9 ms·
> It's fine to create a pee-deflecting wall, but there better be a public bathroom nrearby I’d say it’s perfectly fine for a private builder to arrange things
by egdod 7y ago
> It's fine to create a pee-deflecting wall, but there better be a public bathroom nrearby
I’d say it’s perfectly fine for a private builder to arrange things such that people are discouraged from peeing on his building. There’s no moral requirement to provide public restrooms.
- DoreenMichele 7y agoMorality is irrelevant here. Expecting people to "just hold it" indefinitely is simply unrealistic. It may not be the responsibility of a private builder, but private builders operate in a larger social and regulatory landscape. Society as a whole needs to come up with reasonable rules that people are capable of complying with. Doing otherwise creates a broken system that goes very bad places. When I was growing up, peeing in the shrubs (or on a wall or wooden fence) was fairly common, especially for men. If you want to ban that, then you need to provide enough public restrooms to make it a reasonable expectation to use the appropriate facilities.
- dymk 7y agoIn the US, Starbucks seems to have stepped up and decided to be a publicly accessible restroom for anybody who wants to use them
- DoreenMichele 7y agoTrue, but only after a PR debacle in which two black men were arrested for waiting at a Starbucks in Philadelphia to meet someone. One of them asked to use the bathroom while waiting and an employee called the cops, who hauled them off to jail in spite of the white guy they were meeting showing up and talking to the cops to say "No, they really were waiting for me. That's the truth." To save face, Starbucks apologized and made it company-wide policy that anyone can use their bathrooms, an announcement that got posted to r/homeless as a little good news for the homeless community. https://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=crmas&p=starbucks+two+black+men https://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&fr=crmas&p=starbuck...
- oh_sigh 7y agoWhat does it matter if they were meeting someone or not? The question is whether they were paying customers or not - and they weren't. Maybe they were all going to stand in line together and order something. Maybe they were just going to use Starbucks as a free meeting place. I don't think calling the cops on them was the right thing to do if they were denied use of the bathroom but otherwise weren't making a scene, but I don't see why potentially being a customer in the future would give you privileges reserved for customers currently.
- scarface74 7y agoSo you’ve never waited at a coffee shop for someone else to arrive? If I am by myself, needing to use the restroom before I order, what should I do? Order first and then take the food with me in the restroom? Leave it unattended at the table?
- tasuki 7y agoJust go to the restroom. If someone tries to stop you, explain you have urgent priorities and will order afterwards.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- egdod 7y agoThey were asked to leave, and they refused. You can say it was dumb to ask them to leave, but that’s what happened. That’s when it became trespassing, and that’s when the cops got called.
- avs733 7y agoAnd why not? They are using publicly serviced space. The buildings would be worthless without without publically funded roads. If these buildings were truly private and exempt from the larger social society they wouldn't need hostile architecture in the first place.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- foldingmoney 7y agoBecause the benefit of the public restrooms would extend to all private buildings in the area, but the cost would fall entirely on whichever sucker decided to pay for them -- and no one wants to be that sucker. That's why public funding is required to pay for public goods. This is basic economics.
- c22 7y agoI'd say the benefit would extend to all citizens in the area, since the area would no longer smell like urine. This could increase consumer traffic through the area and raise the economic value of the sucker's property.
- foldingmoney 7y agoYes, while also raising the value of every non-sucker's property, hence the problem.
- avs733 7y agoThis is one of the reasons things like building codes and zoning exist...to specify expectations of certain types of buildings. You are effectively referring to people who choose to participate in social society as 'suckers' which is fine in the abstract but...just is icky when you step and think about the ramifications like a empathetic human being.
- foldingmoney 7y ago
- jdavis703 7y agoThere is no way to convince someone about the morality or immorality of a stance since morality is subjective... But in places like San Francisco and LA the lack of bathrooms are creating disease vectors. I get both sides of the issue: the general public will totally trash private restrooms. But also as a member of the general public I'd like to live in a city with public health policy that's designed with 21st century norms like not having fecal matter in the street.
- dymk 7y agoThat's not a matter of building public restrooms (which, as you say, will just get trashed), it's a matter of not having so many homeless people on the streets that you end up with urine and feces everywhere.