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

451–460 of 832 posts

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

#451

Post by bena »

aliqot wrote: post #82
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…

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.

It's what I call the difference between "northern racism" and "southern racism".

The American South is probably more ethnically diverse than the North. If you're in the South, you are going to encounter black people. They're 13% of the nation but they're up to 30% of the population in some states. Whereas, there are some states further north where the population is mostly white. Like the joke that when Prince died, Minnesota's black population died.

So the areas developed different styles of racism. The South has more of a "know your place" kind of racism. You can live here, you can shop here, you can blah blah blah. But "know your place". Defer to your "betters". Etc. The North has developed NIMBY. "Yes, you are equal to me, but just not here." A "roll up the windows and lock the doors" kind of vibe if you will. Redlining was as much, if not more, a Northern thing.

And while San Francisco is geographically South, it's got a lot of the North mentality about race relations. They want to deal with it by not dealing with it. They should be able to buy houses and shit with dignity, just not here.

And it's a kind of attitude that can pervade while claiming to be fighting for racial equality. And those people may truly believe they are fighting for racial equality. Which is why we should always be a bit introspective and concerned whether our own actions are prejudiced in some manner. Because it can develop despite our best intentions.

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

#452

Post by dehrmann »

whimsicalism wrote: post #353
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…

> a far better option than actually trying to provide housing or attack more of the root causes. I see a lot of discussion among urbanists of "induced demand" when adding extra lanes to highways. Are we sure there wouldn't be induced demand from providing free housing to the homeless? Already, the Bay Area & LA are major draws to homeless populations throughout the country. [0] [0]: Yes, there are some studies that s…

Of course it would induce demand, especially when the benefits are an order of magnitude better than in other jurisdictions. It might even attract people to be "homeless" for free housing in one of the most desirable cities in the country.

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

#453

Post by drewrv »

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.

Other comments mention that it's more visible in cities, but I'd like to add that "abject inequity and poverty" are national problems that cities cannot solve individually. Rural areas are given disproportionate political power in our national elections while cities go underrepresented. So national problems that affect cities go ignored.

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

#454

Post by mjhay »

glacials wrote: post #137
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.

Born and raised in SF. NIMBYism is indeed a huge problem. It’s the hidden underbelly of a city with otherwise modern and diverse thinking. I’ve since moved to Seattle and it’s crazy to see shit can actually get done here.

> I’ve since moved to Seattle and it’s crazy to see shit can actually get done here.

I've never heard Seattle described as a place where "shit can actually get done," but I suppose its not quite as bad as SF at this point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_process

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

#455

Post by giantg2 »

PuppyTailWags wrote: post #446
giantg2 wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought most of the permits would be be moot on cost if it's the city paying itself for permits.

Not really, they have to pay someone to write the proposal to receive the permit.

Ah, that's much more involved than the permits I've dealt with in other places for small (eg not a development dealing with traffic flow) projects.

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

#456

Post by aperson_hello »

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.

You don't need to go inside in SF to find people shooting up heroin...

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

#457

Post by ActorNightly »

bongobingo1 wrote: post #133
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…

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.

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

#458

Post by hot_gril »

batman-farts wrote: post #394
hot_gril wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

“The NIMBYs basically lost” feels like it’s true in a lot of Northern California. Out in Tracy, a local lawyer (who had an office but not a residence within city limits) got a residential growth restriction on the ballot and passed circa 2000. The city took it to court, it was upheld after a few years, essentially zero residential development went on in the lead up to the ‘08 recession because the city had allowed “t…

Yeah, there's a sour spot where they're not planning for growth but not conserving the neighborhood either. I don't like the idea of neighborhoods becoming urban. It just doesn't work well. The urban area should be planned for density from the beginning, and they go all-out there without fighting the neighborhood for zoning permits. Make it ped/transit-friendly, and put parking on the perimeter instead of wasting valuable space on the inside. Meanwhile there's no reason a quaint neighborhood needs a huge apartment complex.

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

#459

Post by dehrmann »

stephencoyner wrote: post #340
hot_gril wrote: post #228

I've lived and worked in SF. Thankful that I'll probably never have another work-related reason to go back. SF is marked deprecated in my eyes.

It’s easy to pile onto articles that highlight some of the city’s mismanagement, but San Francisco is one of the most naturally beautiful places in the country. If you’re out on the west side by Golden Gate Park, Baker Beach or the Presidio it feels like you’re in a nature movie. Even with all of its problems, I will always love that city.

> San Francisco is one of the most naturally beautiful places in the country.

It's hit or miss. I find large swaths of the Outer Sunset desolate and depressing. Places like this: https://goo.gl/maps/QQbarT8iGEqLfNuN6

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

#460

Post by cloverich »

didibus wrote: post #399
aliqot wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for your perspective on this. In my locale, this type of thing is hard to imagine, we'll feed anybody who can hold a fork here. We have almost zero resources for indigents here, so homeless and others without are a bit rare. What are the resources (aside from this restroom) afforded to those without, near SFO? I'm tempted to think about this time when a local made a habit of feeding the deer, eventually the…

I think we need to also keep things into perspective, there are an estimated 8k homeless in San Francisco, about 1% of its population. It seems most of those are caused by just poverty, not able to afford living expenses pushed people to the streets. Some amount of them are coming from other cities who get rid of their homeless by sending them to cities like San Francisco, but Sam Francisco also sometimes send homele…

Most homeless conversations center around those with drug addiction and mental health issues. Poverty as such is not the primary ingredient.
Post reply on HN