[200William-EC] NEW YEARS EVE
Matt Perkins
matt at spectrum.com.au
Sun Jan 13 12:34:56 EST 2013
Craig,
You know I would rather have level 7 closed on NYE. I was trying to
come up with alternatives as it appears that closing level 7 is not an
option as it appeared that the majority want it open. Let's put this to
bed I guess.
See my next email re a motion to close the roof on NYE. I guess if this
motion fail's as i suspect we will be in the same situation next year.
Matt.
On 12/01/13 7:57 PM, CSCL wrote:
>
> Guys (and Lady Di),
>
> Please - let's be sensible about this matter!
>
> A catered event??!!! You're not serious. PLEASE.............. say
> you're not serious!!
>
> The issue is drunk and drugged people who have been invited into OUR
> building (or live here) for a one night New Year event on
>
> level 7. We've had so many years of people misbehaving at this
> event. Why put all owners at risk and chance a legal/insurance
> situation? CLOSE LEVEL 7 each new year!!!
>
> How many fires (Matt's situation last year) and cigarette butts and
> empty cans thrown down from level 7 (my problem each year) do we have
> to count before we.............as an EC...... act responsibly?
>
> Why even consider having a security guard put in the position of
> having to throw some idiot out of the building if he/she is behaving
> in an irresponsible manner on level 7. Who is going to protect the
> guard from the friends that the idiot has come with???!!!
>
> We shouldn't even be considering an option of a 'catered event.' This
> is NOT the kind of building where people are going to come for a
> 'catered event.' I won't even go into the requirements for adequate
> kitchen facilities.............. adequate toilet facilities
> .........or inclement weather.........................for a catered
> event. Increasing the price for an extra security guard and having a
> catered event is _NOT the answer._
>
> Again, why put all owners at risk and chance a legal/insurance
> situation? CLOSE LEVEL 7 each new year!!!
>
> If a final decision is made by the EC to go ahead and continue with
> any kind of New Year's Eve function on level 7 in the future, I am
> formally stating and absolving myself.........of any
> responsibility.......... if a law suit arises as a result of idiots
> misbehaving or an accident occurring.
>
> Regards,
>
> Craig Laforest
>
> *From:*ec-bounces at 200william.com [mailto:ec-bounces at 200william.com]
> *On Behalf Of *Rob Willett
> *Sent:* Saturday, 12 January 2013 6:24 PM
> *To:* ec at 200william.com
> *Subject:* Re: [200William-EC] MARQUIS - NEW YEARS EVE SECURITY
>
> I agree with everyone.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*Tony Araujo <TAraujo at cityviewrealestate.com.au
> <mailto:TAraujo at cityviewrealestate.com.au>>
> *To:* Matt Perkins <matt at spectrum.com.au
> <mailto:matt at spectrum.com.au>>
> *Cc:* ec at 200william.com <mailto:ec at 200william.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, January 11, 2013 2:15 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [200William-EC] MARQUIS - NEW YEARS EVE SECURITY
>
> Finally a common cense approach. Mat, you are Welcome with your
> change on tone. Lets be civilized on this and any other issue fir
> the good of all owners
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> On 11/01/2013, at 20:34, "Matt Perkins" <matt at spectrum.com.au
> <mailto:matt at spectrum.com.au>> wrote:
>
> 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.
> Â
>
> 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.Â
>
> 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,
>
> Â
>
> 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.Â
>
> 1)Â Â Â Â Â 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 ideaÂ
> 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)Â Â Â Â Â 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)Â Â Â Â Â Without a question the security didnâEUR^(TM)t
> do what they suppose too and that is a fact,
> Â thatâEUR^(TM)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.Â
> 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.
>
>
> Â
>
> *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
>
> Â
>
> 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.Â
>
> 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.Â
>
> Matt.
>
> On 11/01/13 4:41 PM, Tony Araujo wrote:
>
> Hi Everyone,
>
> Â
>
> This is my first response to all this new
> yearâEUR^(TM)s saga.
>
> Â
>
> Well, Â itâEUR^(TM)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 wasnâEUR^(TM)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.
>
> Â
>
> Now in response to comments form Matt and Craig, I do
> respect them as a principle but? Guys letâEUR^(TM)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 canâEUR^(TM)t be ignored. Give
> access to the roof to owners only? Please give me a break.
>
> Â
>
> Â
>
> Â
>
> *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
>
> Â
>
> 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,
>
> Â
>
> 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
> stateâEUR¦âEUR¦âEUR¦..on level 7?
>
> Â
>
> ItâEUR^(TM)s simply too dangerous for the owners
> to risk some visiting idiot falling over the side
> of the building on New YearâEUR^(TM)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?
>
> Â
>
> IâEUR^(TM)m all for closing the level 7 area on
> New YearâEUR^(TM)s eve. The last thing I want is
> some strange body falling and having to be
> scrapped off my terrace in the
> morningâEUR¦âEUR¦âEUR¦âEUR¦..along with cigarette
> butts!!
>
> Â
>
> Cheers,
>
> Craig
>
> Â
>
> *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
>
> Â
>
> 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. Â Â 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.Â
> 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)Â 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.
>
> Â
>
> And yes, I agree itâEUR^(TM)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.Â
> When we asked the culprits to stop, they
> continued to throw butts down. Clearly, this
> âEUR~securityâEUR^(TM) team were not doing
> their work.
>
> Â
>
> Cheers,
>
> Craig Laforest
>
> Â
>
> Â
>
> Â
>
> *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
>
> Â
>
> Good Morning All,
>
> Â
>
> 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.
>
> Â
>
> Security on the night improvised and partoled
> all areas randomly.
>
> Â
>
> Over all the night was a success without incident.
>
> Â
>
> 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.
>
> Â
>
> As BFMS feel responsible for this matter, we
> will absorb half the cost of the security invoice.
>
> Â
>
> I hope this is received favourably.
>
> .
>
> Â
>
> ________________________________________________________Â
>
> *George Ziri | Operations*
>
> *Â *
>
> *Building Facilities Management Solutions Pty Ltd*
>
> Direct: 0400 300 242Â |Â Facsimile:Â 9547
> 3132Â | PO BOX A2319 SYDNEY SOUTH NSW 1235
>
> Â
>
> visit us www.bfms.com.au <http://www.bfms.com.au/>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> EC mailing list
>
> EC at 200william.com <mailto:EC at 200william.com>
>
> http://200william.com/mailman/listinfo/ec
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> /* Matt Perkins
>
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Direct 1300 137 379Â Â Â Â Spectrum Networks Ptd. Ltd.
>
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Office 1300 133 299Â Â Â Âmatt at spectrum.com.au <mailto:matt at spectrum.com.au>
>
>         Fax   1300 133 255    Level 6, 350 George Street Sydney 2000
>
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â SIP1300137379 at sip.spectrum.com.au <mailto:1300137379 at sip.spectrum.com.au>
>
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â PGP/GNUPG Public Key can be found atÂhttp://pgp.mit.edu <http://pgp.mit.edu/>
>
> */
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> /* Matt Perkins
>
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Direct 1300 137 379Â Â Â Â Spectrum Networks Ptd. Ltd.
>
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Office 1300 133 299Â Â Â Âmatt at spectrum.com.au <mailto:matt at spectrum.com.au>
>
>         Fax   1300 133 255    Level 6, 350 George Street Sydney 2000
>
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â SIP1300137379 at sip.spectrum.com.au <mailto:1300137379 at sip.spectrum.com.au>
>
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â PGP/GNUPG Public Key can be found atÂhttp://pgp.mit.edu <http://pgp.mit.edu/>
>
> */
>
>
>
> --
>
> /* Matt Perkins
>
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Direct 1300 137 379Â Â Â Â Spectrum Networks Ptd. Ltd.
>
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Office 1300 133 299Â Â Â Âmatt at spectrum.com.au <mailto:matt at spectrum.com.au>
>
>         Fax   1300 133 255    Level 6, 350 George Street Sydney 2000
>
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â SIP1300137379 at sip.spectrum.com.au <mailto:1300137379 at sip.spectrum.com.au>
>
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â PGP/GNUPG Public Key can be found atÂhttp://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/>
>
> */
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> http://200william.com/mailman/listinfo/ec
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://200william.com/mailman/private/ec/attachments/20130113/6277b25b/attachment-0001.html
More information about the EC
mailing list