[200William-EC] Parking Problems - WAS Quotation: 200 William Street, Woolloomooloo - Parking Locks
Matt Perkins
matt at spectrum.com.au
Tue Dec 3 10:31:30 EST 2013
On 3/12/13 10:16 AM, CSCL wrote:
>
> Thanks Matt for the idea.
>
> The main concern I see is again the monitoring of the system,
> particularly for tradesman who are visiting. Who lets them in/out of
> this cable device? The benefit of our intercom system is we simply
> pick up the phone for the garage gate to go up/down. Now, to have to
> go downstairs to use this cable device seems like it defeats the
> purpose of the intercom.
>
Yes I agree Craig it does defeat the intercom. But people look to be
searching for a solution here and the ones that are being proposing are
not lawful and far more restrictive. It's more of a compromise response.
>
> We have the CCTV camera in place -- surely we can track down the odd
> car that stays longer than it's welcomed? It along with the notices
> have worked until now.
>
All true However the swipe system is a bit more in your face. If people
are swiping they know they are being recording and monitored. It's in
your face security as it's intended. I also would prefer to keep things
the way they are But this system seems better then the proposed losing
visitor parking and the legal battle that will follow which I am
advised we will loose. Booking or walking around with keys is even worse.
>
> I know we can't budget wise...... but just imagine a "luxury" building
> like ours.......with a concierge! It's a bummer. So many problems
> could be taken care of!
>
I would pay double the strata fees without a second thought to pay for a
concierge. However my fellow owners im sure do not agree with me. We are
just not big enough for one. As for the luxury building I had the
pleasure of throwing a injecting junky out onto the street on Sunday
evening from the level G entrance. She landed in the waiting arms of
two undercover police that were surveying the building who raced over
when they saw the commotion. Not much Luxury there.
> Thanks again Matt.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Craig Laforest
>
> *From:*ec-bounces at 200william.com [mailto:ec-bounces at 200william.com]
> *On Behalf Of *Matt Perkins
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 3 December 2013 10:04 AM
> *To:* ec at 200william.com
> *Subject:* Re: [200William-EC] Parking Problems - WAS Quotation: 200
> William Street, Woolloomooloo - Parking Locks
>
> Hi All,
> I know this email is long but please If I can have your attention to
> the end we may be able to make some progress. Our EC roll is
> important and If you can not take the time to read and understand some
> of these email's I respectively suggest that the EC is not for you.
>
> I have received advise from a solicitor very knowledgeable in strata
> area regarding this plan. I have also examined the original DA for 200
> William and the proposed plan can not go ahead.
>
> The DA states that there are 5 spots for visitors. This can not be
> changed without council approval. Unlikely to be granted. These spots
> must remain freeley available for visitors. The way I understand it
> paid parking is not really an option we could grant licensees but it
> would require a very complex change to bylaws and would likely fail an
> AGM/EGM/Council. It would only cost us money.
>
> We could secure the visitors spots providing we had someone available
> 24/7 to come and open them however this seems unrealistic. We can not
> ask some one to book them 24 hours in advance because this does not
> fit the description of freely available. We have no concierge we can
> not operate the building like we do.
>
> Given these restrictions I can not see how we can go ahead with any of
> these options lawfully. I have however come up with an alternate
> plan. It will not allow user pays, however I believe it will fix the
> parking problems or at least find it much easier to identify offenders
> and issue them with breaches.
>
> I do not have any costings and have no idea of the numbers. I did not
> want to waste time on it if the EC are not interested in it.
>
> There is a product called a Cable Gate. It's effectively a thick
> stainless steel cable securely locked between two steel posts
> position at either side of the parking bay which provide an effective
> physical barrier. A motor housed inside one of the posts drives down a
> latch releasing the cable to lay flat on the ground so a vehicle can
> pass over the top. Once the vehicle parks the cable is automaticly
> drawn back up and locked again inside the post re-securing the parking
> bays.
>
> The Cable gate would be operated by our normal card swipe which we use
> for access to the building. So It would require a resident to come
> down and allow a visitor into the spot. They would also be required to
> swipe again to release there car from the spot. Logs generated from
> the building access control system could then be used to enforce 24
> hour restrictions with a clear indication of who let the visitor in
> and out of the spot and how long they stayed. This could be used as
> evidence in any bylaw breech. Appropriate sign's could be affixed to
> the swipe and gates that explained the restrictions and that they are
> electronically monitored.
>
>
>
>
> I know this has been a long and complex email and I hope your all
> still with me. This solution may not be within our budget but I do
> believe it to be our best chance to keep parking fair without a
> concierge. If the EC thinks this idea may be viable I will assist
> George in providing a specification to be quoted.
>
>
> Kind Regards.
>
> Matt.
>
> http://www.cablegate.com.au/cg4.html
>
>
>
> On 3/12/13 12:08 AM, Rob Willett wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Just reiterating, no one is closing off visitors spots, we are
> just securing them to make visitors, guests, tradespeople
> accountable following numerous complaints, especially from the EC,
> over the past months and indeed, years. As discussed. So it can
> either be done, or not. It's not personal. I don't really care.
>
> The other reason for wanting to secure them is to stop transients
> from entering the car park ( has been a major complaint over the
> past 3 years, especially from EC members ) ) and to stop tenants
> sub-letting their spots and using the visitors spots.
>
> But the major reason is to fund the cctv system. We don't have a
> budget for it and if we want to do it, we should raise the revenue
> from the buildings available resources.
>
> *Please folks: Forget any nasty and personal comments against me
> please.* I don't need it or want it. Simply give us a Yes or a No.
> If you vote yes, the preferred option. A B C. If you vote no,
> great. But don't take your misguided anger out on me.
>
> Majority will decide. Thanks for the feedback to date folks, but
> keep it positive.
>
> So far we Have:
>
> Matt TBA
>
> RowanTBA
>
> Rob
>
> Yes
>
> Di
>
> No
>
> BrookTBA
>
> AndrewTBA
>
> CraigNo
>
> Dave
>
> TBA
>
> BarnayTBA
>
>
>
> *IN SRI LANKA / CELL PHONE +94 766 88 92 98*
>
> *5.5 HOURS BEHIND SYDNEY / 10.5 HOURS AHEAD NEW YORK*
>
> On 02/12/2013, at 5:33 PM, CSCL <cscl at optusnet.com.au
> <mailto:cscl at optusnet.com.au>> wrote:
>
>
>
> Ridiculous to close off the visitor spots. They are for visitors!!
>
> We don't have an onsite manager. Who would monitor the yellow
> triangles? Rob -- are you available to pop down each time?
>
> My vote is a definite NO.
>
> Cages -- a good idea for revenue.
>
> Regards,
> Craig Laforest
>
> *From:*ec-bounces at 200william.com
> <mailto:ec-bounces at 200william.com>[mailto:ec-bounces at 200william.com <mailto:bounces at 200william.com>]*On
> Behalf Of*Diana Dennison
> *Sent:*Monday, 2 December 2013 9:22 PM
> *To:*Rob Willett; ec at 200william.com <mailto:ec at 200william.com>;
> Matt Perkins
> *Subject:*Re: [200William-EC] Quotation: 200 William Street,
> Woolloomooloo - Parking Locks
>
> Hi Rob,
>
> Before we think of installing these things, have we considered the
> cost of administering 'charged visitor's parking'? And who would
> do it? Is it remotely worth it? Some visitors come for an hour,
> some come for the night. What's the plan?
>
> I am sorry I can't keep it to a NO.
>
> Rob, I am a NO until the above issues have been resolved; you
> don't just bung in yellow triangles without a plan. We're surely
> not planning to rent a space on an overnight basis? We'll end up
> with locked empty spaces during the day waiting for the booked car
> to arrive and nowhere for the one-hour visitor to park. Madness.
> My last 2 visitors managed to park.
>
> Please outline a sensible plan of action before going further. The
> cages are another matter and good to go.
>
> Why has no one asked the owner of the Peugeot to move it? I've
> just gone downstairs and rung #502's bell but although someone
> answered, I couldn't hear them or they couldn't hear em, so I'll
> leave a note asking Junior to give me a ring and I'll ask him to
> get the car moved.
>
> best to all,
>
> Di
>
> On 2 December 2013 19:26, Rob Willett <rob at robadda.com
> <mailto:rob at robadda.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> Following Friday's discussion re the Visitor parking, I have
> obtained a quotation for 3 variations. Can you all please review
> and let me know
>
> 1) You confirm that we go ahead with the installation
>
> 2) If you approve of the cost for A) $1140 B) $ 1760 of C) $2420
>
> Can we please keep the responses short and sharp.
>
> *FYI, I am a YES and B) $1760*
>
> *Thanks Brook for being there to allow access for the tradesmen on
> Friday*, much appreciated. If we can get your responses quickly we
> can get this underway and start work almost immediately.
>
> We can then start deciding the spare cages and how to lease them
> and the amount we can charge. With the revenue streams for the
> cages and the Visitor car spots will fund the security system and
> have no need to increase levies.
>
>
>
>
> *IN SRI LANKA / CELL PHONE+94 766 88 92 98
> <tel:%2B94%20766%2088%2092%2098>*
>
> *5.5 HOURS BEHIND SYDNEY / 10.5 HOURS AHEAD NEW YORK*
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> EC mailing list
> EC at 200william.com <mailto:EC at 200william.com>
> http://200william.com/mailman/listinfo/ec
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> EC mailing list
>
> EC at 200william.com <mailto:EC at 200william.com>
>
> http://200william.com/mailman/listinfo/ec
>
>
>
>
> --
> /* Matt Perkins
> Direct 1300 137 379 Spectrum Networks Ptd. Ltd.
> Office 1300 133 299matt at spectrum.com.au <mailto:matt at spectrum.com.au>
> Fax 1300 133 255 Level 6, 350 George Street Sydney 2000
> SIP1300137379 at sip.spectrum.com.au <mailto:1300137379 at sip.spectrum.com.au>
> PGP/GNUPG Public Key can be found athttp://pgp.mit.edu
> */
--
/* Matt Perkins
Direct 1300 137 379 Spectrum Networks Ptd. Ltd.
Office 1300 133 299 matt at spectrum.com.au
Fax 1300 133 255 Level 6, 350 George Street Sydney 2000
SIP 1300137379 at sip.spectrum.com.au
PGP/GNUPG Public Key can be found at http://pgp.mit.edu
*/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://200william.com/mailman/private/ec/attachments/20131203/4b2e13dc/attachment-0001.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 27 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://200william.com/mailman/private/ec/attachments/20131203/4b2e13dc/attachment-0001.jpe
More information about the EC
mailing list