Guess wrote:It's a load of pretentious tosh saying that if you have loads of money to buy land in Thailand and you can afford to take the Finance Minister and his entourage for a weekend orgy your company can 100% own and develop the land for "business purposes". You will probably find that Nana Plaza and the old Nana Square are/were in this category.STEVE G wrote:Guess wrote:I was hoping you were going to explain it all for us!If the Guiness Book of Records gives an award for the most unintelligble but grammatically correct English then the writer of that statement should get the award.
That's how I interpreted it too. I really am beginning to despair with Thailand's short-sighted attitude to land ownership and their lack of clearly defined rules. If everybody knew exactly where they stood they could make reasoned decisions.
While I can understand they might not want western developers buying half the country, surely they're not so stupid that they can't see the sense in a farang owning a house and land for his retirement or 2nd home, bringing badly needed income into the country.
While it can be argued that Thailand is still third world, if they don't sort this quickly it'll go even further backwards. If they clamped down on the sex trade too then Thailand would be like a warmer version of the outer hebrides.
So bloody frustrating . . .
