San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet • Hacker News Board

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

#431

Post by mardifoufs » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 4:13 PM UTC

throwaway5752 wrote: post #320

matthewmacleod wrote: post #168

The thing is, you can look at this headline and know immediately that it's hiding information. You can read the opening paragraph and tell that it isn't an article that's actually seeking to inform anyone about anything. It's not news. It's not really hard to figure out why public discourse is so broken when this sort of shit-shovelling churnalism is treated seriously.

I can see why you were downvoted. You are correct about the submitted article, and these types of posts attract a different audience - newer, lower karma accounts that tend to focus on non-technical subjects. Yahoo doesn't produce much content, they distribute it. This is from the National Review, which is a partisan editorial magazine. It is not bias or incorrect to say it is not journalism. It is a subsidiary of th…

What's the "truth" behind the headline then? Genuine question, I totally agree that it sounds a bit "too bad to be true" especially without more context. But what's the other side of this story?

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

#432

Post by insanitybit » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 4:14 PM UTC

gtirloni wrote: post #222

insanitybit wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, obviously. We're talking about San Francisco where this toilet is being built with a very explicit purpose.

What's different between a traditional public toilet that anyone can use and a homeless toilet? You seem to imply there's a difference that affords extra explanation and justification.

I'm not implying any difference at all. I'm not saying the public can't use the toilet, I'm saying that the main problem that the government is trying to address is one with the homeless population.

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

#433

Post by asow92 » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 4:14 PM UTC

whimsicalism wrote: post #373

asow92 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYC has started bussing people to my rural area in Upstate NY because there isn't enough section 8 housing available and they're on a waiting list.

this is a very a different sort of "bussing", it is state wide allocation of section 8 housing. they're not bussing people if they don't have section 8 already. Massachusetts does the same thing but from Boston to places like Fall River. Homeless are being bussed to SF without any housing arrangements.

At the end of the day we have more people coming into our community of who don't feel inclined to contribute to it. The pedantic semantics of the difference is immaterial to my peers and neighbors.

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

#434

Post by aliqot » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 4:14 PM UTC

carapace wrote: post #391

aliqot wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assumed it was an attempt at ideologically shirking accountability for the outcomes involved in elected officials doing what they were elected to do.

Could it be they meant a dystopia as right-wing might view or describe it? As in "I'm right-wing; this is my idea of what a dystopia would be; SF seems like that." Rather than "this dystopia is the result of right-wing policies." which clearly doesn't fit the facts, eh?

what is 'fact' and what is anecdote are unclear here, I've observed none of this personally, until then it is me suspending disbelief and relying on the words given to me for the interpretations and observations of those that I assume have more familiarity than me. I have no idea if it 'could be' that they meant X. I'm asking to know, not because I have an agenda.

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

#435

Post by nemo44x » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 4:15 PM UTC

asow92 wrote: post #160

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.

The rustbelt, deep south, and Appalachia are not some beautiful, middle class paradises. They're full of towns littered with heroin and meth addicts subsidized by welfare and petty crime. You just don't see it or read about it because it's across thousands of small towns and not concentrated in major cities, where media also tends to live.

These places have a lot of violence, social issues, drug overdoses, etc. They may not have homelessness at the same level because housing is cheaper and in many cases involves a trailer or an old house in disrepair.

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

#436

Post by 1024core » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 4:15 PM UTC

mattnewton wrote: post #412

perfectstorm wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

why not have a full time janitor who cleans after each visit? much cheaper than a self cleaning toilet. even if you pay $100k to the janitor in annual salary, it will take 10+yrs to reach 1.7M and who knows what kind of issues these self cleaning toilets will have in that 10yrs.

Because a human who can afford to live in San Francisco almost certainly costs more than this machine over 10 years (the 1.7 million is for the whole project, not just the self cleaning portion), and drugged out crazies can make a mess that would be a very hard and unpleasant job to give a human.

A large number of City employees live outside the City. According to this article, only 40% of the City employees live in SF. https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/article/remote-work-17510522....

So why is residence a requirement for the janitor??

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

#437

Post by whimsicalism » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 4:16 PM UTC

asow92 wrote: post #433

whimsicalism wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is a very a different sort of "bussing", it is state wide allocation of section 8 housing. they're not bussing people if they don't have section 8 already. Massachusetts does the same thing but from Boston to places like Fall River. Homeless are being bussed to SF without any housing arrangements.

At the end of the day we have more people coming into our community of who don't feel inclined to contribute to it. The pedantic semantics of the difference is immaterial to my peers and neighbors.

I can guarantee you it would not be immaterial to you if the state was shipping people there without housing already lined up.

It is the state's prerogative to distribute this as it seems fit.

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

#438

Post by notch656a » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 4:16 PM UTC

hot_gril wrote: post #401

saiya-jin wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Is this seriously the reality of SF? Never been there. If yes, that's pretty bad and degrades the city in some aspects to 3rd world place. But then again I am in Europe, many things like crazy homeless people I saw often in LA are unheard of here. Wha…

I worked there in 2016-2018 and returned several times 2020-21, and yes it's been this way. It's not very difficult to deal with, just annoying enough that at some point you might get tired of it. I walked everywhere, only avoiding a few streets. You can find the cafés or even public seating areas that are hospitable, but it may require a little trial and error. The one actually hard thing is finding a bathroom. Many…

The Philippines has pay toilets ("comfort rooms") everywhere. I've always wondered why the US has capitalism for everything but toilets. It really makes things more convenient as people have an actual incentive to offer toilets to the public, and the prices are low by local standards.

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

#439

Post by nixpulvis » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 4:17 PM UTC

Let me guess, it will require a password, fingerprint, and subscription to access, then it will take a blood sample before the seat is lifted.

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

#440

Post by bnralt » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 4:17 PM UTC

whimsicalism wrote: post #353

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…

> a far better option than actually trying to provide housing or attack more of the root causes. I see a lot of discussion among urbanists of "induced demand" when adding extra lanes to highways. Are we sure there wouldn't be induced demand from providing free housing to the homeless? Already, the Bay Area & LA are major draws to homeless populations throughout the country. [0] [0]: Yes, there are some studies that s…

Another problem with "just providing housing" is that there are a good number of these people who need a lot of support and have a hard time functioning in society. Here, they tried giving homeless residents housing vouchers to apartments, and it lead in a significant drop in quality of life for the people who lived there, with a rise in violence and crime in the buildings (this is based both on newspaper articles about the program and talking with residents). I've known people in buildings like that who are looking to move after living there for decades.