Live data from Hacker News

San Francisco is spending $1.7M on one public toilet

sfchronicle.com

571–580 of 832 posts

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

#571

I'm kind of surprised that new plans were drawn up when a perfectly serviceable toilet design[1] has been done and in production for much less[2]. This doesn't get rid of the permitting process, but it has been debugged and is already working in multiple cities. 1. https://portlandloo.com 2. https://pffcdc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Portland-Loo-P... - $90,000 + estimated install costs of $4000

"Not invented here" is not just a problem at companies like Google. And how dare you suggest that SF could use something named after another city!

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

#572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, having just visited SF and then spent a week in New Haven and Hartford in CT, I can't agree. What American city doesn't have trash? I can't think of a city I have visited in the world that meets that standard. I haven't been, but maybe Singapore? The homeless problem is very bad in California and SF in particular, and it is very concentrated in a small area to the east that looks positively dystopian. But that d…

I lived in New Haven for 4 years. The difference in the amount of trash between American cities is vast, compare NYC with Chicago. Or really any city on the east coast with Chicago for that matter.

I'm not sure if you mean that Chicago is clean or dirty? I saw a lot of both last time I visited, it's hard to say. It certainly seemed a lot cleaner than, say, Rochester NY or Philadelphia when I visited, but not sure if that was just the areas I was in.

Of course the difference is vast, I think you could compare one part of NYC with NYC even and end up with vastly different ideas of trash. And that's kinda what I am going on about; the trash under highways in some part of the city is a meaningless metric.

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

#573
post #396

Any actual SF residents in this thread? I’m seeing a lot of very authoritative posts coming from places of ignorance. One person even called it a “right wing dystopia”. Here’s the bottom line. The problems we are trying to solve in SF are hard . This place is fully developed. No way around that. Is SF perfect? No, not at all. But damn if this city doesn’t try its hardest, moreso than almost any other city I know of.…

> Any actual SF residents in this thread?

Hello! :)

I grew up here, and live here now. I'm left-leaning by USA standards.

> One person even called it a “right wing dystopia”.

As an aside, I think they meant something like "what a right-winger would call a dystopia", not that it was the result of right-wing policies (which makes no sense.)

> The problems we are trying to solve in SF are hard.

Not this one. Pooping and peeing in cities has been a solved problem since Roman times.

A toilet could be a simple as a hole over the sewer: squat and go. That would be better than the current status quo and cost approximately nothing. But we're trying to act like a grown up not-insane town these days due to the influx of techies since the Dot Com Boom.

> This place is fully developed.

What do you mean?

> But damn if this city doesn’t try its hardest, moreso than almost any other city I know of.

I can't agree. We make loud noises, sure, but when it comes to actually getting things done downtown it's just like any other city. I mean, check out the career of Willie Brown, eh?

It's an open secret (if you've lived here long enough) that city hall has a lot of "soft" corruption. Some of it even makes the papers, e.g. Nuru et. al.

> we keep looking the problem in the eye and trying to solve it at a systemic level

Superficially maybe.

In reality we sweep homeless camps and keep or discard people's stuff. I've heard we recently started requiring homeless to carry special ID cards to access city services. "Papers please?" We have special police on the buses to check people's fares. That is a new thing here. I remember when we didn't waste taxpayer money on fascist policies like uniformed police sweeping public transport checking papers and ticketing or arresting people who didn't pay their fare.

I've heard that now-Governor Newsom wrote a book about his experiences as Mayor here. In it he relates that he found out that the fares we collect on our public transportation system only cover the cost of collecting the fares themselves. It's a break-even process: the fares pay for collecting the fares, everything else in the Muni system is paid for by taxes.

So he asked, why not make Muni free?

The answer, he wrote, is that it's believed that all the homeless people would ride it, and trash it. They buses would become "rolling dumpsters" was the quote, IIRC.

Look that in the eye, eh?

If I seem somewhat aggressive I apologize. I don't mean to pick on you.

> I would love to hear actual solutions from people who say they could do it better

Okay, I was homeless for about 4.5 years, and spent a little bit of that time here in SF.

Here's how you solve it.

First, everyone eats.

Say it with me, shout it loud as you can: EVERYONE EATS!

There are thousands of commercial kitchens in the city. This state produces more food each year than most nations.

"Even God hesitates to offer anything but bread to the starving man."

Step one: Everyone eats.

Step two: Build houses and give them to people. This city is empty. More than half of it is one story tall. We could easily house a million more people here without sacrificing QoL or open space.

Step three: human recycling center, that's a crass way to put it but whatever. Heal people. Love each other, etc.

That's really step zero: get out of the way of love. All these problems are easy to solve if we just loved each other better, eh?

Peace man, :)

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

#574

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…

The US was setup as republic for reasons that are becoming more and more apparent. We used to select representatives for a town or locality that would then group together and select representatives for the next level, etc. Much of this was due to communication limitations at the time, but there's something to be said to saying "I trust Bob here to make good decisions on my behalf" instead of everyone injecting themselves into every aspect of everything.

All I can to personally is not vote for or against these various things.

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

#575
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…

If the SF local government were to substantially change, particular political party officials would be out of a job, because the city is run by one party, and is in fact the breeding ground of a lot of major national politicians from that party. People should think about this when they go to vote, because several SF politicians are attempting to potentially run for president and other national positions. One of them…

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.

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

#576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Certainly not in England. The shire Tories will block wind turbines and new housing to keep the value of their Surrey pile going up, while the progressives live in major cities and have everything built in their backyards.

Official Labour Twitter account with a NIMBY proposal:

https://twitter.com/uklabour/status/1406947513857462276

Afterwards reaction:

> Lucy Powell has said that she “would not have signed off” a “NIMBY” Labour Party graphic distributed on social media earlier this year that criticised the government’s plans to build on “your green spaces without your say”.

https://labourlist.org/2021/09/i-would-not-have-signed-off-n...

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

#577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> But nobody calls the city SFO. Yes they do. And some also call it Frisco and San Fran. After 35 years in the Bay Area I have settled on calling it "The City" but will bust out with "San Fran Frisco" on special occasions to just to be irritating to those who desperately want to "fit in."

I've never heard anyone from there call it San Fran. That's almost as weird as calling the state Cali.

He's explicitly attempting to trigger people who agree with Herb Caen ("Don't call it Frisco").

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

#578
post #316
post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you read the article, the main reason why it cost so much is not because of the cost of the toilet and the installation per-se, but because there is many, many red tape around doing anything in SF. So it is not necessarily a "grift" ( although many are profiting from it and are probably more than happy about the situation being the way it is ) but the result of decades of laws to regulate public work and spending…

> although many are profiting from it and are probably more than happy about the situation being the way it is This is the "grift" part of it; those "many [...] profiting from it" are often times friends or acquaintances of the officials regulating them

Yes, I am aware, but the fact is those laws are put in place (and could be removed) by elected officials. If the resident of SF where so angry about the situation, they could vote against it.

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

#579
post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People who are left wing w.r.t. the organization of the economy view democrats as right wing i.e. upholding the entrenched power structure. SF dems will happily support spending money on the homeless in principle, but they are still deeply conservative when it comes to how policies will affect them or their capital. They are pretty much the poster child of NIMBYism: "I know X is something the community needs and I'm…

This is some hilarious gymnastics. S.F. is basically a poster child for how left wing urban policy is easily turned into abusive graft and inherently prone to abuse and corruption and it’s just like, “no, more cowbell!” Just keep turning the dial up and I’m sure it will get better.

Of course, classic left wing policies such as single family zoning that somehow hasn't been removed after decades of the socialist iron grip on the bay.

In all seriousness, how do you differentiate between left wing policy that is "inherently prone to abuse and corruption" and policy with a progressive facade that is designed by and for those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo? Where are the left wing professors that are saying "actually we need more public hearings, stricter building codes, more environmental review, and by god we can't let anyone touch the zoning!"? Presumably they would exist if SF policy is what the left wing actually wants.

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

#580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rented for about €1200 per month per toilet. 6MM/year for 420 of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanisette#In_Paris

6 million million?

6 million. Slipped my mind that MM is industry specific.

M is ambiguous between the Roman (M = 1,000), the SI prefix (M = 1,000,000), and metres (screen readers).

$1MM (capitalized) or $1mn (more recent) reduces the ambiguity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MM#Units_of_measurement

Post reply on HN