Torneyboy Posted August 27, 2007 Report Share Posted August 27, 2007 Take your point....just the Tab..1.2million damage is a bit over the top...they could have gone a little easy ..at first anyway..imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted August 27, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 27, 2007 << then handling these issue in a quick, non-violent way. >> Yeah, sending 100 plus goons in to destroy the place is really non-violent. What's violent ... if they killed everybody? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shygye Posted August 27, 2007 Report Share Posted August 27, 2007 Neo, just because the land owner can now get 10X to lease the land does not give him the right to break the lease and break heads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted August 28, 2007 Report Share Posted August 28, 2007 does not give him the right to break the lease The article says the leases had expired and the tenants were given 3 months notice. does not give him the right to break heads I agree, see below. Yeah, sending 100 plus goons in to destroy the place is really non-violent The razing was designed so no one got hurt and no one did. It was the right choice to get rid of all the stuff that was illegally on the owners land at 4am when no one was there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted August 28, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2007 Here's the problem: << "I have never fallen behind in my rent schedule," Lue said. He said he always paid the rent through Samruai, who assured him that the business could continue as usual even when a board was erected to demand that the stalls relocate or face legal action. "Samruai told me that he could settle things with the landlord," Lue said. "But in whatever case talk is a much better option. One should not resort to violence." >> The agent was telling the renters everything was fine and apparently still collecting the rent. What did he do with it? Also, the sign said "or face legal action". The owner has a rather strange idea of what "legal action" consitutes. Apparently, you also think there is no need to trouble the courts with such matters, especially since going to court can take a very long time. Just hire some thugs to sort it out. Cheaper and quicker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neo Posted August 28, 2007 Report Share Posted August 28, 2007 The agent was telling the renters everything was fine and apparently still collecting the rent. What did he do with it? Exactly. Has the agent returned the money to the tenants? Gee let's take a wild guess, no? So if the owner wouldn't take the money where did it go? If anything, the tenants should direct their anger at the agent who pocketed all their money for the last 3 months. The owner communicated crystal clear to the tenants that it was over by not renewing the lease, refusing their rent money, and erecting the sign. Let's face it, if someone parked a food cart on your front lawn and you told them repeatedly to get off for 3 months and they didn't, eventually the cart might end up getting tipped over on the street one night. This is just a bigger lawn we are talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted August 28, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 28, 2007 If the guy had been paying me 18,000 baht a month to park his cart on my front lawn for 20 years or more, I think I might tend to cut him a little slack. Again let's face it, this landowner has made millions of baht over the years from these renters. He can't be hurting for money. The word GREED comes to mind. Greed and impatience to make even more - that plus the feeling that since he is rich, he is above the law and can do whatever he wants. Who needs courts of law anyway ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YimSiam Posted August 29, 2007 Report Share Posted August 29, 2007 Flash, what was 18,000 baht worth in 1987 and what's it worth today? If you had a tenant who was staying in your property and paying you at a 1987 rate despite the fact that the lease was up, and you had even posted a billboard on the property telling him to leave, you wouldn't be just the littlest bit tempted to give a little nudge? Anyway... if they had a judicial system that actually worked, you'd see a lot less of this. But I wouldn't expect that anytime soon. YimSiam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted August 29, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 29, 2007 Which is one reason the landowner chose an "extra-legal" solution. With his money, he knew he could use force. Fat chance the renters have of fighting a multi-millionaire in court. My tendency is to side with the proles against the robber barons. p.s. Multiply 18,000 times the number of renters (30) times 12 and I bet you get a rather respectable return for doing nothing with a vacant piece of land - 6,480,000 baht. Then multiply that times 20 = 129,600,000 baht. I think I could scrape by on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torneyboy Posted August 29, 2007 Report Share Posted August 29, 2007 No..don't hold your breath.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now