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

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

#581

Post by notch656a » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 6:05 PM UTC

Kalium wrote: post #487

Ancapistani wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> how many avoidable deaths by fire are you willing to sign off on with this justification? Up to, but not including, the number of avoidable deaths by exposure that are already occurring.

Given the permanently mild weather in the SF Bay, this number is probably smaller than you think. Whereas fires in homeless encampments are a relatively frequent occurrence.

Being exposed without, say maybe wooden structure to block the wind around you while you sleep, may be a reason homeless build fires.

The last story I was able to find was of someone that died exactly that way, a fire in near freezing weather in SF [0]. If that person had a lockable wooden shed to put blankets and sleep in, she wouldn't have needed a fire.

[0] https://www.kqed.org/news/11906661/woman-who-died-in-homeles...

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

#582

Post by throwayyy479087 » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 6:06 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.

Because those things are a result of progressive policies.

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

#583

Post by throwawaysleep » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 6:11 PM UTC

ticviking wrote: post #151

throwawaysleep wrote: post #48

One of my jobs is in the public service. This seems like the usual case of public servants doing everything possible to avoid someone being unhappy with them later. Consultations, union workers, tons and tons of approvals, etc. Remember, you can't really win as a government worker. The priority is not to lose. You want every little concern addressed? You want layers and layers of accountability? You want the top conc…

I'm increasingly convinced that a good deal of our societies problem is pathological conflict avoidance. The people we have elected(directly or indirectly) are terrified they might be confronted with the consequences of doing their job, and making a choice. I see the same thing at work, and in my church community. I've found it's often better to have a direct conflict early, than an prolonged indirect conflict. Havin…

Probably.

But people also need to have an actual interest in engaging in the conflict. I refuse to engage at work. You could be shipping passwords in plaintext and I will let you do it, as they are not my users.

In the case of elected officials, it is even worse. Smaller waste can easily go unnoticed, unless you bring it up, fight a lot of people, and get blamed for not finding it earlier. Another thing work has taught me. Cover ups nearly always make sense.

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

#584

Post by novok » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 6:13 PM UTC

_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…

IMO the higher prices for shit on the streets camp make sure that the shit doesn't end up in their neighborhood. Go to various wealthier & busier places in the city and notice the curious lack of crap on the roads, or homeless people in general.

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

#585

Post by novok » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 6:19 PM UTC

hedora wrote: post #252

jollyllama wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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…

And now I see the political money cycle that sustains this and prevents the state legislature from passing laws to clean up all the accumulated case law cruft.

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

#586

Post by Kalium » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 6:23 PM UTC

notch656a wrote: post #581

Kalium wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given the permanently mild weather in the SF Bay, this number is probably smaller than you think. Whereas fires in homeless encampments are a relatively frequent occurrence.

Being exposed without, say maybe wooden structure to block the wind around you while you sleep, may be a reason homeless build fires. The last story I was able to find was of someone that died exactly that way, a fire in near freezing weather in SF [0]. If that person had a lockable wooden shed to put blankets and sleep in, she wouldn't have needed a fire. [0] https://www.kqed.org/news/11906661/woman-who-died-in-home…

When I lived in Oakland, my apartment building had several close calls with wildfires caused by poorly contained campfires in a nearby encampment of vulnerable community members housed in tents to keep the wind off as they slept. Given that lockable wooden sheds / "tiny homes" can and do catch fire from things like poorly managed propane stoves in particle board construction, perhaps a better solution is in order. As stopgaps go, this one has a bunch of known drawbacks that lead policy to shy away from it.

Personally, I favor actual housing.

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

#587

Post by asow92 » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 6:29 PM UTC

bombcar wrote: post #566

asow92 wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

It might get a little messy with the bumps around, but it could work in theory if cleaned regularly.

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

#588

Post by Zanneth » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 6:31 PM UTC

nemo44x wrote: post #435

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…

Whether they exist or not, the fact that the normal working population don't have to see or deal with it sounds like a significant upgrade.

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

#589

Post by Zanneth » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 6:35 PM UTC

galdosdi wrote: post #218

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 destitute are merely more visible in "big dense blue cities" but statistically there are more of them in rural red places like Mississippi and Oklahoma. After all, in OK or MS you need a car, which is a $2000+ asset, just to even access any public space or resource or make yourself visible at all. There's much more poverty in those places, but it is hidden away. You can see a slight bit of it at gas stations that…

"Hiding the poor" versus "letting the poor suffer in plain sight" doesn't seem to matter, then. If it was true that oblivious poverty resulted in more action being taken to help those in need, we wouldn't have a homelessness problem in San Francisco. Clearly that is not the case, so I'd much rather live in a place where it is hidden.

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

#590

Post by epistasis » Thu, Oct 20, 2022, 6:39 PM UTC

cdot2 wrote: post #264

hexator wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing progressive about literally stopping progress on housing affordability.

They could certainly make arguments about "urban beautification", "community involvement", and other "progressive" causes. Unless of course those arent true progressives.

I don't think that either of these are examples of progressive politics in San Francisco. The city is not being beautified, it is being kept the same and not allowed to be beautified. All comparisons with the rest of the US would place San Francisco as more conservative on beautification than progressive.

Similarly, it's not the community that's involved in these decisions, it's a veto system where only those with abundant time and resources can be heard and have influence in the system, further cementing economic privilege rather than making it more equitable or democratic. For recent academic investigations of this, check out the book Neighborhood Defenders by Katherine Einstein et al:

https://www.politicsofhousing.com/neighborhood_defenders/