Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet

sfchronicle.com

441–450 of 832 posts

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

#441
post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

In what ways is SFO right wing? I don't see much representation of that type as far as elected officials. Is this a term used in spirit or something I'm overlooking?

> In what ways is SFO right wing?

I think the poster misspoke, SF is more like what those on the left imagine a right wing dystopia would look like (massive wealth inequality, homelessness and litter everywhere, crime, everyone is a NIMBY, etc.).

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

#442
Californians who move out, remember back test your beliefs before you force them (usually via money) where you move to. There's a reason why you're moving out and part of that reason is your flawed thinking. Doubling down on that will only lead to more 0 trust societies like SF.

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

#443
post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually, the construction workers found multiple issues with the plans, and were on the hook for some of the repairs. The profiteers were the engineers that designed the system. Each time they screwed up, they got to bill us more hours. Also, the contract with them stipulates zero liability for their incompetence. The state licensing board should be fired for allowing that. Also, we wanted to put in a more environme…

I think we agree. I would consider the construction workers to be laborers. They're adding value. Profiteering would be collecting profit without adding value i.e. engineers and the licensing board in this case.

Why do you seem to believe that only manual laborers can add value?

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

#444
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…

Not disagreeing with that, and both city and rural have their problems.

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

#445
post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> The public toilet will be built by union workers who will “earn a living wage and benefits,” San Francisco doesn't owe anything to the tradespeople. When you share a border with Mexico, there is absolutely no reason not to outsource. Almost every city that can rapidly scale up infrastructure have access to some type of cheap labour. The rapid construction in the middle east and asia didn't happen by using union lab…

i mean, the city has already hired police officers, who are armed. we know they're not solving murders or catching thieves, so i'm sure there's plenty of time to round up a work crew from the local population that will benefit from the toilet

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

#446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that NIMBYism also takes the form of adding multiple barriers to changing the neighborhood. Environmental permit, safety permit, approving architectural proposals prior to implementation, limitations on who does the construction, how the materials are sourced, approvals on construction times and schedules, etc. The people building it might need to hire lawyers to draft proposals formally to local…

I thought most of the permits would be be moot on cost if it's the city paying itself for permits.

Not really, they have to pay someone to write the proposal to receive the permit.

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

#447
post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 n…

Thank you for this frank breakdown of what's going on. This seems like a good possible explanation for the testimonials I'm reading in this thread. I'm still struggling with what is espoused by those from SFO area and tech culture compared to the reality of what's going on. If anybody is dedicated to 'social justice', to remove/resist facilities to relieve oneself just seems so far off the mark. I'm sure a lot of thi…

> If anybody is dedicated to 'social justice', to remove/resist facilities to relieve oneself just seems so far off the mark.

I don't know but would wager that it's not those people. All sorts of people live in SF, like anywhere else.

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

#448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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? This is an interesting point, but would it not apply more generally to creating more housing for everyone, rather than just when creating housing for homeless? The population of homeless people is just a tiny fraction of the tota…

The difference is that with normal supply and demand for housing, shifting the supply curve right will both lower the price and increase the quantity.

Not the same for artificial supply of zero cost housing.

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

#449
There's a lot of comments in this thread blaming this on the boogeyman of "conservatives", but you're talking about a city that has been hard blue for more than 50 years and has not elected a single red in that time. Granted, blue isn't really "progressive", it's more globalist center-right in the global sense, but nonetheless, in the American sense, it's certainly not "conservative".

I would suggest a re-examining of your political compass if this is the conclusion you came to after reading an article saying this boondoggle was based on regulations, committees, and unions.

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

#450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too many bureaucrats and construction profiteers, not enough good laborers.

I sincerely wonder if we have 'democratized' infrastructure and construction too much. >"First, an architect needs to draw plans for the toilet, which will then be presented to the public for feedback. The Arts Commission’s Civic Design Review committee will be responsible for conducting a “multi-phase review” of the project, like it does for all projects on public lands. According to the Arts Commission’s website, “…

Or, how about spend the money ONCE and create a set or two of architectural design standards for use in city projects? These would include aesthetic design, massing, scale, accessibility, safety, etc.

This is really what the whole review is doing, attempting to make the design consistent with the surroundings, which is a worthy consideration. But literally re-inventing this wheel for every project id both wasteful and guaranteed to fail, as every committee will be different. Simply pick one or two, and maybe have a standing process to update it every decade.

Then, it's just specify function, dimensions, etc., and maybe "in SF-City Style A", and put it out to bid, and passe it through maybe one or two approval processes to verify compliance before digging, or even include that in the bidding process - submit your design & costs, meeting these standards. IFF the process is good and fair, they should get many good bidders (ya, big IFF).

Post reply on HN