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

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

#471

Post by hedora » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 4:31 PM UTC

jesuscript wrote: post #379

collegeburner wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

similarly, NYC decided to pay McKinsey $4mm to answer the question of whether large, stinky festering piles of trashbags would be better in containers.

Source, my dear friend. The world is just too weird for me delineate between real and unreal at this point.

Tangentially related, Folsom, CA still knows how to build stuff in a hurry:

https://www.theonion.com/preemptive-memorial-honors-future-v...

Separately, they completed the spillway upgrades about 10 years after that video was produced, so 1 for 2?:

https://ascecapitalbranch.org/geotechnical-aspects-of-the-fo...

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

#472

Post by asow92 » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 4:32 PM UTC

whimsicalism wrote: post #437

asow92 wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As it is our prerogative to protest it either way.

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

#473

Post by stvswn » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 4:33 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?

No, I think the comment was meant to mean "this is not left-wing, this is late-stage capitalism, the problem is that we have too many right wingers in SF that are cosplaying progressivism"

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

#474

Post by jalk » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 4:34 PM UTC

Could it be that the majority of the 1.7M is for getting the design "approved" and the clones they install elsewhere will be at a fraction of the cost.

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

#475

Post by dehrmann » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 4:34 PM UTC

anon291 wrote: post #307

_uhtu wrote: post #125

The central issue in SF really is just that all the stakeholders with any power whatsoever are highly incentivized to minimize change, because most of the voting and bribery base (I mean, political donation base) is manically obsessed with keeping housing prices as high as possible, so every department in every place in government is designed to slow and reject permits as much as possible. The incentives have been th…

If the SF local government were to substantially change, particular political party officials would be out of a job, because the city is run by one party, and is in fact the breeding ground of a lot of major national politicians from that party. People should think about this when they go to vote, because several SF politicians are attempting to potentially run for president and other national positions. One of them…

> is in fact the breeding ground of a lot of major national politicians from that party.

Really? If Newsom runs for president, despite being somewhat moderate, he's going to have problems because Republican attack ads will frame him as the former mayor of the most liberal city in the country while showing pics of the TL in the background.

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

#476

Post by jallen_dot_dev » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 4:34 PM UTC

Considering all the parties mentioned, from city leaders to committees etc., the massive figure makes more sense when you realize it's actually a welfare program in disguise to support a bunch of people with bullshit jobs.

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

#477

Post by hot_gril » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 4:34 PM UTC

aliqot wrote: post #388

orhmeh09 wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try taking a wheelchair between cars.

If I were in a wheelchair, I'd be terrified of cities like SF who only grow vertically and are opposed to any types of accommodations requiring construction.

I wouldn't feel safe around there either. Also, SF is naturally very hilly.

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

#478

Post by rootusrootus » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 4:35 PM UTC

nsxwolf wrote: post #203

lotsofpulp wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People sometimes use major airport codes as shorthand for a city or the metropolitan region the airport serves.

We have the best pizza in ORD

We have a datacenter there, so I'd totally know exactly what city you meant by that. I wouldn't say we always call Chicago ORD, but it definitely happens.

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

#479

Post by asow92 » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 4:36 PM UTC

raldi wrote: post #467

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.

Show me a place that lacks inequality and I'll show you a place that drove out all their poor people.

Nowhere is without inequality. Hierarchies form naturally and cannot be abolished regardless of the system in which they form.

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

#480

Post by muaytimbo » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 4:36 PM UTC

mattnewton wrote: post #387

throwawaytoilet wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you need to be a bit desensitized to problems that are visible all over the city (e.g. trash under and along freeways etc) for that to not be the memory that sticks rather than the beauty. It is like SF needs a “clean up the city volunteer day” once a month that is broadly attended.

Hmm, having just visited SF and then spent a week in New Haven and Hartford in CT, I can't agree. What American city doesn't have trash? I can't think of a city I have visited in the world that meets that standard. I haven't been, but maybe Singapore? The homeless problem is very bad in California and SF in particular, and it is very concentrated in a small area to the east that looks positively dystopian. But that d…

I lived in New Haven for 4 years. The difference in the amount of trash between American cities is vast, compare NYC with Chicago. Or really any city on the east coast with Chicago for that matter.