City Hall gets last laugh in dispute with Beach Road peddlers

[hawker9000]

3 hours ago, JSixpack said:

 

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."

"...& pontificating to feel all intelligent and superior"

 

 I don't think you need to worry much about that.

 

[johng]

On 09/10/2016 at 2:18 AM, hawker9000 said:

So the sidewalks actually weren't removed, just replaced with narrower versions? 

 

In that particular area in front of  Pizahut   they removed the  VW camper van man selling assorted stuff who had been there for years and years

then removed a façade  on the Pizahut front wall   that was about 18 inches wide  then dug up the pavement and relaid it,  so they made the pavement  about 18 inches wider  for the length of Pizahut  and then you walk straight into the electricity pylon shown in the photo.

[gdgbb]

On 08/10/2016 at 6:25 AM, Srikcir said:

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.

 

The report states that the 'walkway' (whatever that is) was illegally modified by the private owners, presumably encroaching on the public road, therefore it's removal was valid and does not make the city as bad as the vendors.

Edited October 10, 2016 by gdgbb

[gdgbb]

On 08/10/2016 at 8:07 PM, Pattaya46 said:

 

"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.

 

 

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

 

The pavements need reparation [sic]?  What injustice has been done to the pavements, and by whom, that justifies paying the pavement reparation?

[gdgbb]

7 hours 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.

 

"It is afterall private property..."

 

...illegally modified private property.  That's enough for the authorities to take the action they did.

 

[Srikcir]

1 hour ago, gdgbb said:

presumably encroaching on the public road

You presume - I don't. The present authorities vis a vis by example by the junta does not show a great deal of respect for due process of law. If one wants to presume in this case, I'd presume for the vendors to be innocent until proven guilty of trespass.

[Pattaya46]

2 hours ago, gdgbb said:

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

The pavements need reparation [sic]? 

What injustice has been done to the pavements, and by whom, that justifies paying the pavement reparation?

 

Ok, ok. I suppose that "requires repair" or "requires fixing" would have been more appropriate.

Sorry for this direct translation of a French expression... Not everyone is native English speaker here

[JSixpack]

4 hours ago, Srikcir said:

You presume - I don't. The present authorities vis a vis by example by the junta does not show a great deal of respect for due process of law. If one wants to presume in this case, I'd presume for the vendors to be innocent until proven guilty of trespass.

 

But you've "presumed" the junta has inspired dissing due process in this instance. Legal Department Director Sretapol Boonsawat would seem familiar enough w/ the law and the regulation that the law permits. It also looks like he precedes the junta (you may verify at City Hall), but he's been on such cases since he first got in office.

 

The city can legally judge that modifications to the sidewalk are illegal and can demolish them any time it chooses. Moreover it seems the vendors were given warning and did have at least a week to seek an injunction had they so wished.

 

So it seems more the case that (cough) you're not showing a great deal of respect for due process of law. BTW, the regulation being invoked here isn't actually against trespass, technically speaking.

 

This thread has been useful, though, for underlining the need to formalize a second TVF investigative unit.

 

The new unit would complement our crack CSI: TVF that thoroughly investigates all the murders and uncovers crucial evidence the bumbling plod overlooked proving the suicides are actually murders too--by the wife & bf/real hubby, gf, bf, bg, or lb. And then assures us the perp will forever go unpunished, case closed. All this, without the bother of reading the full news item about the crime. :)

 

Now we should similarly formalize our team of ace lawyers and advocates who work ceaselessly to uncover the dastardly corruption and fascist boots behind all the civil cases, just as they have in the above important case.

 

Got it. Ta-da! The DSI: TVF is born. Graphic artists: create a logo around a brown paper bag or tea leaves.

Edited October 10, 2016 by JSixpack

[gdgbb]

19 hours ago, Srikcir said:

You presume - I don't. The present authorities vis a vis by example by the junta does not show a great deal of respect for due process of law. If one wants to presume in this case, I'd presume for the vendors to be innocent until proven guilty of trespass.

 

"You presume - I don't."

" I'd presume..."

...but you do contradict yourself.   Make up your mind.

Edited October 11, 2016 by gdgbb