| Author | Post |
|---|
twix38
Member
| Joined: | 2007-12-18 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 283 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: 2010-03-10 02:25 am |
|
Robert,
I agree.
Although I said it was debatable, it was more in relation to the subject matter of changing companies etc etc and level of building security versus cost. I expect my examples of radio contact and deterent gave a clue to my personal preference to keep our front guard, though I consider our actual building security as paramount, just a building A clearly does and yes I do know there is practically a government insurrection in BKK.
Do you know...................
that building B has to fund him 100%, even in light of many shared benefits and concerns you mention (and few shared benefits you don't), since building A decided to do their own thing and stop sharing costs, though we all benefit equally from his help in accidents and front line deterent, etc. The motor bike rider who had an accident could just have easily been from building A as building B and he is also your first line in defence (deterent+) for robberies too, but building A pays nothing for him whilst having his services added in all the areas he undertakes (added deterent, accident assistance, keeping Soi clear etc etc). He also stops our entry road getting clogged up with motor bike taxis, undisirables, food sellers etc - another benefit to BOTH buildings. No wonder you appreciate him!!
It must be nice to have a freebie of additional security and help for all at the front gate, just as you say. It would be nice if building A made at least a token contribution to his employment costs, from which we all benefit whilst advocating his retention!!
Frankly as a building B co-owner, I think building A should stop ducking out and confront the fact that they also appreciate our front guard and should have the integrity to make at least some financial contribution for the benefits they also receive, appreciate and clearly recognise, rather than taking the easy way out for a service that is by its very nature shared. Come on guys, contribute at least 25% on top of mere words of praise or perhaps he should be told to first check and assist Building B only as building A do not require or want his services. Or to press the point, he could be moved up the Soi just a little bit and past the building A entrance, and work only for his employer, allowing Building A's guards to police the entrance and then we really will share the work of security a little more jointly and fairer, at least. Last edited on 2010-03-10 03:02 am by twix38
|
Robert Ganshorn
Member
| Joined: | 2008-10-30 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 358 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: 2010-03-10 07:29 am |
|
Firstly, I am sure our guards would help your residents too and naturally they should. I certainly hope you enjoy the planting, pruning and watering of the landscaping we pay for all the way along the road to B building on our property side.  Did you know that we took care of all of that along our building perimeter that no one here particularly sees?
In fact, I have seen our gardeners working on both sides of the front guard house.
Our people have also been there to smooth gravel, sweep and do vine plantings against the rusty fence next to the TMB bank to even further beautify our entryway.
We paid for half of the repaint of the front entry as well and we do not own the road or the outer guard house, B building does, and we have deeded access rights to our lot. (Just in case you were considering a toll gate in addition to your proposal to build a whole additional guard house behind a built guardhouse.)
We have increased our level of lighting for security on our parking lot which has a spillover benefit to your co owners at night. We paid for that and never sent B a bill for it or our monthly supplemental electricity cost.
We undertook the expense of having our own guardhouse to control the element that was often noisily using our lot...never yours...for various late night misbehaving. Our guard house further enhances your security too. We even employ more guards than you do. Did you know that?
Frankly, as an owner in A building, I think B building should stop ducking out and confront the fact that they also enjoy nice landscaping on both sides of the road leading to B and not having it on your collective water bill. You should have the integrity to want to pay some of our exterior lighting costs.
This being said I think that B building should be very grateful that we shade you from the afternoon sun and should be extremely happy about their investment in a very low cost country. I think we should all be more appreciative of that.
Incidentally, I tip our guards and I remember your front gate guard as well. Have you tipped any of our guards?
There are a lot of ways to slice an apple aren't there? Thanks for giving me a good laugh and have a great day!
Last edited on 2010-03-10 07:41 am by Robert Ganshorn
|
twix38
Member
| Joined: | 2007-12-18 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 283 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: 2010-03-10 09:00 am |
|
Robert,
Nice to know - doesn't change a thing about letting building B foot all the bill for the front gate guard who works a full day/night equally benefitting both buildings. We used to split 50/50 and now we both have our own building security of choice in place, though building B pays all the front guard costs, of which you so elequently praise. This is an ongoing monthly cost. It would be right if building A offered a token at least, perhaps 25% payment/month, as I say, rather than throw up some nice but predominently irrelevant choices to the topic that building A has undertaken of their own free will. I'd accept 25% as reasonable, so not even expecting half, when half was what you used to pay.
As far as I am aware the soi from front gate is a public soi. Building B does not own it. Perhaps you would like to help pay for the front gate security now?
Your landscaping etc is your own choice and broadly a cost to improve your own surroundings and isn't comparible to ducking out from paying for security at the front gate, as this is a public soi. If we did not pay 100% then as a public soi we could have anybody (motor bike taxis/food venders etc camping in the soi) and then there's all the other benefits we both ascribe to the front gate guard.
Never mind we will foot that bill whilst you tell us how pretty and light you are making your building and surrounding area/plants, which we may also like the look of (lol). Yes, very good, but it's not comparible with paying a monthly fee for a service we all use equally and appreciate.
Do you really think it's okay to pay nothing and give that list in reply??
THANKS FOR GIVING ME AN EQUALLY GOOD LAUGH AT MOST OF YOUR EXAMPLES.
I'LL EXPECT THE BILL FOR SHADING OUR BUILDING FROM THE SUN IN DUE COURSE. LOL
Nothing personal, but I do think some thought should be given to paying something(25%+) rather than getting the benefits for free and trying to counter with a largely irrelevant list that not so much slices the apple, but compares apples and oranges whilst deviating into tips and who employs more guards.
Still, have a great day back at ya ;-)
Last edited on 2010-03-10 09:13 am by twix38
|
Robert Ganshorn
Member
| Joined: | 2008-10-30 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 358 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: 2010-03-10 09:29 am |
|
Do you think it was OK for us to have a security problem on our lot with the guard we split the cost of with your building?
There was no equal benefit. You were further from the road and we were the building of opportunity. The guard worked for two people and slept.
And money is money. Benefits are benefits. This gent costs you less than 30 baht per month per co owner. Security is something we pay for and hope we never have to use. You can choose the company, the number and the quality of guards you desire just as we can. Ultimately it is the co owners who decide and why don't you bring it up as a voting item for your AGM if you feel this strongly about it.
I know for certain I do not feel guilty about it.
Last edited on 2010-03-10 09:41 am by Robert Ganshorn
|
twix38
Member
| Joined: | 2007-12-18 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 283 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: 2010-03-10 11:11 am |
|
Do you think it was OK for us to have a security problem on our lot with the guard we split the cost of with your building? No, you (or either building for that matter) would need to replace them if not able to remedy a problem or if it's serious enough. Certainly it's not needed to simply withdraw (make new arrangements) and leave it totally to the other building.
There was no equal benefit. You were further from the road and we were the building of opportunity. The guard worked for two people and slept. Again, committee issue to rectify rather than withdraw from, surely.
And money is money. Benefits are benefits. This gent costs you less than 30 baht per month per co owner. Security is something we pay for and hope we never have to use. You can choose the company, the number and the quality of guards you desire just as we can. Ultimately it is the co owners who decide and why don't you bring it up as a voting item for your AGM if you feel this strongly about it. With hundreds of co-owners, then it's a reasonable amount we are paying and yes you mention the deterent factor by default for which we pay 100%, as this guard is largely all about deterent. No mention of the CORRECTION regarding the soi not being owned by building B and all that hard work to improve it (for us) when we own the soi, which was plain wrong.
I know for certain I do not feel guilty about it.
I don't feel any need to raise it at an AGM. Just felt some facts and the true situation should be here for all to judge, even if you don't feel guilty. What a nice gesture it would be to pay a measly/reduced contribution for something of which you derive EQUAL benefit and clearly appreciate. In most other comensurate scenarios I imagine most would have some feelings of freeloading or guilt once the facts were straigtened out. Never mind ;-)
Last edited on 2010-03-10 11:15 am by twix38
|
Robert Ganshorn
Member
| Joined: | 2008-10-30 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 358 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: 2010-03-11 02:42 am |
|
I guess the purpose of my commenting in the first place was lost. I was commending a gentleman who did his job with dispatch and professionalism that others were dismissing as "ceremonial."
I apologize for complimenting your employee and I also promise not to swim in your pool.
Last edited on 2010-03-11 02:45 am by Robert Ganshorn
|
twix38
Member
| Joined: | 2007-12-18 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 283 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: 2010-03-11 10:47 am |
|
we could always offset the cost of swimming in our pool against the shade your building provides ;-)
No worries, though I do still think you guys in building A should contribute to our mutually admired front guard, as I imagine any objective reader would conclude it's the decent thing to do whilst also using his services and assistance.
You indecent lot! lol
|
Current time is 02:12 pm | Page:   1 2 |
|
