San Francisco is spending $1.7 million to build a single public toilet

[anon65433207]

I’m sure the pissoirs like in Amsterdam would be cheaper.

[VeronicaConnor]

@theophrastus

one of several problems is that robo-toilets instantly become places to self-administer drugs and provide some privacy for the sex trade

The solution to that is not “don’t build toilets”, it’s “build safe drug use centres”. This is what BC did and it works great. Our public restrooms are nice and overdoses are way down.

[mmascari]

@Otherbrother

In the case of the toilet in the Noe Valley public square, I haven’t seen any mention of NIMBY pushback against such a plan in any of the reports I’ve read. There’s already a port-a-potty there and the community was mostly strongly in favor of a permanent facility, which is why that assembly member had set up the “celebration” for the funding approval that attracted all the media coverage in the first place.

Is that the difference between specific instances and systemic pushback?

In this case it sounds like there isn’t any specific pushback for this project. The presence (and upkeep) of port-a-potty would seem to reinforce that perspective, as the project is an upgrade not a brand new concept.

However, there’s clearly a huge process required to do anything. Doesn’t matter what is trying to be built. That process appears to be a huge part of this cost. It’s not gold plated toilets, it’s planning meetings, studies, and public comment timelines. That looks a lot like a systemic NIMBY creation designed to slow or stop everything.

Not living in San Francisco or CA, my only perspective is stories and comments here. Systemic issues making everything more expensive and harder in San Francisco fits right in line with those comments. That it also snagged a specific item that seems desired too sounds like a side effect of trying to stop everything.

[Otherbrother]

@mmascari

However, there’s clearly a huge process required to do anything. Doesn’t matter what is trying to be built. That process appears to be a huge part of this cost. It’s not gold plated toilets, it’s planning meetings, studies, and public comment timelines. That looks a lot like a systemic NIMBY creation designed to slow or stop everything.

I certainly agree that systematic problems with the way the city does things are the important part of the story here, not spending decisions on this specific project. (Many of the criticisms raised in various articles are focusing on the system as well)

That said, the system clearly needs to change, because in a city as rich and liberal as San Francisco the public won’t and shouldn’t accept the idea that the government can’t provide basic services to its residents because a bunch of mean NIMBYs pressured them into creating a massive, nonfunctional bureaucracy. NIMBYs are gonna NIMBY (except when they don’t, like in this example) but how to react to NIMBY pushback is a choice. The city can afford some fine attorneys and has the resources to deal with nuisance lawsuits if and when some rich asshole tries to prevent a restroom installation in a park or subway.

[Fefelo]

@Jesse13927

Where would you prefer people do these things?

Hey don’t include me in “you”. Yes I said that public bathrooms in SF simply don’t work. They should be built anyway, because maybe they will work in future, who knows, and it’s worth finding out. SFPD’s budget is about 700 million a year. I would cut half of that, or more than half of that, and spend it all on housing and mental health for the homeless. I would especially make sure they are not confined to the worst areas, but they should be put in the Marina, Pacific Heights and so on. The Lyon Street Steps would be a great place.

[BakerB]

In the slums of Delhi the solution was to build a community center above the toilets-the aunties of the neighborhood congregate there and keep a watch on the comings and goings.