[200William-EC] MARQUIS - NEW YEARS EVE SECURITY
Matt Perkins
matt at spectrum.com.au
Fri Jan 11 20:34:08 EST 2013
Your right Shane. It is a little unfair It's a bit like the current
restrictions on licensed venues in the Cross. It's unfair but it's an
easy solution. I do like your idea of charging more. Let's price this
event out of the market of the young drunks. I would even be in favor of
putting on a catered event. Even allowing BYO alcohol. A catered event
with staff and food could easily be justified being $80 - $100 a ticket.
There are restaurants charging $1000 for a NYE ticket in the area. A
desginated smoking area could be established on the south west side of
the roof where it could not effect any balcony and a catered event could
be held on the western side.
With catering staff you could trade of the security also as I think it's
less likely the craziness would go on if some ones paying $100 a ticket.
Hell. I might even buy a ticket myself to that. I think something like
that is worth a discussion. Craig just had an event last year in his
apartment so he likely has some contacts and knows an idea of price.
The problem this year was <21 Year old paralytically drunk kids. If we
want some different security that are more accustomed to dealing with
night club style people i have some associates that can give us quotes.
It's tuff however to get good staff on NYE. The good ones are already
working at a club.
On 11/01/13 6:53 PM, Shane Ellis wrote:
> Hi All,
> I am in agreement with Craig & Matt.
> But I 'get' the other side of the argument. If I were an
> owner-occupier in a South-facing apartment, I would not take this as
> an acceptable option... We all know how nice it is to view and
> entertain on NYE from the comfort of our building.
>
> As such, I believe that this is a policing issue. We need security
> guards who aren't afraid to manhandle disrespectful 'guests' out of
> the building, and keep them out.
>
> I propose next year, we increase the costs of roof access to offset
> the cost of another guard... Someone with muscle who will enforce the
> rules.
> It's always the way that a few morons ruin things for everyone...
> Instead of punish everyone else, let's just punish the morons.
>
>
> Best Regards
> Shane Ellis
> 0423 000 221
>
>
>
>
>
> On 11/01/2013, at 2:36 PM, Matt Perkins <matt at spectrum.com.au
> <mailto:matt at spectrum.com.au>> wrote:
>
> On 11/01/13 5:20 PM, Tony Araujo wrote:
>>
>> Matt,
>>
>> I made two points that you are not commenting on:
>>
> Sorry i did not answer all your points. I tried to keep it brief I
> know my email's can be a bit long winded for people that are not used
> to a lot of written correspondence.
>>
>> 1)Your statement to give access just to owners
>>
> It was a suggestion. Something to consider. You dont have to agree
> with it. Im not sure I think it's a good idea but thought I would put
> it out there. Im not arguing for it I argued for a complete
> prohibition on NYE access to the roof.
>>
>> 2)It work all those years in the past
>>
> No it didn't last year my outdoor furniture was damaged by cigarette
> but's. This year it was also out of control.
>>
>> 3)Without a question the security didn’t do what they suppose too and
>> that is a fact, that’s why this year was a mess out of control.
>>
> I told them what the instruction's were. They knew full well All they
> were missing was the guest list.
>
> As an investor I would be more worried about the cost of extra
> cleaning, extra security, damage to the carpet and the threat of
> litigation which has the secondary effect of increasing insurance
> premiums. This directly effects you in the form of strata fees.
> Apposed to one night of the year people not having access to the roof.
> Something a tenant would not even know when they signed the lease. Do
> you seriously think that some one would investigate if the roof was
> open on NYE when they signed a lease. Unless the agent sells the
> place as. Hay rent here you can trash the place on NYE. It's a blast.
> If you didnt mention it how would they even know.
>
> So my questions to you are.
>
> 1) Do you think a perspective tenant would enquirer as to the status
> of the roof on NYE and do you think it would effect their decision to
> rent.
> 2) Are you not concerned about the potential increase in out budget
> due to secondary effects of NYE roof access
> 3) Do you know what our public liability insurance ramifications are
> of holding a paid for event on the roof on NYE. In the event someone
> is injured killed or assaulted.
>
> Matt.
>
>> *From:*Matt Perkins [mailto:matt at spectrum.com.au]
>> *Sent:* Friday, 11 January 2013 5:11 PM
>> *To:* Tony Araujo
>> *Cc:* CSCL; ec at 200william.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [200William-EC] MARQUIS - NEW YEARS EVE SECURITY
>>
>> 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>
>> [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 <mailto: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 <http://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 <http://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 <http://pgp.mit.edu/>
>> */
>
>
> --
> /* Matt Perkins
> Direct 1300 137 379 Spectrum Networks Ptd. Ltd.
> Office 1300 133 299matt at spectrum.com.au
> Fax 1300 133 255 Level 6, 350 George Street Sydney 2000
> SIP1300137379 at sip.spectrum.com.au
> PGP/GNUPG Public Key can be found athttp://pgp.mit.edu
> */
> _______________________________________________
> EC mailing list
> EC at 200william.com <mailto:EC at 200william.com>
> http://200william.com/mailman/listinfo/ec
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://200william.com/mailman/private/ec/attachments/20130111/d61ad4ce/attachment-0001.html
More information about the EC
mailing list