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

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

#561

Post by asow92 » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 5:16 PM UTC

juve1996 wrote: post #506

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.

Seems to be a strong statement to make - how do you know they don't contribute? Already by paying some form of rent, is that not contribution?

If they're rent is subsidized by the state and they do not work is their contribution a net positive? Many of these people that I've met don't want a W2 or 1099 in fear of loosing their entitlements. The only folks who win there in the long run are landlords (rich getting richer).

Sure some do contribute in a qualitative way to culture and social functions, but not as much economically.

Yes, I'm often accused of being an un-empathic robot, but I can't help looking at this in a macroeconomic sense. Just trying to be intellectually honest with what I see around me in the world.

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

#562

Post by bombcar » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 5:17 PM UTC

kfarr wrote: post #249

nsxwolf wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the difference between bureaucracy and grift? All those 1.7 million dollars go into pockets, no?

Honestly it's a big difference. One is payroll and legal, the other is laundered and illegal and the feds regularly prosecute SF gov officials for this.

The smartest grifters realize their life is a lot easier when the grift is entirely above board and legal.

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

#563

Post by tchaffee » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 5:20 PM UTC

ActorNightly wrote: post #457

bongobingo1 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's not unreasonable to attack effects of homelessness as well as the cause. Some problems are really hard and some are just hard . In other places where it wont cost 1.7M to build one public toilet, this wouldn't be seen as such a failure or mis-step, just extending public services to people in crisis - as long as it's not seen as "fixed" by doing so.

The issue is nobody leaning left politically is going to run with the truth that homelessness is caused by lax policies in regards to crime and drug abuse. California still sells the lie that homelessness is caused by lack of housing/affordability.

> homelessness is caused by lax policies in regards to crime and drug abuse

You don't even have correlation let alone causation. California is slightly below average with its incarceration rate so not really lax at all compared to the 20+ states with lower incarceration rates. Alaska has an above average incarceration rate and ranks high on homelessness rate. Nevada has a high incarceration rate and ranks high on homelessness rate.

> and drug abuse

California doesn't even make the top 20 list for states with drug abuse problems. Not surprisingly some conservative states are on that list - thanks most likely to widely available and cheap meth.

You want a reductive answer to a complex problem in order to make an ideological point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...

https://www.statista.com/statistics/727847/homelessness-rate...

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/care-coordination/20-s...

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

#564

Post by bombcar » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 5:23 PM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #489

ceejayoz wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is it was for partisans embedded in occupied areas working in critical infrastructure and manufacturing.

The Germans held meetings where they allowed partisans to make speeches and question their decisions?

It's similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work-to-rule or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_compliance - you are actively working against the goals of the organization by overtly acting toward the goals.

Anyone who has dealt with children can recognize it immediately, but it can be damn hard to "identify and punish" because they're following the letter of the law.

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

#565

Post by mattnewton » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 5:24 PM UTC

1024core wrote: post #436

mattnewton wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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??

Sure, substitute live in San Francisco with live in commuting distance of San Francisco. It's not like Daly city or Oakland are cheap either.

Even when we focus on the fiscal aspect of it, I don't think a machine is a bad idea compared to a plan of "find some willing to clean up after addicts and the mentally ill at all hours" - how much would you need to be paid to take that job and show up to outcompete the toilet-dishwasher-machine every day? California has tons of other jobs and generous social programs.

And that's ignoring the angle that we're allocating a human life to this extremely unpleasant and automatable task.

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

#566

Post by bombcar » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 5:24 PM UTC

asow92 wrote: post #330

josephcsible wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would much rather be destitute in a big city where I can access all kinds of formal and informal resources like temp agencies or subways to sleep on , than in a rural area This is why so many commuters forego cities' public transit in favor of driving.

I've literally seen someone shit in a subway before, and as we know, single toilets can cost millions of dollars in cities for some reason.

According to Wikipedia a subway car is only 300k more, so it might be a better deal to buy subway cars to use as restrooms than buying these toilets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R160_(New_York_City_Subway_car...

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

#567

Post by bombcar » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 5:27 PM UTC

asow92 wrote: post #494

whimsicalism wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try the rural south. Lots of rural NY is just a play place for richer people.

But, I'd also like to point out that much of the southern tier and western NY is a lot like Appalachia economically. We have much higher poverty rates compared to the rest of the state. The town in which I live is double the state average at around 30% poverty. And despite the fact that we have double the poverty rate of NYC it's nowhere near as apparent.

In the rural areas you have "poor people" who have their own land and may even live off it a bit - which means they have housing and so are not as noticeable as actual homeless.

If you own your hovel outright you can be incredibly far below the poverty line and be "okish" for some value of "ok". Especially if you have a number of people banding together on the same property (very common in rural areas) - some on SSI or SSD, some on welfare, some making some money on odd jobs.

You can't really have that in the city or near it; the land is too valuable.

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

#568

Post by s1artibartfast » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 5:29 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.

You are arguing an ideal and they are making a point about practice and fact. The practice on the ground and public policy is that certain "public toilets" are for the homeless. This informs government decisions about how they are designed, who has to maintain them, where they are placed, and who uses them.

A public toilet in the tenderloin is a homeless toilet in all but name. A public toilet in Golden Gate Park is actually a public toilet in the sense that you are talking about.

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

#569

Post by firefoxkekw » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 5:30 PM UTC

someuser4234 wrote: post #507

firefoxkekw wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably one of the best choices of my live was moving out of S.F to Switzerland five years ago, the culture here is a lot less focused on virtue signaling and way more focused on working, being respectful about no making a lot of noise on your house and public transport, actually having good incentives and culture about recycling and the washing machine, ultra safe place in general. It only took me about a year of a…

Is German or French more common? I knew someone in S.F. who married a woman from Switzerland roughly 5 years ago and moved out there...did you work at a software consulting company in S.F.?

Hi,

Is German or French more common? >

It depends base on the canton, but in the overall swiss german is more spoken than french.

I knew someone in S.F. who married a woman from Switzerland roughly 5 years ago and moved out there...did you work at a software consulting company in S.F.? >

Can't be me, I'm a female ^^.

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

#570

Post by creato » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 5:33 PM UTC

eloisius wrote: post #162

insanitybit wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Public toilets aren't really for you, they're for the people who have nowhere else.

It's shocking that this is a normal opinion. Taipei is a much bigger city than SF. There are public restrooms everywhere. Every single metro station has clean, indoor restrooms. Not just "available" restrooms, I mean clean, like cleaner than most gas station restrooms in the US. Parks also have restrooms. Failing that, you can probably find a private one at 7/11. I really can't believe how shitty major US cities are,…

A tiny minority of people ruin things like this for everyone, and the US doesn’t have the political will to deal with them (they likely need involuntary commitment to mental institutions).

When I lived in SF, I couldn’t believe the amount of trash on the street. How can so many people litter so much? Then one day, I happened to witness a homeless guy taking all the trash out of every trash can on the street and just dumping them.

That one guy was undoing a week of effort by thousands of people to keep things clean of litter. That kind of behavior should be considered a serious offense, but no one cares, about either the guy or the trash. Have a paper straw! That will fix it.