If you're NOT super rich and work in tech (aka can leave), I do not know how you sleep at night paying those ridiculous taxes knowing they are getting pissed away on projects like this.
San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet
281–290 of 832 posts
Re: San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet
#282Re: San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet
#283Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the explanation. I'm a simple kind of person in a small town, so to us here this is all kind of crazy. Is a city as big as SFO still governed by politicians who live in it, or at that size does local government take people from other areas? I always read a lot about SFO as being on the cutting edge of progressive initiatives usually toward humane goals. Is this common? This gives everything I've been told…
SF is governed mostly by the people who live there. The core of the problem is that SF has spent decades investing in giving every person, block, and neighborhood ways to participate in planning and changes. Generally this means giving out some kind of veto. So when the time comes to do something "Yes, but do it somewhere else" is the predominant response. To put it another way - everybody wants more shelters for the…
Thank you for your perspective on this. In my locale, this type of thing is hard to imagine, we'll feed anybody who can hold a fork here. We have almost zero resources for indigents here, so homeless and others without are a bit rare.
What are the resources (aside from this restroom) afforded to those without, near SFO? I'm tempted to think about this time when a local made a habit of feeding the deer, eventually they went from not being seen to no longer fearing people and would walk right up to the porch expecting sandwiches and RC Cola. Is it possible the abundance of resources exacerbates the situation where those seeking them arrive?
Re: San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet
#284Earlier 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.
no, SFO is an airport
Re: San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet
#285> 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.
You're right. I used to work there. Hated the experience, but I can see why it's like that.
SF was always dense. At some point, all these tech companies moved in, and it became what I call a "commuter city" where a huge proportion of people there during the day don't actually live there or necessarily want to be there. It also shifted the culture, probably for the worse. Of course many living there beforehand might not like that. Yeah some people own property, but generally big business stands to gain the most from the influx, not the residents. I wouldn't be happy in their shoes either, and the only reason I wouldn't be NIMBY about it is I'd just leave. The NIMBYs basically lost; the city grew anyway.
And it comes from every side, not just a "left or right" thing. People with nice houses don't want their neighborhoods to deteriorate. Renters don't want rent to go up. Even the stereotypical SJW people against gentrification... that's NIMBY.
Also, being a dense, very wealthy area with relatively fair weather, SF is naturally a place for homeless people to congregate. Besides the obvious squalor that brings, businesses don't trust just anyone off the street. No public restrooms, no chairs in Starbucks, covers on everything in Walgreens, ID requirements to enter stuff, you get the idea. There's no obvious solution to that.
Re: San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet
#286Earlier quoted context omitted.
SF is governed mostly by the people who live there. The core of the problem is that SF has spent decades investing in giving every person, block, and neighborhood ways to participate in planning and changes. Generally this means giving out some kind of veto. So when the time comes to do something "Yes, but do it somewhere else" is the predominant response. To put it another way - everybody wants more shelters for the…
Thank you for your perspective on this. In my locale, this type of thing is hard to imagine, we'll feed anybody who can hold a fork here. We have almost zero resources for indigents here, so homeless and others without are a bit rare. What are the resources (aside from this restroom) afforded to those without, near SFO? I'm tempted to think about this time when a local made a habit of feeding the deer, eventually the…
https://hsh.sfgov.org/ And that's just the resources from the city. There's a bunch of non-profits and a generally permissive public attitude.
As to that question... it's a difficult one to answer. My understanding is that it's both difficult to study and politically sensitive.
Re: San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet
#287No post body was provided.
Re: San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet
#288NIMBYism would be a lot less popular in SF if we called them what they were: Conservatives.
Re: San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet
#289I wonder what precautions will be taken to make sure that toilet doesn't become either someone's residence or a "shooting gallery."
How the rest of the world (including parts of the US) does it -
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/blue-lights-drug-users-high/st...
Re: San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet
#290Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used to live in the South Bay and go up to San Francisco and Oakland every other weekend. It was bad, but it seems to have completely gone to hell in the last decade. I would not set foot there unless all of human existence depended on it.
I’ve wanted to leave SF for a few years as I don’t connect as well after having kids. It has slid but it is very easy to avoid the big problem areas and you get desensitized. But there is still lots to love about the city. It soul isn’t crushed yet.
hear hear! San Francisco is still a beautiful place, leagues ahead of the south bay strip mall.