Security Gate Comments
Please feel free to leave any comments you may have on the proposed Vertigate System enclosed in the newsletter.
posted by Carl McCullough @ 8:40 AM
9 Comments
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Previous Posts
- Rules & Regulations Update Comments
- Golf Window Window Breakage Insurance
- Street Project
- Insurance Disclosure Page Now On-Line
- Theft Prevention Tips
- Theft Notice
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
9 Comments:
I am extremely concerned that the proposed Security Gate would lower our property values, make Woodhaven security more vulnerable than it is now, and cause added inconvenience for Woodhaven homeowners.
First, the proposed two gates on East would do nothing for the homeowners except lock them in. Anyone coming in through the Woodhaven entrance—where there would be no screening—could have complete access to all of Woodhaven just by walking through the parking area or golf course.
The two gates on East would, on the other hand, lock in the Woodhaven homeowners making entry or departure from their homes more difficult. Many walkers would be hindered by having to navigate through two gates to make just one trip around the complex. (This does not even address the poor property owners who happen to live directly in front of the areas in which the gates would be installed.)
While I realize the security guard at the gate is little more than "window dressing," I think to install an electronic system instead of having a "live body" at the gate would definitely change the entire perception of Woodhaven Country Club and have a direct impact on property values.
Let's face it—one security guard has little or no authority.and he or she is not going to have any more riding around in a golf cart. We already have the eyes and ears of the residents of 504 condos who have a vested interest in protecting their homes and property. Someone driving around instead of being on the gate would not improve our security.
This proposed electronic gate system sounds like a win-win situation for the golf club owner (letting anyone have access) and a lose-lose situation for the homeowners at Woodhaven (being locked into their homes).
I think the 2 gate system is a great idea, and will save a huge amount of money that is being waisted on the front gate system now being used, which provides little or no security for the home owners.
My comment is to enforce the security that we all are paying for.
It seems useless to keep paying for a guard that simply lets everyone in.
I agree that the "desirable" places in the desert have security guards...it does add to our property value. And, what about people who are coming to visit a vacant unit who might not be the owners...my children, for instance, don't have gate passes but visit fairly frequently. How would they get in? Now I can call ahead to the gate and let them know they are coming.
One of the reasons we purchased a home in Woodhaven was because we wanted to live in a GUARDED, GATED community. Keep the security guard at the front gate.
We couldn't agree more with the first comment by Linda Hendrickson...
It wouldn't take long for the frequency of thefts/vandalism to increase shortly after this proposed change takes place.
Folks…let’s take a step in the right direction and focus on hiring and retaining QUALITY security personnel.
Since there isn't a forum to respond to your paver answers, I've responded here:
Answeres on Street Pavers:
1)"Traffic noise is not a problem, according to the manufacturer. When driving within the speed limit the pavers I have driven on are very quiet".
2)"Speed bumps could be installed. They have proven to be not very helpful in slowing speeders, and are being considered for removal in the future".
It seems to me that we’re going to have a noise problem based on answer #2...
I agree with the first comment. The system as it is right now does have some flaws but I do not think the proposed "2 gate" solution to be any better and it will be a big inconvenience for the residents. Keep the present system.
I am in favor of retaining security personnel at the gate.
Post a Comment
<< Home