You are talking about private land while Samak was talking about slums on public land that he wanted to convert to parks. Or rent out to private developers to build whatever they want, as some cynics among us expect.
Evicting squatters is an entirely different matter.
0
Samak To Relocate 1,700 Slums Out Of Bangkok
Started by george, 2008-08-15 14:11
|
59 replies to this topic
#52
Senior Member Posted 2008-08-24 11:14:00
^Thats right. This would state-owned land containing squatters.
Not much he can do with private land. Thailand lacks efficient 'compulsory purchase' laws. (If they did have them, then Sukhumvit Rd would be a couple of lanes wider probably. #53
Platinum Member Posted 2008-08-24 11:37:39
Developers should be made responsible for the relocation of these poor individuals into low-cost housing at a location they will still be able to make a living , helping to SOLVE the problem as apposed to just brushing it under the carpet , maepenrai bullshit . It's no different than if you buy a foreclosed upon house with squatters (in the US, the police and some private companies often provide the eviction services). Do you purchase or build a new place for the squatters to live somewhere else? Of course not.  #54
Loud Member Posted 2008-08-24 17:13:47
Thailand lacks efficient 'compulsory purchase' laws. (If they did have them, then Sukhumvit Rd would be a couple of lanes wider probably. Not really, compulsory purchases are common place in Thailand. Valuation of the property concerned is usually the property departments valuation of a particular area, which BTW,is usually inflated for the purpose of collecting more tax on sales of property. (If you buy a property for 20,000B per rai, and the property department values it at 80,000B per rai, you will have to pay tax on the larger amount) Apply that to the value of Sukhumvit road (at 100kB per wah  ) and to buy out a 10 kilometre section would bankrupt the government!  Cheers, Soundman.
#55
some grey dots Posted 2008-08-25 07:15:51
You are talking about private land while Samak was talking about slums on public land that he wanted to convert to parks. Or rent out to private developers to build whatever they want, as some cynics among us expect. Evicting squatters is an entirely different matter. There's no difference between squatting on private or public land. That public land is the 'private' property of 65 million people, not a few thousand people (who act as if they are private owners).
#56
some grey dots Posted 2008-08-25 07:19:12
Developers should be made responsible for the relocation of these poor individuals into low-cost housing at a location they will still be able to make a living , helping to SOLVE the problem as apposed to just brushing it under the carpet , maepenrai bullshit . It's no different than if you buy a foreclosed upon house with squatters (in the US, the police and some private companies often provide the eviction services). Do you purchase or build a new place for the squatters to live somewhere else? Of course not. Apples and apples actually. I'm not talking about the financial status of these folks, I'm talking about the fact that they are trespassing. Trespassing is trespassing.
#57
Loud Member Posted 2008-08-25 12:39:53
Apples and apples actually. I'm not talking about the financial status of these folks, I'm talking about the fact that they are trespassing. Trespassing is trespassing. Reminds of a funny situation a couple of years ago. I'm in Lumpini police station filling out some paperwork on a traffic accident & the local boys march four poor looking fishermen, along with a few plastic containers full of fish, in through the door & tell the desk clerk to "book em danno". "What with?" asks the clerk. "Trespassing on government property." "What evidence do you have?" "There - in the buckets." "What the h$ll do you want me to do with that?" "Put it in the evidence room of course!" replied the arresting detective.
#58
Libertarian Member Posted 2008-08-25 19:19:27
Image that fits, from Wizard of Id: http://www.starduck....dofid/20080823/
#59
Star Member Posted 2008-08-25 19:45:29
You are talking about private land while Samak was talking about slums on public land that he wanted to convert to parks. Or rent out to private developers to build whatever they want, as some cynics among us expect. Evicting squatters is an entirely different matter. There's no difference between squatting on private or public land. That public land is the 'private' property of 65 million people, not a few thousand people (who act as if they are private owners). Slum dwellers are not exactly squatters and tresspassers, at least state agencies that own the land don't treat them like that, and they show no intention of relocating them at this point. It's Samak's own idea, and he hasn't called them squatters either. You also can't evict them from the country just because they don't own any land that is private property of 65 million people. #60
some grey dots Posted 2008-08-25 20:54:29
You are talking about private land while Samak was talking about slums on public land that he wanted to convert to parks. Or rent out to private developers to build whatever they want, as some cynics among us expect. Evicting squatters is an entirely different matter. There's no difference between squatting on private or public land. That public land is the 'private' property of 65 million people, not a few thousand people (who act as if they are private owners). Slum dwellers are not exactly squatters and tresspassers, at least state agencies that own the land don't treat them like that, and they show no intention of relocating them at this point. It's Samak's own idea, and he hasn't called them squatters either. You also can't evict them from the country just because they don't own any land that is private property of 65 million people. It doesn't matter how they are treated. Just because someone sets up a shack in front of your house -say blocking your driveway- and no one has yet to label them anything doesn't mean they aren't squatting on public property. These folks attempt to take over unoccupied (but not unowned) land and use and protect it as if it were there own.
|
Sponsored by ... |
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
