[200William-EC] MARQUIS - NEW YEARS EVE SECURITY
Matt Perkins
matt at spectrum.com.au
Fri Jan 11 17:11:14 EST 2013
Would a tenant even know that the roof was unavailable for 1 night a
year when they take out a lease. There are existing restrictions on the
time the outdoor aria is available now every other night of the year.
You cant go out there at midnight any other night. I want to have a
party out on the roof on Australia day at 2am why cant i. It's the same
argument.. I cant believe you could possibly loose a tenant because
they could not access the roof 1 night a year. I have a investment
property at Zenith . The deck area at Zenith is on top of the coke
sign and has one of the best views in Sydney for NYE. But guess what. No
access at all NYE/NYD. Many propertys in the Cross dont allow access to
area for example pool's and Gyms on NYE.
With respect Tony you dont live there you dont know the mess and and
rubush let alone the hords drunk people running up and down the stairs
and blocking the lift every 15 - 20 min to scull a beer and then go back
up because you cant drink up stairs.
Matt.
On 11/01/13 4:41 PM, Tony Araujo wrote:
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> This is my first response to all this new year's saga.
>
> Well, it's all well said and done, and few comments are not sinking
> in my mind. Let face it the building has been there for 12 years so it
> survived 12 new years and so far the arrangements put in place did
> work and we never had any issues. It is clear that this year the
> security filed and wasn't up to the task so that is where the problem
> is and was for this year. So George needs to make sure that in future
> a proper security is in place.
>
> Now in response to comments form Matt and Craig, I do respect them as
> a principle but? Guys let's face it, whether you want or not the
> majority of the owners are investors and their asset is the premium
> that they bought into, the building with views. So that is what
> attracts many tenants and there is tenants rights that can't be
> ignored. Give access to the roof to owners only? Please give me a break.
>
> *From:*ec-bounces at 200william.com [mailto:ec-bounces at 200william.com]
> *On Behalf Of *Matt Perkins
> *Sent:* Friday, 11 January 2013 4:19 PM
> *To:* CSCL
> *Cc:* ec at 200william.com
> *Subject:* Re: [200William-EC] MARQUIS - NEW YEARS EVE SECURITY
>
> One thing I would say about NYE and closing the roof. If we do indeed
> close the roof it's fair that we vote on it early and let residence
> know with plenty of time to make other arrangements for NYE. It's hard
> to find somewhere nice to go close to NYE. I think we need to start
> telling people in early November to be fair.
>
>
> On 11/01/13 3:39 PM, CSCL wrote:
>
> Hello Matt,
>
> Thank you for your report on the evening. It was diabolical. Why
> do we, as you state, continue to put ourselves and others at risk
> by having goons from the outside come into our building and end up
> in a drug induced, alcoholic state...........on level 7?
>
> It's simply too dangerous for the owners to risk some visiting
> idiot falling over the side of the building on New Year's eve.
> Let us assume responsibility for each of our own balconies but why
> are the owners put into a potential lawsuit situation because of
> the idiots?
>
> I'm all for closing the level 7 area on New Year's eve. The last
> thing I want is some strange body falling and having to be
> scrapped off my terrace in the morning..............along with
> cigarette butts!!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Craig
>
> *From:*ec-bounces at 200william.com
> <mailto:ec-bounces at 200william.com>
> [mailto:ec-bounces at 200william.com] *On Behalf Of *Matt Perkins
> *Sent:* Friday, 11 January 2013 2:35 PM
> *To:* ec at 200william.com <mailto:ec at 200william.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [200William-EC] MARQUIS - NEW YEARS EVE SECURITY
>
> Agree it's a good offer from George. (Im not sure it's entirely
> BFMS's fault) Just seemed to be one of those things that happen.
> I was on the ground with security a few time's that night.
> Security guys were ok. But the task they have is not a simple
> one. There main problem this year was an apartment on the ground
> floor had some very young very drunk guests. These guests were so
> drunk they would have not have passed the RSA test at any licensed
> venue and would have been required to leave.
>
> My estimate is that most people on the roof were guests of tenants
> from the south side building. Renters. I didnt see any owners up
> there. Most of the trouble came not when the Fireworks were on
> but between the fireworks. The young drunk's from Ground floor
> were in and out and up and down the lifts constantly spilling
> drinks on there way. (that's where the stains on the new carpet
> came from) I booted people out of the Gym bathroom twice that I
> found doing drugs. The bathroom facilities are not large enough
> for that quantity of guests in any case. Especialy when alcohol is
> involved.
>
> Going forward if we were to continue the way we are going we need
> an intoxication criteria. Security should have licensed venue type
> endorsements on there security license any guest deemed
> intoxicated should be refused entry to the roof. If they are on
> the roof and judged intoxicated should be asked to leave if they
> do not police should be called.
>
> Alternatively we should consider not allowing any roof access for
> NYE. Simply program the system not to accept swipes on the night
> lock the doors. No need for security extra expense or perhaps
> leave us open to litigation should some one be injured on NYE. As
> most people attending were not owners anyway Im thinking perhaps
> that's not a big problem. Worst case we could say owners only no
> tenants that's going to limit it to the bare few.
>
> Another option may also be to only allow people on the roof 10
> minutes before and 10 minutes after the fireworks. This would
> still need guards to enforce but we are talking 1 hour of roof
> time a lot less time for things to happen it's a measure of
> threat mitigation.
>
> Personalty I think we should lock up the roof on NYE and not allow
> access. That way we dont need to pay for security. We dont need to
> get sued when some drunk 17 year old smashes a beer bottle over
> the head of someone or any number of things that could go wrong
> when you mix young people and large quantities of alcohol. It
> also stop's people running up and down to the roof all night which
> takes up the lifts etc etc. It much more trouble then it's worth.
>
> Matt.
>
>
> On 11/01/13 1:28 PM, CSCL wrote:
>
> Thank you for the offer George to split the cost of the
> security charge. I think that is very fair.
>
> And yes, I agree it's time to change the security people. As
> I mentioned this morning when I saw you, they did not check
> who was coming into the building and were not vigilant with
> people on level 7. We had 6 cigarette butts thrown down onto
> my terrace. When we asked the culprits to stop, they
> continued to throw butts down. Clearly, this 'security' team
> were not doing their work.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Craig Laforest
>
> *From:*ec-bounces at 200william.com
> <mailto:ec-bounces at 200william.com>
> [mailto:ec-bounces at 200william.com] *On Behalf Of *George Ziri
> *Sent:* Friday, 11 January 2013 11:06 AM
> *To:* ec at 200william.com <mailto:ec at 200william.com>
> *Subject:* [200William-EC] MARQUIS - NEW YEARS EVE SECURITY
>
> Good Morning All,
>
> On New Years Eve we learnt that security did not have a guest
> list for the apartments. When I looked into the matter today
> we found that the email with the guest list and rules for the
> security to enforce did not go through to the security
> company. The file was to large.
>
> Security on the night improvised and partoled all areas randomly.
>
> Over all the night was a success without incident.
>
> This year we will bring the guest list register date early one
> week so that we can provide security 1 weeks notice instead of
> 1 day. This will iron out any issues or queries before the night.
>
> As BFMS feel responsible for this matter, we will absorb half
> the cost of the security invoice.
>
> I hope this is received favourably.
>
> .
>
> ________________________________________________________
> *George Ziri | Operations*
>
> **
>
> *Building Facilities Management Solutions Pty Ltd*
>
> Direct: 0400 300 242 | Facsimile: 9547 3132 | PO BOX A2319
> SYDNEY SOUTH NSW 1235
>
> visit us www.bfms.com.au <http://www.bfms.com.au>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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 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/20130111/0c362ae6/attachment-0001.html
More information about the EC
mailing list