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

511–520 of 832 posts

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

#511

Post by aksss »

enragedcacti wrote: post #313
aliqot wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

People who are left wing w.r.t. the organization of the economy view democrats as right wing i.e. upholding the entrenched power structure. SF dems will happily support spending money on the homeless in principle, but they are still deeply conservative when it comes to how policies will affect them or their capital. They are pretty much the poster child of NIMBYism: "I know X is something the community needs and I'm…

This is some hilarious gymnastics. S.F. is basically a poster child for how left wing urban policy is easily turned into abusive graft and inherently prone to abuse and corruption and it’s just like, “no, more cowbell!” Just keep turning the dial up and I’m sure it will get better.

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

#512

Post by rootusrootus »

ActorNightly wrote: post #463
screye wrote: post #148

Is the SF Bay Area the worst managed "successful" economic urban area in the world ? It performs pretty badly on public transport, safety, affordability & sanitation. All its pros seem to exist despite the management, and not because of it. (Universities, Jobs, Weather, Nature) I thought Greater Seattle was badly managed, but it has been funding light rail, missing middle-housing and recently started reversing the cr…

Quoted post unavailable.

That's absurd. NIMBY is absolutely, 100% independent of political ideology.

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

#514

Post by asow92 »

juve1996 wrote: post #502
asow92 wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If rural areas are given disproportionate political power, why can't political parties that feel this disadvantage do better in those areas? Why change the rules of the game instead of winning it?

Because the two-party system limits choice to voters and polarizes camps. A democrat could have genuinely good policy that would make an enormous difference for a lot of republican voters. But stances on social issues like gay marriage, gun control, etc, will make them unviable as a candidate. If they switch and support these issues, then they'll lose their primary.

While I don't think Yang has a shot, I really appreciate his attempt to find a new, level-headed middle. Finding middle ground is our best hope. I think there are ideas from both sides that could help both city and rural constituents, and believe that the culture war has gotten out of control on both sides with irreconcilable differences that disqualify the other. However, I also believe that rural voters could be won by Dems if they were engaged on their level instead of flown-over.

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

#515

Post by scrumbledober »

throwawaytoilet wrote: post #124
vanillax wrote: post #47

I would never step foot into a public SF toliet. Last time I went in there the homeless shit all over the floor and toliet and walls. I went in and nearly threw up. A homeless person pointed and laughed at me. Fuck that.

For years I felt this way. But with a 3 year old child you go into lots of public toilets all over the city. Nearly all toilets near playgrounds for children have been fine. Basic but fine.

I was blown away by how nice the bathrooms at dolores park were. I was really avoiding going in because I had very very low expectations.

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

#516

Post by rootusrootus »

anon291 wrote: post #303
s0rce wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I moved from Canada to what I thought was progressive SF bay area, not so much, very conservative on many issues.

The bay area is 'conservative' on issues that actual American conservatives are not very conservative on. For example, bay area people seem to hate building housing, whereas most red states are building like crazy.

That's because conservative areas are rural. When they become dense enough to have urban problems, they inevitably become liberal. So then we get to paint the urban problem as a liberal one, when in reality it is orthogonal.

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

#517

Post by hot_gril »

astockwell wrote: post #112
msoad wrote: post #94

Earlier 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.

SFO, LA, SD. One of those is not like the rest.

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

#518

Post by hot_gril »

stephencoyner wrote: post #340
hot_gril wrote: post #228

I've lived and worked in SF. Thankful that I'll probably never have another work-related reason to go back. SF is marked deprecated in my eyes.

It’s easy to pile onto articles that highlight some of the city’s mismanagement, but San Francisco is one of the most naturally beautiful places in the country. If you’re out on the west side by Golden Gate Park, Baker Beach or the Presidio it feels like you’re in a nature movie. Even with all of its problems, I will always love that city.

Yes, I loved GG park on weekends, but that's about it. I'm very sick of working there or even visiting. It did not improve since I left.

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

#519

Post by stvswn »

indymike wrote: post #421
stvswn wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"a right-wing dystopia?" Seems like you'd prefer to redefine what it means to be left or right wing rather than admit that this is the outcome of left-wing governance. The specific issues here are: tight control over building standards leading to red tape; high levels of process to ensure community review and involvement; paying more than market price for labor in order to support unions as a political value; support…

In government, the continuum is not a line, it is a circle. If you go far enough left, or far enough right, you end up at the exact same place.

I don't think there are many ways in which SF is similar to a "very right wing" city. First of all, "right wing" politicians do not control any city governments in any real way, but if you were to compare SF with say, Houston -- which has radically different policies along these lines -- you wouldn't find that the results are the same.

In the American context, an extreme right-wing city government would theoretically provide very few public services, allow all property to transact in open marketplaces with very little red tape, allow for any use of property to meet market demand. In other words, you could build a gigantic high rise in Noe Valley but the city wouldn't pay for public toilets in any case (but someone could feel free to make pay toilets if they own or lease the land). Left wingers imagine that this sort of arrangement would lead to worse or similar outcomes for the poor than SF currently, but... I don't know, honestly.

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

#520

Post by baby »

stephencoyner wrote: post #340
hot_gril wrote: post #228

I've lived and worked in SF. Thankful that I'll probably never have another work-related reason to go back. SF is marked deprecated in my eyes.

It’s easy to pile onto articles that highlight some of the city’s mismanagement, but San Francisco is one of the most naturally beautiful places in the country. If you’re out on the west side by Golden Gate Park, Baker Beach or the Presidio it feels like you’re in a nature movie. Even with all of its problems, I will always love that city.

I live in SF and honestly I don't see it. Any city in Europe is much more pretty, I was in Medellin this month and it's much more pretty as well.

SF to me is just empty, cold, and only has big roads for cars.

Post reply on HN