Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet

sfchronicle.com

131–140 of 832 posts

Re: San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet

#131
post #53

Paris has automatically self-cleaning public toilets all around and they cost around $200k each to build and install. There’s no way this is a remotely reasonable cost and is clearly a grift.

Came here to say the same thing. There are 400 of them and cost about €6 million per year to operate and maintain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanisette

Re: San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet

#132
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SFO is the airport. I'm very confused by this comment. We're not all working at Google right now. MTV, SFO, MPK and all of this lingo is not familiar to all

SFO is commonly a shorthand for San Francisco, LA for Los Angeles, SD for San Diego.

SF, not SFO

Re: San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet

#133

> San Francisco, which is struggling with a troubling homelessness and public-defecation crisis, needs more public toilets. 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 bu…

I think it's not unreasonable to attack effects of homelessness as well as the cause. Some problems are really hard and some are just hard.

In other places where it wont cost 1.7M to build one public toilet, this wouldn't be seen as such a failure or mis-step, just extending public services to people in crisis - as long as it's not seen as "fixed" by doing so.

Re: San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet

#134

One of my jobs is in the public service. 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 conc…

You say that like these public servants care about everyone but the taxpayers footing the bill.

I don't personally care about anything as a public servant beyond covering my ass. Joe Taxpayer does get screwed, but he gets screwed by the collective decision making satisfying everyone else, so I can't get in trouble for it.

Joe Taxpayer doesn't show up to the planning meetings. Joe Taxpayer doesn't submit anything to the feedback forms. Joe Taxpayer doesn't care enough about any particular project to really win.

Re: San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet

#135

> San Francisco, which is struggling with a troubling homelessness and public-defecation crisis, needs more public toilets. 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 bu…

We have an access road that was sized for utility trucks. We had to widen it slightly because of obscure California regulations.

Widening it didn’t cost $1.7M. However, the cost per linear foot was within a factor of two of buying a line of Tesla Model 3s. This is in an unincorporated (rural) area, on a farm.

The work lasted one rainstorm before needing extensive repairs.

I’m completely unsurprised that building a hut around existing plumbing and adding a toilet costs so much in the city. I wonder if the price includes a sink.

Re: San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public toilets aren't really for you, they're for the people who have nowhere else.

That doesn't make any sense. Public toilets are for the public. Anyone who finds themselves in a situation where they need a toilet. A tourist, for example. Or maybe just someone who finds nature calling at an inopportune time. I'm sure we've all been there. Also, even if it WAS for people who have nowhere else, that doesn't mean that it should be covered with shit.

No one is saying it should be covered in shit. I'm just explaining that projects like this in SF are targeting a very specific issue - a large homeless population.

Re: San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet

#137
post #82

> San Francisco, which is struggling with a troubling homelessness and public-defecation crisis, needs more public toilets. 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 bu…

Red tape and nimbyism is hard to imagine from what I see of SFO in books, it seems like the most anti-diversity thing you can do. Can anybody from SFO relate their experience? Hard to tell these days what is editorial bias or sensationalism and what is true.

Born and raised in SF. NIMBYism is indeed a huge problem. It’s the hidden underbelly of a city with otherwise modern and diverse thinking.

I’ve since moved to Seattle and it’s crazy to see shit can actually get done here.

Re: San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet

#138

I would never step foot into a public SF toliet. Last time I went in there the homeless shit all over the floor and toliet and walls. I went in and nearly threw up. A homeless person pointed and laughed at me. Fuck that.

Public toilets aren't really for you, they're for the people who have nowhere else.

Then they should rebrand from public toilets. Maybe a sign that says "poopy poopy homeless toilet" would clear up the confusion.

Re: San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet

#139
post #53

Paris has automatically self-cleaning public toilets all around and they cost around $200k each to build and install. There’s no way this is a remotely reasonable cost and is clearly a grift.

"Clearly" is doing a lot of work in that sentence unless you've delved deeply into the approval process of this specific toilet. It's absolutely believable that this is just produced by sclerotic bureaucracy.

Re: San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet

#140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public toilets aren't really for you, they're for the people who have nowhere else.

That doesn't make any sense. Public toilets are for the public. Anyone who finds themselves in a situation where they need a toilet. A tourist, for example. Or maybe just someone who finds nature calling at an inopportune time. I'm sure we've all been there. Also, even if it WAS for people who have nowhere else, that doesn't mean that it should be covered with shit.

Have you ever taken a shit in a public toilet? It is a disgusting, degrading experience. I’m still traumatized from the one time I had no choice, and I said never again.
Post reply on HN