Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet

sfchronicle.com

341–350 of 832 posts

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

#341
post #50

It's actually cheap. 3 years of litigation until all the stakeholders agree on all the aspects of this public toilet are not cheap. And what if the environmental reviews find a bunny family living at the proposed location? Relocating the bunny family will probably cost another million and 2 years of delay.

It's like when an org needs to add a button to their website and it takes 20 meetings to get the okay. It's inefficient, ineffective and definitely not cheap. When many hands, many meetings, and definitely many layers of middleman are involved, it'll cost millions to build a single toilet.

I left a large employer (Irvine based, I think) that would occasionally run into this.

The final straw was a feature that should have taken 15 minutes. It instead took three weeks, because customer support, product owners and the design team couldn't agree on whether the change was necessary or if it would be harmful. Of course, none of this conversation happened until my change was already mostly done and I had to ask a question to clarify something in the ticket's acceptance criteria.

I got dinged because my work took too long... and I immediately started interviewing elsewhere. When good workers leave because they cannot tolerate bad inertia, all you're left with is people who don't mind or find a way to game it, and the problem gets worse.

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

#342

> 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…

Is this the real SF experience? Or is it media hype? I’m completely unfamiliar with the city. My only experience of America is staying in Atlanta for 6 months during an exchange program, but that was years back. Some of the stories of bureaucratic meddling and political corruption sound like something I’d see back home in India. Always had this impression that America was above that.

> sound like something I’d see back home in India

I have started appreciating bribery and corruption as a necessary lubrication for any excessively bureaucratic system to work.

Trying to go through all of the legal rigamarole of the Indian regulatory process would mean nothing ever gets done.

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

#343

> 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…

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 $1.7M toilet is symptomatic of the root cause of homelessness in the Bay Area: you can't build anything within a reasonable time and budget there, even something as simple and small-footprint as a toilet.

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

#344
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you need to be a bit desensitized to problems that are visible all over the city (e.g. trash under and along freeways etc) for that to not be the memory that sticks rather than the beauty.

It is like SF needs a “clean up the city volunteer day” once a month that is broadly attended.

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

#345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a quote of the city planners' process to remove parking from in front of bus stops, a sevev year effort worn bearing doe every single stop: > We can't just paint 1,200 curbs, it's going to be a longer process. https://twitter.com/aarieff/status/1582408966163660802?s=46&... This is the method for any change. SF thinks it peaked in the 80s or 90s and any change requires community consensus lest the 50 people tha…

This one is stupid, you can walk in between cars.

Try taking a wheelchair between cars.

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

#346
post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

its hard to appreciate anything else when you are bleeding through the ears due to expenses.

I don't know about you, but people don't charge me money to talk to them. All I have to do to meet people outside of my work peer group is go somewhere different.

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

#347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the OP wanted you to consider the benefit that 1.7 million could have had in providing direct aid to preventing homelessness, e.g. rental assistance or job training.

Certainly even an existing residence or office with multiple toilets could be purchased for ≤$1.7M within city limits.

No way in hell you could buy even a small building in the city for the stated purpose of homeless services for anywhere near that amount of money. Anything homeless “attracting” will have you swarmed with NIMBYs and red tape for years. It will be called a crime magnet. People will say that it will reduce property values. They will sue you to stop the project. The one thing everybody agrees on in the public review meeting is that the place to put the homeless is “not near me”. You will spend way more than $1.7m on lawyers alone for a project like this.

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

#348
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.

You're right. I used to work there. Hated the experience, but I can see why it's like that. SF was always dense. At some point, all these tech companies moved in, and it became what I call a "commuter city" where a huge proportion of people there during the day don't actually live there or necessarily want to be there. It also shifted the culture, probably for the worse. Of course many living there beforehand might n…

> No public restrooms, no chairs in Starbucks, covers on everything in Walgreens, ID requirements to enter stuff, you get the idea. There's no obvious solution to that.

Is this seriously the reality of SF? Never been there. If yes, that's pretty bad and degrades the city in some aspects to 3rd world place. But then again I am in Europe, many things like crazy homeless people I saw often in LA are unheard of here.

What do you do if you do multi-hour walk around the city? Or hop from one restaurant/cafe/bar to another one?

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

#349
post #264

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.

[deleted]

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

#350
post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

"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…

I assumed it was an attempt at ideologically shirking accountability for the outcomes involved in elected officials doing what they were elected to do.
Post reply on HN