Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 832 posts

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

#151

Post by ticviking »

throwawaysleep wrote: post #48

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…

I'm increasingly convinced that a good deal of our societies problem is pathological conflict avoidance.

The people we have elected(directly or indirectly) are terrified they might be confronted with the consequences of doing their job, and making a choice. I see the same thing at work, and in my church community.

I've found it's often better to have a direct conflict early, than an prolonged indirect conflict. Having the courage to deliberately engage in it is a whole different ball game though.

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

#152

Post by epistasis »

aliqot wrote: post #82
michaelscott wrote: post #49

> 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.

Here's a quote of the city planners' process to remove parking from in front of bus stops, a sevev year effort worn bearing doe every single stop:

> We can't just paint 1,200 curbs, it's going to be a longer process.

https://twitter.com/aarieff/status/1582408966163660802?s=46&...

This is the method for any change. SF thinks it peaked in the 80s or 90s and any change requires community consensus lest the 50 people that use a bus stop a day are inconveniencing the single car owner that parks in front of the bus stop.

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

#154

Post by sschueller »

In contrast the tiny city of Zürich Switzerland has 106 public toilet facilities. [1] Some are staffed, some cost money to use and some are open 247. Does my tax money pay for this, yes, I have used them and I am glad they exist.

The maintenance of these 106 facilities cost around 6,895,000 CHF (~USD) per year. Around 40% of that is staffing costs and 23% is rent to 3rd parties.

Yearly investment in upgrades etc. is around CHF 1,796,000

[1] https://www.stadt-zuerich.ch/gud/de/index/gesundheitsschutz/...

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

#156

Post by [deleted] »

leereeves wrote: post #109
ceejayoz wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's straight out of the OSS (pre-CIA)'s "Simple Sabotage Field Manual". https://gist.github.com/kennwhite/467529962c184258d08f16daec... > General Interference with Organizations and Production > Insist on doing everything through "channels." Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions. Make "speeches." Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your "points" by long anecdot…

I'm curious when the OSS, which was both founded and dissolved during WW2, had use for that advice. Were they sabotaging German bureaucracy, or American? Neither seems likely.

[deleted]

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

#157

Post by rumpelstinkin »

knaekhoved wrote: post #92
insanitybit wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

> Public toilets aren't really for you, they're for the people who have nowhere else. This is an incredibly stockholm-syndrome take. If you live in a place that isn't a total failed state, normal people actually can use the public toilets!

honestly though, public toilets are usually so dirty in my area (unless there are entry fees) that I rather use a shop's toilet instead. This is not about failed states, but a large portion of the populace not giving a shit about others... or giving too much shit perhaps =)

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

#158

Post by awestroke »

newsclues wrote: post #87
ceejayoz wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's straight out of the OSS (pre-CIA)'s "Simple Sabotage Field Manual". https://gist.github.com/kennwhite/467529962c184258d08f16daec... > General Interference with Organizations and Production > Insist on doing everything through "channels." Never permit short-cuts to be taken in order to expedite decisions. Make "speeches." Talk as frequently as possible and at great length. Illustrate your "points" by long anecdot…

[flagged]

But it's being used by hardcore capitalists in this case? In fact, it seems to be in the republican handbook

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

#160

Post by asow92 »

Why is it that the deepest blue areas of the country have some of the most abject inequity and poverty? It seems that there's a fine line between compassion and enablement when it comes to the deep blue municipalities of New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, etc. Sure the rustbelt, deep south, and Appalachia are areas with similar problems and mixed politics, but they also somehow feel different.
Post reply on HN