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

191–200 of 832 posts

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

#191

Post by yardie »

knaekhoved wrote: post #104
insanitybit wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost isn't in the toilet itself, it's in all of the politics that will go into it. People will fight against it, there will be scrutiny in its design, etc.

Honestly, I might fight a public toilet near my house too if I knew the end state was that it would mostly attract homeless people who want to shoot up heroin.

The Paris sanisettes were controversial when they went up. Using the same damn arguments against them. Everyone cares so much about what the homeless and drug users might do and care very little about the millions of others who also use them.

And they were unfounded. The self-cleaning and maintenance schedule does not attract homeless. I've literally watched a drug user argue with one because the door forcefully opened automatically after 15 minutes and he marched off to finish his business elsewhere.

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

#192

Post by fdewrewrewf »

mellavora wrote: post #76
3fe9a03ccd14ca5 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how do we fix it without adding yet another layer? All the govt seems to do is add more layers.

We start regarding public servants with some respect instead of someone to be yelled at. A culture shift. You are right more regulations/another layer isn't going to help.

A culture shift, yes.

Back to the idea that public servants are indeed servants to the public, and their entire purpose is to spend the public's money in a way that benefits the public.

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

#193

Post by throwawaytoilet »

illuminerdy wrote: post #122
rajup wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You probably don’t want to step in SF ever. FTFY.

I used to live in the South Bay and go up to San Francisco and Oakland every other weekend. It was bad, but it seems to have completely gone to hell in the last decade. I would not set foot there unless all of human existence depended on it.

I’ve wanted to leave SF for a few years as I don’t connect as well after having kids. It has slid but it is very easy to avoid the big problem areas and you get desensitized. But there is still lots to love about the city. It soul isn’t crushed yet.

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

#194

Post by _jal »

dmead wrote: post #113
aliqot wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Red tape and nimbyism is hard to imagine from what I see of SFO in books, it seems like the most anti-diversity thing you can do. Can anybody from SFO relate their experience? Hard to tell these days what is editorial bias or sensationalism and what is true.

I lived in the bay for a year. the city is for the winners of the startup and stock lottery and those who want to rent to be near them. 100% believe this.

I've lived here off and on since 1993. I work for startups but haven't hit the lottery.

There's a lot of San Francisco (and Bay Area) out there that has nothing to do with the startup scene, and many, many people who have no connection to and couldn't care less about it.

You should have gotten out more.

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

#195

Post by jhgkjhlkhjkljk »

mellavora wrote: post #88
newsclues wrote: post #46

Remember the jokes about the military overspending on toilet seats? It seems like it’s a bipartisan past time to waste taxpayers money on foolishly over expensive pet projects.

It is a bipartisan pass-time (not past-time, you must have been auto-corrected) to accuse the government of wasting money. And then forcing them to waste money by shifting their tasks and priorities followed by blaming them again for the waste. The military overspending was on hammers. And the politician forgot to mention that these were hammers for use in a munitions factory, where it was rather important that the h…

No post body was provided.

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

#196

Post by mattnewton »

rajup wrote: post #79
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.

You probably don’t want to step in SF ever. FTFY.

I feel like there are two SF's - the one that other people write about on 6th Street and the tenderloin, and then the one I visit west of that which is one of the most beautiful and vibrant American cities I have ever spent time in.

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

#198

Post by sva_ »

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.

> shit all over the floor and toliet and walls

Sounds like someone made it their home

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

#199

Post by rootusrootus »

ChrisBland wrote: post #64

If you think about some of the really interesting architecture of San Francisco, do you think they could be built now? Imagine trying to get the golden gate bridge built today. At some point you have to accept that not everyone is going to like every aspect of your plan and tell them to go pound sound or nothing will ever get done.

At some point I think we went off the rails and decided that democracy has to occur at every level of a public project. E.g. First the governor announces a vision, then the legislature allocates funds, then it goes to a design committee, etc, on down the line. At each level we try to get public participation, and at each level just a few loud voices can derail the whole thing for an indefinite amount of time.

Perhaps we could reign that in. Democracy is how we elect leaders. If enough of our leaders decide to do something, then we do it. Maybe we have one public comment period for really big projects. But it gets done. Don't like what they did? Vote them out.

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

#200

Post by giantg2 »

michaelscott wrote: post #49

> San Francisco, which is struggling with a troubling homelessness and public-defecation crisis, needs more public toilets. The irony in this statement, given the reasons why this toilet costs so much, is absolutely unreal. I had to check the date on this article to make sure it wasn't an old April's Fools skit or something, but it seems red tape and NIMBYism have escalated to such a degree in SF that (a) securing bu…

This is the even more wild statement to me. Just for the "look"?

Last year, the city spent nearly a half-million dollars to develop new trash can prototypes because city leaders “weren’t happy with the look” of off-the-shelf cans.

At least the public defacation issue is a true public health concern.

Post reply on HN