7 ms·

They have some of those throughout the city. However, they require attendants to be on site during operation because people shoot up drugs, prostitute themselv

They have some of those throughout the city. However, they require attendants to be on site during operation because people shoot up drugs, prostitute themselves, or sleep in them. The solution will require much more than some free-to-use restrooms.

SllX 7y ago
You know something, we already have police patrolling the streets, and even if it were only open 16 hours a day, that’s still 16 hours of availability. So really, we just don’t have enough, and I don’t think anyone really cares if people are actually shooting up drugs in a bathroom. That’s better than doing it in playgrounds or on park trails and leaving the needles strewn around. It isn’t that we can’t. It completely makes sense to open up more public restrooms. We are simply choosing not to and making excuses for our choices. “The solution” is nothing. If you want people living in the streets to take a dump somewhere other than just the streets, give them a place to actually do it. Make them common. Make them regular. Make them staffed. Make them clean and well plumbed. Make them high throughout so any member of the public can use them. And even add biohazard collection bins if you feel it is necessary.
- jquery 7y ago
  I have a little girl. I care very much if someone is shooting up drugs in a public bathroom. How can she use such a bathroom safely? Maybe once she's a teenager but long before then she won't be letting me accompany her inside a bathroom. I don't want homeless people shooting up drugs in the park or in public bathrooms, unless "public bathroom" is merely to become a euphemism for something else, which seems to be a different conversation. Let's assume we do install these toilets. These won't be cheap toilets, they will, for a large percentage of their time in service, essentially be "hard living facilities for the mentally ill". Homeless people and vagrants put very strange objects into public toilets in SF, breaking them constantly. The San Francisco public library had to install grinders[1] to handle the load homeless people were putting on public toilets. And this was after they began to constantly monitor the restrooms[2][3]. How many public toilets should we build and how much should we spend on each one per year? [1] I can't find the source for the grinders but I do recall reading about the installation of them a few years back, maybe someone can provide a link. [2] https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/san-francisco-main-library-trying-to-address-bathroom-cleanliness-issues/?oid=2560444 https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/san-francisco-main-library-t... [3] https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-library-s-main-branch-bathrooms-a-mess-4864613.php https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-library-s-main-br...
  - SllX 7y ago
    Mate, I grew up in this city. No less than three times in my time where my age might be counted in single digits did I find needles buried in the sand in the park or along the trails. Each and every time, my mother was pissed. I’m not a parent yet, but I was in the position of being the kid, finding the needles strewn about in our parks. The examples I gave were from my own memories, not some abstract ideas of things that might happen. One notable change: most of the playgrounds don’t have sand anymore. I don’t know if that’s a net improvement, but if someone leaves a needle around, it is much more likely to be in plain sight of the adults around. That is not the case for park trails if you like to go off the beaten path with your kids. So we have a problem, where we have a large homeless population, many of them addicted to drugs, and literally shitting in the streets. If you don’t have strong nerves, you might find yourself facing a difficult choice between knowing your kid is going to come up against this environment, and possibly encounter needles, or just leaving the city entirely. I’m not telling you or anyone to leave, but it might not be for you. I made it to adulthood without any blood born illnesses from getting stuck with a needle. Nobody killed me in a public restroom, you have a data point of one. So hey, this is a pretty innovative community, if the bathrooms we have right now are inadequate in every measurable manner, and we’re worried about them becoming hard living shelters, then what combination of police powers, patrols, tech and community reporting forums do we need to prevent that? Is the problem unsolvable or have we just made peace with shit in the streets and don’t want to rock the boat?
- exelius 7y ago
  Or provide safe injection sites so junkies have somewhere to go. Our society’s attitude is “if you don’t pay taxes, you don’t deserve help.” That’s so morally wrong I can’t even explain it without going red in the face, but that’s the situation we’re in.
  - ironarm 7y ago
    There are multiple safe injection sites in the tenderloin and SOMA. Also those free, big, green street bathrooms all have biohazard containers.
    - kradroy 7y ago
      Gov. Brown struck down the proposed safe injection sites.
  - jquery 7y ago
    San Francisco alone is spending $50k per homeless person in San Francisco, on top of state and federal benefits. Are you going red in the face because we aren't spending $100k? If $100k doesn't solve the problem should we spend $200k? How much?
    - mikeyouse 7y ago
      That's a stupid stat that's obviously wrong and offensive to everyone who works on these issues in SF, I can't imagine why people keep parroting it. If you spend $100k and lift 9/10 people out of homelessness, that terrible math shows you spent $100k per homeless person.
      - chrisdhoover 7y ago
        The amount if money spent is excessive because it is not working. If we spent 10% more would it help? If we spent 10% less would it hurt?
        7y ago
manfredo 7y ago
They could have open holes in the ground that connect straight to the sewage system. Maybe add a simple lever to open/close the hole if odor is an issue. Sure it'd lack privacy, but privacy evidently isn't an issue if people are taking dumps on the sidewalk.
- jakevn 7y ago
  If you're not going to give someone a dignified place to relieve themselves, why would they care about using such a thing?
  - manfredo 7y ago
    Because it's strictly better than the status quo? Given the choice between taking a crap in public and leaving a turd on the sidewalk vs. taking a crap in public and having it flushed how is the former preferable to the latter? The unfortunately reality is that creating a private space for relieving oneself is regularly abused as other commenters have pointed out. It's an instance of hostile design 1, but one that is evidently necessary. Its also a form of restroom that is common in many other countries. Such a type of toilet is not new. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_architecture https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_architecture
    - jakevn 7y ago
      The former is preferable because you are providing a disservice to the community that will not allow you dignity, even though they can most obviously afford it.
      - manfredo 7y ago
        Again, the issue is not affordability but the fact that public restrooms are abused and used for dangerous and often illicit activity The former is not preferable because it spreads disease, and instills disdain for the homeless among the community thus decreasing willingness to dedicate resources towards services helping the homeless (thus hurting those homeless that do try to maintain good hygiene). Not to mention, you have a very negative and prejudiced view of the homeless if you think that they desire to cause harm to the city. The overwhelming majority of homeless are not the spiteful, antisocial people you seem to believe them to be. They may often resort to harmful activity to survive (e.g. theft) but rarely have I seen them cause harm for no reason but to make other people suffer. Maybe things like leaving trash strewn about after scavenging through it, but that's more negligent than spiteful.

SllX 7y ago

You know something, we already have police patrolling the streets, and even if it were only open 16 hours a day, that’s still 16 hours of availability. So really, we just don’t have enough, and I don’t think anyone really cares if people are actually shooting up drugs in a bathroom. That’s better than doing it in playgrounds or on park trails and leaving the needles strewn around. It isn’t that we can’t. It completely makes sense to open up more public restrooms. We are simply choosing not to and making excuses for our choices. “The solution” is nothing. If you want people living in the streets to take a dump somewhere other than just the streets, give them a place to actually do it. Make them common. Make them regular. Make them staffed. Make them clean and well plumbed. Make them high throughout so any member of the public can use them. And even add biohazard collection bins if you feel it is necessary.

jquery 7y ago
I have a little girl. I care very much if someone is shooting up drugs in a public bathroom. How can she use such a bathroom safely? Maybe once she's a teenager but long before then she won't be letting me accompany her inside a bathroom. I don't want homeless people shooting up drugs in the park or in public bathrooms, unless "public bathroom" is merely to become a euphemism for something else, which seems to be a different conversation. Let's assume we do install these toilets. These won't be cheap toilets, they will, for a large percentage of their time in service, essentially be "hard living facilities for the mentally ill". Homeless people and vagrants put very strange objects into public toilets in SF, breaking them constantly. The San Francisco public library had to install grinders[1] to handle the load homeless people were putting on public toilets. And this was after they began to constantly monitor the restrooms[2][3]. How many public toilets should we build and how much should we spend on each one per year? [1] I can't find the source for the grinders but I do recall reading about the installation of them a few years back, maybe someone can provide a link. [2] https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/san-francisco-main-library-trying-to-address-bathroom-cleanliness-issues/?oid=2560444 https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/san-francisco-main-library-t... [3] https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-library-s-main-branch-bathrooms-a-mess-4864613.php https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-library-s-main-br...
- SllX 7y ago
  Mate, I grew up in this city. No less than three times in my time where my age might be counted in single digits did I find needles buried in the sand in the park or along the trails. Each and every time, my mother was pissed. I’m not a parent yet, but I was in the position of being the kid, finding the needles strewn about in our parks. The examples I gave were from my own memories, not some abstract ideas of things that might happen. One notable change: most of the playgrounds don’t have sand anymore. I don’t know if that’s a net improvement, but if someone leaves a needle around, it is much more likely to be in plain sight of the adults around. That is not the case for park trails if you like to go off the beaten path with your kids. So we have a problem, where we have a large homeless population, many of them addicted to drugs, and literally shitting in the streets. If you don’t have strong nerves, you might find yourself facing a difficult choice between knowing your kid is going to come up against this environment, and possibly encounter needles, or just leaving the city entirely. I’m not telling you or anyone to leave, but it might not be for you. I made it to adulthood without any blood born illnesses from getting stuck with a needle. Nobody killed me in a public restroom, you have a data point of one. So hey, this is a pretty innovative community, if the bathrooms we have right now are inadequate in every measurable manner, and we’re worried about them becoming hard living shelters, then what combination of police powers, patrols, tech and community reporting forums do we need to prevent that? Is the problem unsolvable or have we just made peace with shit in the streets and don’t want to rock the boat?
exelius 7y ago
Or provide safe injection sites so junkies have somewhere to go. Our society’s attitude is “if you don’t pay taxes, you don’t deserve help.” That’s so morally wrong I can’t even explain it without going red in the face, but that’s the situation we’re in.
- ironarm 7y ago
  There are multiple safe injection sites in the tenderloin and SOMA. Also those free, big, green street bathrooms all have biohazard containers.
  - kradroy 7y ago
    Gov. Brown struck down the proposed safe injection sites.
- jquery 7y ago
  San Francisco alone is spending $50k per homeless person in San Francisco, on top of state and federal benefits. Are you going red in the face because we aren't spending $100k? If $100k doesn't solve the problem should we spend $200k? How much?
  - mikeyouse 7y ago
    That's a stupid stat that's obviously wrong and offensive to everyone who works on these issues in SF, I can't imagine why people keep parroting it. If you spend $100k and lift 9/10 people out of homelessness, that terrible math shows you spent $100k per homeless person.
    - chrisdhoover 7y ago
      The amount if money spent is excessive because it is not working. If we spent 10% more would it help? If we spent 10% less would it hurt?
      - 7y ago

manfredo 7y ago

They could have open holes in the ground that connect straight to the sewage system. Maybe add a simple lever to open/close the hole if odor is an issue. Sure it'd lack privacy, but privacy evidently isn't an issue if people are taking dumps on the sidewalk.

jakevn 7y ago
If you're not going to give someone a dignified place to relieve themselves, why would they care about using such a thing?
- manfredo 7y ago
  Because it's strictly better than the status quo? Given the choice between taking a crap in public and leaving a turd on the sidewalk vs. taking a crap in public and having it flushed how is the former preferable to the latter? The unfortunately reality is that creating a private space for relieving oneself is regularly abused as other commenters have pointed out. It's an instance of hostile design 1, but one that is evidently necessary. Its also a form of restroom that is common in many other countries. Such a type of toilet is not new. 1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_architecture https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_architecture
  - jakevn 7y ago
    The former is preferable because you are providing a disservice to the community that will not allow you dignity, even though they can most obviously afford it.
    - manfredo 7y ago
      Again, the issue is not affordability but the fact that public restrooms are abused and used for dangerous and often illicit activity The former is not preferable because it spreads disease, and instills disdain for the homeless among the community thus decreasing willingness to dedicate resources towards services helping the homeless (thus hurting those homeless that do try to maintain good hygiene). Not to mention, you have a very negative and prejudiced view of the homeless if you think that they desire to cause harm to the city. The overwhelming majority of homeless are not the spiteful, antisocial people you seem to believe them to be. They may often resort to harmful activity to survive (e.g. theft) but rarely have I seen them cause harm for no reason but to make other people suffer. Maybe things like leaving trash strewn about after scavenging through it, but that's more negligent than spiteful.