Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet

sfchronicle.com

651–660 of 832 posts

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

#651
I live in the city and come across human feces daily.

I've been thinking a lot about this, and after going through a year long process of trying to get the city (actually the port authority) to simply lock a dumpster at night as they say they do but don't actually.

SF in particular seems to look for fancy big expensive flashy solutions to problems rather than look to other cities who have solved the issue in a simple "KISS" approach.

In the example of the unlocked dumpsters which were and are a serious public health hazard (people and raccoons go though it every night and drag the trash all over the waterfront and immediate area) I kept calling the port just asking them to lock them at night. They said thos was already happening, but clearly wasn't. We went back and forth for months but I got nowhere. The port kept telling me they they got new big Belly Trash Cans and have asked to build a new dumpster enclosure. All that was 2 years ago and the dumpsters still sit open today. All I was asking for was for them to lock the dumpsters they said they were already locking, with the lock that's already on the dumpster. It's not a "build a new building" or buy expensive things problem. It's a simple people doing their job as promised problem.

Back to this. I've been thinking of starting a non profit that distributes 5 gallon buckets with toilet lids on them (they make them for camping, like this: https://www.amazon.com/Camco-Toilet-Seat-Proof-Waste/dp/B07N...)

A non profit that distributed these throughout the city, then picked them up every few days would do far more good than any of these other efforts I've seen proposed by the city. The problem is its not sexy, interesting or newsworthy, it's just work. Working with a startup or design team to yet again invent another solution is, so that's why the people in power do that. Not because its better.

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

#652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>not enough laborers Not enough wages. If the free market is good enough for everything else, why not for labor?

It's being absorbed by the bureaucrats who have made it cost $1.7M to build a single toilet.

All government entities in the US are ultimately controlled by private corporations.

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

#653
post #551

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, I think the only way to make it work is to provide plenty of security, right along with the social workers. The NIMBYs in Portland primarily argue against siting a homeless shelter near them because of the associated violence. If the city actually staffed the shelters with enough security, that argument could be dismissed. Of course another argument would pop up to replace it. So the other thing we need to do i…

That only works if the people in need of assistance don't respond to the on-site security by moving out of the encampment. You wind up having to establish a sizable security-protected area around the blessed encampment, otherwise you wind up with a series of unsanctioned and unsecured encampments anchored by the serviced one. Neighbors tend to object to that kind of thing. What SF actually needs to do is house people…

Is housing really an option? I mean that seriously. I suppose we could build "projects," like in Baltimore, but I definitely wouldn't call those a success. Right now, most of the Section 8 projects are skimming the better candidates off the top. The hard cases, the truly drug addicted and mentally disturbed (and there are a whole lot of them), will take whatever housing you give them and either ruin it, or move back onto the street, or both. I always hear this appeal to just "house people," but it seems to me there's more to it than that. I think in many, many circumstances, you would have to involuntarily commit them. And then it starts looking like a jail or mental hospital. In my mind, those are probably the best answers, but that ship sailed a long time ago.

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

#654

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NIMBY-ism and the accumulation of power through real estate and capture of local power structures isn't an inherent to SF or any specific political party. It happens in Texas, NYC and Idaho.

Texas and Idaho have much more housing and build much more, for better or worse. And are much cheaper.

Most Texas and Idaho cities also have a lot more physical space to work with than SF does.

(Hell, most cities, period, do.)

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

#655
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.

> Why is it that the deepest blue areas of the country have some of the most abject inequity and poverty?

Because urban areas tend to be blue, and urban areas attract more poverty (costs are higher, easier to get into poverty; but also there are plenty of public services around that make it "easier" to be poor). Poverty is also just much more visible in areas with denser populations.

I assure you that there's plenty of poverty in right-leaning areas in the US. They're just usually not as visible.

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

#657

One of the reasons this toilet is so expensive no doubt, is that the new SF public toilets are self cleaning and will have attendants on duty to try to prevent this. The one on golden gate park and Haight closes after each visitor to spray the inside down like a dishwasher, and has an attendant on duty to make sure no one is inside while it does that (and to generally discourage people from shady stuff). It's not per…

They have to pay an attendant hourly just to be sure no one is in there while the self clean runs? Why can't it operate based on a weight sensor?

[deleted]

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

#658
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…

Somehow those poor in rural areas find places to live other than tents, tarps, and heaps of garbage. That leads to me to believe your facts are wrong or somehow misconstrued.

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

#659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because those things are a result of progressive policies.

I used to be a progressive and used to campaign for candidates. Then I stayed where I am and the rest of the bandwagon moved way way left. So, I will probably vote against any of the "progressive" policies, politicians and elections. At this point, Florida and Texas have record net in-flux migration from California. Can't wait to see this competition completely kick California's butt. It is a shame, I am stuck here,…

I as well used to be more progressive, but it's gone too far. The center-left of 20 years ago feels center today.

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

#660
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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKRuhiMDOjo
Post reply on HN