peddlers and scooter renters have outlived their welcome. When pedestrians and wheelchair disabled are forced to walk and ride in the streets, then perhaps, extreme measures are warranted. In this case, City Hall seems to have prevailed.

 

Doesn't this "extreme response" actually prevent pedestrians and wheelchair users from using the footpath, because there isn't one there now?

 

Get rid of all the footpaths where vendors habituate in order to solve the vendor "problem"?

 

I wonder where they will go then?

 

Duuuuh.

 

Hey look! No more footpaths!

 

It's called "throwing the baby out with the bathwater".

 

 

 

 

Edited October 7, 2016 by Enoon

[hawker9000]

"...the vendors countered they were working on private property..."

 

OK, but WHOSE private property??  NOT theirs!!!   It's really not about vendors vending per se.  It's about this Thai thing (shared by the Chinese, BTW) whereby they squat on whatever unoccupied spot they happen upon until they're ready to leave.  It's the same concept at work in fast food joints where actual customers can't sit down because the squatters are there for the free wifi.  Nevermind pedestrians on walkways who just want to get through; nevermind customers who actually want to buy a quick meal; nevermind that the South China Sea is open ocean.   Something deep in the DNA I guess.

 

'Can't believe they're actually removing the sidewalk though.  Somebody please provide follow-up on this.  Beach Road now comes right up to the building?   The cart vendors aren't shy about setting up shop right at the side of the road - I don't really see how even removing the sidewalk gets rid of them.  Now they'll just be in the road!

 

 

[Srikcir]

4 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

OK, but WHOSE private property??  NOT theirs!!!

I think the point with that scenario is that removal of the vendors is a civil issue. The property owner must be the one to take action (ie., file a tresspassing complaint) and not the municipality - particulalry if the property owner is receiving rent for vendor occupation. If the property occupied by the vendors is truly private property, then the sidewalk destroyed by the city was also private property and the city is no better than the vendors.

[onemorechang]

 It will be a dispute over money.

always is in Pattaya.  ( even if it looks like something else )

Remember money number 1  

 

[mikebell]

So the Indian restaurant near soi 6 on 2nd road, having commandeered the pavement and the section of the road for his customer parking is in the right?

[jacko45k]

3 hours ago, mikebell said:

So the Indian restaurant near soi 6 on 2nd road, having commandeered the pavement and the section of the road for his customer parking is in the right?

Yes, just like the auto shop on Sukhumvit that has commandeered 2 lanes of the highway to put his vehicles and do work on.

[Golden Triangle]

TBH, they could demolish all the sidewalks/pavements along beach road, most are unusable anyway due to the fact that they lay the bricks on sand which then washes away with the first rains and the whole thing collapses, the amount of times I have nearly sprained an ankle down there is unreal.

 

Why oh why can they not set them in concrete for crying out loud.

[johng]

12 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

Can't believe they're actually removing the sidewalk though.  Somebody please provide follow-up on this

 

here the final result   reporting that 100% of Pattaya's footpaths have been brought under order

http://manager.co.th/Local/ViewNews.aspx?NewsID=9590000099519

 

notice the electricity pylon and other "street furniture" still blocking the path.

 

 

[onemorechang]

2 hours ago, Golden Triangle said:

TBH, they could demolish all the sidewalks/pavements along beach road, most are unusable anyway due to the fact that they lay the bricks on sand which then washes away with the first rains and the whole thing collapses, the amount of times I have nearly sprained an ankle down there is unreal.

 

Why oh why can they not set them in concrete for crying out loud.

 

Why would they want to do it the correct way.

When maybe they can do it 10 times and still get paid more each time.

plus kick backs.

Remember Money number 1

 

Edited October 8, 2016 by onemorechang

[Pattaya46]

6 hours ago, Golden Triangle said:

TBH, they could demolish all the sidewalks/pavements along beach road, most are unusable anyway due to the fact that they lay the bricks on sand which then washes away with the first rains and the whole thing collapses, the amount of times I have nearly sprained an ankle down there is unreal.

 

"most are unusable"... As usual full exaggeration of some members here...

At least 99.99% of the beach promenade is in good state and perfect for my morning walks. :)

Only a few isolated areas (most of them just along the wall delimiting the beach) need some reparation.

 

[hawker9000]

11 hours ago, johng said:

 

here the final result   reporting that 100% of Pattaya's footpaths have been brought under order

http://manager.co.th/Local/ViewNews.aspx?NewsID=9590000099519

 

notice the electricity pylon and other "street furniture" still blocking the path.

 

 

So the sidewalks actually weren't removed, just replaced with narrower versions?   ...as I might've guessed.   Vendors are definitely not shy about setting up in the street - Beach Road or anywhere else - so making the sidewalks unusable to them isn't really the solution.  A solution requires continuing policing, and history doesn't suggest that's likely in the cards.   More probably the vendors will have some down time, and eventually be back.   This is all predicated on the assumption of course that the tour bus operators haven't paid somebody off so that they can start parking their busses there...

[cncltd1973]

Sidewalk, road, dirt, street vendors will setup shop no matter what the surface is. The only way to move them is with a street sweeper every few hours

[kingalfred]

brilliant... don't want street vendors blocking the street, so let's just demolish the street so NOBODY can use it...
what an absolute genius... give this guy a prize!!!

Sometimes it's the only action the ignorant arrogant vendors understand


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[JSixpack]

20 hours ago, Golden Triangle said:

TBH, they could demolish all the sidewalks/pavements along beach road, most are unusable anyway due to the fact that they lay the bricks on sand which then washes away with the first rains and the whole thing collapses, the amount of times I have nearly sprained an ankle down there is unreal.

 

Why oh why can they not set them in concrete for crying out loud.

 

 

Better that you merely improve your walking skills. Evidently your momma didn't do a very good job of teaching you. Otherwise, get yourself a walker.

 

[JSixpack]

7 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

 

So the sidewalks actually weren't removed, just replaced with narrower versions?   ...as I might've guessed.   Vendors are definitely not shy about setting up in the street - Beach Road or anywhere else - so making the sidewalks unusable to them isn't really the solution.  A solution requires continuing policing, and history doesn't suggest that's likely in the cards.   More probably the vendors will have some down time, and eventually be back.   This is all predicated on the assumption of course that the tour bus operators haven't paid somebody off so that they can start parking their busses there...

 

You don't know whether this solution will work in this case yet. Why not just wait and see?

 

The point, which most have ignored or misunderstood, is to deprive the vendors of the argument that the city has no jurisdiction because they are setting up on private property. This takes away the space on the private property. Then if they move out into the street, the city removes them for being on what is clearly public property.

 

But please excuse this interruption of mere clarity. Our ace urban planners may continue decry the stupidity as usual and enjoy giving their solutions (those have always been given great heed by The Authorities).

[hawker9000]

15 hours ago, JSixpack said:

 

You don't know whether this solution will work in this case yet. Why not just wait and see?

 

The point, which most have ignored or misunderstood, is to deprive the vendors of the argument that the city has no jurisdiction because they are setting up on private property. This takes away the space on the private property. Then if they move out into the street, the city removes them for being on what is clearly public property.

 

But please excuse this interruption of mere clarity. Our ace urban planners may continue decry the stupidity as usual and enjoy giving their solutions (those have always been given great heed by The Authorities).

You left out the "love it or leave it" crap part...   Tsk tsk tsk - not following the script.

[JSixpack]

7 hours ago, hawker9000 said:

You left out the "love it or leave it" crap part...   Tsk tsk tsk - not following the script.

 

But you left out the "thank you, now I understand a bit of what's going on (simple really if one but reads); I'll think now I'll just wait and see if their Thai solution works, as I don't understand the context anyway, rather than just flapping my gums & pontificating to feel all intelligent and superior."

Edited October 10, 2016 by JSixpack

[Srikcir]

22 hours ago, JSixpack said:

This takes away the space on the private property.

Did the property owners request removal or agree to force eviction of vendors?

It is afterall private property and no eminent domain was being invoked for the authorities to take control of that private property.

[JSixpack]

5 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

Did the property owners request removal or agree to force eviction of vendors?

It is afterall private property and no eminent domain was being invoked for the authorities to take control of that private property.

 

Why don't you go ask the property owners? But logically they would like the vendors gone. Were they married that (wider) sidewalk? Probably not, will have the same foot traffic. Maybe they'd even like space for a little more parking. Nor is it clear that the sidewalk really does belong to the property owners. You've just passively taken the vendors' word for it.

 

But we're just awfully eager to point the ol' finger at something, eh.

[Srikcir]

36 minutes ago, JSixpack said:

You've just passively taken the vendors' word for it.

As you have not having any information regarding ownership of the sidewalk area or business owners' intent. Were vendors allowed by businesses to operate, even pay a fee or rent? As you note, much is not clear in this story in terms of fact other than the presumption of guilt on the part of the vendors.

 

[JSixpack]

1 hour ago, Srikcir said:

As you have not having any information regarding ownership of the sidewalk area or business owners' intent. Were vendors allowed by businesses to operate, even pay a fee or rent? As you note, much is not clear in this story in terms of fact other than the presumption of guilt on the part of the vendors.

 

 

Of course I don't, and you surely know that nobody here has any real info either, and so I kindly directed you to those who do have the info. And they can answer your other questions as well. :) Not that they need answering; what business is it of yours?

 

It's not exactly a presumption of guilt. They were in fact blocking the sidewalk (the sort of thing our members whinge about constantly) and the city wants them off that sidewalk and is taking a step that it believes may help that happen. No need to overcomplicate it.

 

There may be an @rsehole for members to enjoy sniffing here, but stinkier ones are probably to be found elsewhere. You obviously don't know much about how things work and I really don't have time to educate you. As I say, go talk to the property owners if it's actually important.  

[Rimmer]

Some duplicate and empty posts have been zapped