[200William-EC] Quotation: 200 William Street, Woolloomooloo - Parking Locks

Tue Dec 3 11:11:32 EST 2013

Hi Rob

Thanks for organising this, my vote is no as well. I think spots should be
available for visitors parking without the locking system.

We spoke to another building manager on the weekend, for some feedback and
he said very quickly we should able to deal with this.

If we take a photo and issue a notice immediately for the breach of the bi
law the next day, after 3 times we can have their car park access remove and
evicted from the building. 

3 times.

Day 1 - photo and letter sent breach of bi law - phone call from building
manager

Day 2 - photo and letter sent breach of bi law - phone call from building
manager (option of turning off the car park access from the security key)

Day 3 - photo and letter sent breach of bi law - eviction notice from the
building for breaching the buildings bi laws and phone call from building
manager

I think with type of assertive action would could hopefully get this
resolved.

Obviously we just need the contact details and to connect the offenders to a
room number. He suggested that we should keep a registry of every owner and
tenants contact information on file so this can be followed through.

With the proposed security camera updates we could link the offers to the
room number for contacting purposes.

From: ec-bounces at 200william.com [mailto:ec-bounces at 200william.com] On Behalf
Of Dave Petschack
Sent: Tuesday, 3 December 2013 9:55 AM
To: ec at 200william.com
Subject: Re: [200William-EC] Quotation: 200 William Street, Woolloomooloo -
Parking Locks

I like the idea of keeping the spots reserved for visitor, trades, etc. 

As a suggestion re managing the access. Would it be possible to give every
owner one key and for serial offenders lose their privilege? That might mean
changing locks from time to time??

Does anyone else have any positive ideas to make this work?

I vote  YES . option A 

On 03/12/2013, at 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

Rowan             TBA

Rob                             Yes

Di                                No

Brook              TBA

Andrew                       TBA

Craig               No

Dave                TBA

Barnay             TBA

<ROB19732_RobEmailSig.jpg>

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:  <mailto:ec-bounces at 200william.com> ec-bounces at 200william.com
[mailto:ec- <mailto:bounces at 200william.com> bounces at 200william.com] On
Behalf Of Diana Dennison
Sent: Monday, 2 December 2013 9:22 PM
To: Rob Willett;  <mailto:ec at 200william.com> 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 < <mailto:rob at robadda.com>
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  <tel:%2B94%20766%2088%2092%2098> +94 766 88 92 98

5.5 HOURS BEHIND SYDNEY / 10.5 HOURS AHEAD NEW YORK

_______________________________________________
EC mailing list
 <mailto:EC at 200william.com> EC at 200william.com

<https://app.getsignals.com/link?url=http%3a%2f%2f200william.com%2fmailman%2
flistinfo%2fec&ukey=agxzfnNpZ25hbHNjcnhyGAsSC1VzZXJQcm9maWxlGICAgLSg9soKDA&k
=6e1272f3f5f1487eac130effdd6c6486> http://200william.com/mailman/listinfo/ec

_______________________________________________
EC mailing list
EC at 200william.com <mailto:EC at 200william.com> 
http://200william.com/mailman/listinfo/ec
<https://app.getsignals.com/link?url=http%3a%2f%2f200william.com%2fmailman%2
flistinfo%2fec&ukey=agxzfnNpZ25hbHNjcnhyGAsSC1VzZXJQcm9maWxlGICAgLSg9soKDA&k
=d1c03659b68e4450a0a6ede2adb6140d> 

<https://app.getsignals.com/img.gif?ukey=agxzfnNpZ25hbHNjcnhyGAsSC1VzZXJQcm9
maWxlGICAgLSg9soKDA&key=5c96ab257e13431fa21805f11781c1ac> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://200william.com/mailman/private/ec/attachments/20131203/33cdd8d2/attachment-0001.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 20664 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://200william.com/mailman/private/ec/attachments/20131203/33cdd8d2/attachment-0001.jpe 