41–50 of 832 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Getting a contractor to work on your home is ridiculously expensive too. The other day I paid $900 to replace a faucet for my tub.
Couldn't you do it yourself? It's typically a relatively simple job, no need to get a contractor in. The tools to replace it, if you don't have them already, would have come in at a fraction of $900.
Is there a cost breakdown of what goes into an estimate like this? The 1.7 million number comes from somewhere, so how was it calculated, what parts of the process result in it being so high? Cost of labor for doing the actual job, materials, administrative salaries for the planning and regulatory hurdles? Surely that exists somewhere, and so if this is corruption seeing such a document should make it more obvious wh…
Installation - 2k
Rest - …
Before the project is put out for bid, it will be subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act, according to the Chronicle.
The public toilet will be built by union workers who will “earn a living wage and benefits,” according to a joint statement from Rec and Parks Department and the Department of Public Works, which added that, “While this isn’t the cheapest way to build, it reflects San Francisco’s values.”
Lots of palms greased all the way around.
It seems like it’s a bipartisan past time to waste taxpayers money on foolishly over expensive pet projects.
This seems like the usual case of public servants doing everything possible to avoid someone being unhappy with them later. Consultations, union workers, tons and tons of approvals, etc. Remember, you can't really win as a government worker. The priority is not to lose.
You want every little concern addressed? You want layers and layers of accountability? You want the top concern of every person in gov to be avoiding any possible desire to be responsible for something?
You get this.
I've seen this play out many times. No corruption. No grift. Just ass covering.
The irony in this statement, given the reasons why this toilet costs so much, is absolutely unreal. I had to check the date on this article to make sure it wasn't an old April's Fools skit or something, but it seems red tape and NIMBYism have escalated to such a degree in SF that (a) securing budget for a single toilet that will take 3 years to build is considered a political victory worthy of patting themselves on the back in the press, and (b) a toilet to "ease" rampant homelessness is considered a far better option than actually trying to provide housing or attack more of the root causes.
Wild.
3 years of litigation until all the stakeholders agree on all the aspects of this public toilet are not cheap.
And what if the environmental reviews find a bunny family living at the proposed location? Relocating the bunny family will probably cost another million and 2 years of delay.