4 ms·

And why not? They are using publicly serviced space. The buildings would be worthless without without publically funded roads. If these buildings were truly pr

• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• foldingmoney 7y ago
  Because 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 ago
    I'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 ago
      Yes, while also raising the value of every non-sucker's property, hence the problem.
  • avs733 7y ago
    This 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
      No, everyone can agree that they'd like to support the public good as long as the costs they incur are proportional to the benefits they get. This is why taxation and public spending exists, and most of us agree that this is a good thing and don't have a problem with paying our taxes. The fact that no one wants to be the sucker who everyone else freeloads off has nothing to do with lack of empathy.
• oh_sigh 7y ago
  If society can come together and build roads, sidewalks, public transit systems, etc that connect these private island-buildings, why can't it also provide public restrooms and public toilets?
  • AmVess 7y ago
    They have. The homeless turn them into their homes. Drug users do drugs in them, and they are sheds for prostitution. Also, they are expensive to install and maintain.
    • AstralStorm 7y ago
      Not here they aren't: A) No light source by design. Why do you need one? To read a newspaper? B) Have maintenance staff (for bigger ones) who actively prevent this and are paid (a pittance) for it - they also collect token pay for the use of e.g. shower. This also provides a few low paid jobs, reducing the problem. C) Expensive? Come on. Look up the costs of a portapotty first. We're living in the world where public buildings are finished in marble and chrome... D) We do not have huge drug problem in the first place, so people do not shoot up. Of course anything with nonzero cost would get labeled as expensive, it's a funny world we live in. Roads are more expensive than these. Any sort of public transport. Heck, pavement.
• egdod 7y ago
  My house uses “publicly serviced space” too, in that it’s on a road. Am I obliged to let strangers shit in my bathroom?
• fuzz4lyfe 7y ago
  >The buildings would be worthless without without publically funded roads. That publicly funded road would be pointless and unfunded without the economic activity driven by those buildings. In fact if you offered the businesses the chance to fund the roads, police and other things provided by the state that they benefit from themselves without the governmental overhead they would likely jump at the chance as it would be far cheaper than paying taxes.