[200William-EC] MARQUIS - NEW YEARS EVE SECURITY
Matt Perkins
matt at spectrum.com.au
Fri Jan 11 20:56:06 EST 2013
I just went back and re-read my email to Tony. I can see how as an
agent he could find that offensive. That was not my intent. Sorry Tony
for my tone. I do tend to get carried away at times.
Im a bit passionate about this and I understand Tony's point of view as
an investor. I have investment property's also. But I ask how you wold
feel if you as an owner in your own home were afraid to take your little
son out on the balcony on NYE to see the fireworks in case a cigaret or
broken bottle landed on him. If you did not want to take him in the
lift in case he was exposed to a slobbering staggering drunk that falls
on you or worse vomits on you. On the street we expect that. Our home
needs to be a safe place.
Matt.
On 11/01/13 5:44 PM, Tony Araujo wrote:
>
> Matt I did respond to you on my previous email and I will not start to
> engage on personal and less polite comments (Red)as you are at moment.
> So let's leave it as is.
>
> *From:*Matt Perkins [mailto:matt at spectrum.com.au]
> *Sent:* Friday, 11 January 2013 5:36 PM
> *To:* Tony Araujo
> *Cc:* CSCL; ec at 200william.com
> *Subject:* Re: [200William-EC] MARQUIS - NEW YEARS EVE SECURITY
>
> 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 <mailto: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
>
> */
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> /* 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 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
> */
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://200william.com/mailman/private/ec/attachments/20130111/f18e0601/attachment-0001.html
More information about the EC
mailing list