3 ms·

The ADA thing is relatively new. If you go anywhere in California, not just areas with a large homeless population, you'll find most businesses do not have a p

The ADA thing is relatively new. If you go anywhere in California, not just areas with a large homeless population, you'll find most businesses do not have a public restroom. This is different than every other state I've been to. This is because California has the Unruh Civil Rights Act, which makes each ADA violation subject to $4000 statutory damages, regardless of the actual damages. Thousands of these cases are filed every year in California. California businesses don't want to be exposed to this liability, so most of them have closed their public restrooms. This lack of bathrooms creates a sort of death spiral. In high homeless areas, the few remaining ones have to serve more homeless people. Dealing with a parade of homeless people using public bathrooms as a shower or shooting up causes the remaining businesses to close their bathrooms. It becomes more difficult for homeless people to use the bathroom, so rather than go to the trouble of finding one, many use the street. On the enforcement side, I'm not really trying to be proscriptive, just descriptive. Jail is not a nice place. The threat of being arrested though is a deterrent to crime. If there is no deterrent to pooping on the street, and the alternative is difficult, people are going to poop on the street.

pmoriarty 7y ago
"If there is no deterrent to pooping on the street, and the alternative is difficult, people are going to poop on the street." So what is the alternative when there are no public bathrooms around? To me it doesn't sound like there is one. So why arrest people when they have no choice?
- cameldrv 7y ago
  As I said, I was being descriptive, not proscriptive. Obviously in a civilized society, everyone has access to a bathroom. Also obviously in a civilized society, people use the facilities provided and clean up after themselves. Those that are incapable or unwilling to do this either go into drug treatment, get mental healthcare, or if they are unwilling to do either of these and insist on being a public nuisance, they go to jail. SF is failing to accomplish any of these things despite a gigantic budget.
  - pmoriarty 7y ago
    "As I said, I was being descriptive, not proscriptive. Obviously in a civilized society, everyone has access to a bathroom." I don't know which civilized society you were describing, but it's not San Francisco. I would agree that that would be ideal, though. "Also obviously in a civilized society, people use the facilities provided and clean up after themselves. Those that are incapable or unwilling to do this either go into drug treatment, get mental healthcare, or if they are unwilling to do either of these and insist on being a public nuisance, they go to jail." Except society's problems are not solved by sending people to jail. Quite often they just get worse. First, the punishment of sending someone who shits on a sidewalk to a jail where they are likely to be raped, beaten, or killed is far out of proportion to the crime they've committed. Few would agree that rape or death was an appropriate punishment for shitting on a sidewalk, yet that's precisely what many people send to US jails face. Hopefully you'd agree that in the very civilized society you speak of, spending time in jail for shitting on a sidewalk would have little probability of bodily harm, rape, or death to the perpetrator. But we don't live in that society. Second, many people who are sent to jail get out worse than they came in. They are more likely to commit crimes, and are often denied job opportunities or places to live because they've been convicted of crimes. Now, that might not matter as much for homeless people, except that if they're ever to have a hope of being integrated back in to society they shouldn't have the extra stigma of having been incarcerated (especially not for something they couldn't help, like simply going to the bathroom when there were no bathrooms around). Third, it costs a great deal of money to keep someone in jail, the money would be better spent on bathrooms, housing, and mental health care. "SF is failing to accomplish any of these things despite a gigantic budget." If there really is plenty of money, it's clearly being misspent. At least we can agree on that, though I have a feeling that if we looked at the details there'd be plenty to disagree about over which money is being misspent, how to spend it, which programs to cut, and which to fund.
    - cameldrv 7y ago
      My intent is not coming through correctly here. What I'm saying is that to the extent that we have a bunch of people that don't have anywhere to use the bathroom, SF is not civilized. Now it's also not true that there is literally nowhere to use the bathroom, but various policies have made it more difficult to find a place and many homeless people who may also be high, drunk, or crazy, don't make the effort. As for jail, jail is a nasty place. It is certainly a destructive form of punishment. We don't have many other forms of punishment though in our legal system. In SF, it has been decided that because jail is a bad punishment, that not punishing at all is superior. This gets you rampant car break-ins, shoplifting, and people being assaulted on the street. The purpose of jail is not to put people in jail, it's to convince people to not commit crimes because they fear it. For drug addicts, a stint in jail often is what forces them to kick the habit. Unfortunately the SF city jail is full of drugs. I'd be all for alternate methods of punishment that are less destructive. Make the street pooper clean up the street for a couple of days, say. Budget-wise, SF spends almost $300 million a year on the homeless. I can't tell you where it all goes, but that is a lot of money to spend for the result SF is getting.

pmoriarty 7y ago

"If there is no deterrent to pooping on the street, and the alternative is difficult, people are going to poop on the street." So what is the alternative when there are no public bathrooms around? To me it doesn't sound like there is one. So why arrest people when they have no choice?

cameldrv 7y ago
As I said, I was being descriptive, not proscriptive. Obviously in a civilized society, everyone has access to a bathroom. Also obviously in a civilized society, people use the facilities provided and clean up after themselves. Those that are incapable or unwilling to do this either go into drug treatment, get mental healthcare, or if they are unwilling to do either of these and insist on being a public nuisance, they go to jail. SF is failing to accomplish any of these things despite a gigantic budget.
- pmoriarty 7y ago
  "As I said, I was being descriptive, not proscriptive. Obviously in a civilized society, everyone has access to a bathroom." I don't know which civilized society you were describing, but it's not San Francisco. I would agree that that would be ideal, though. "Also obviously in a civilized society, people use the facilities provided and clean up after themselves. Those that are incapable or unwilling to do this either go into drug treatment, get mental healthcare, or if they are unwilling to do either of these and insist on being a public nuisance, they go to jail." Except society's problems are not solved by sending people to jail. Quite often they just get worse. First, the punishment of sending someone who shits on a sidewalk to a jail where they are likely to be raped, beaten, or killed is far out of proportion to the crime they've committed. Few would agree that rape or death was an appropriate punishment for shitting on a sidewalk, yet that's precisely what many people send to US jails face. Hopefully you'd agree that in the very civilized society you speak of, spending time in jail for shitting on a sidewalk would have little probability of bodily harm, rape, or death to the perpetrator. But we don't live in that society. Second, many people who are sent to jail get out worse than they came in. They are more likely to commit crimes, and are often denied job opportunities or places to live because they've been convicted of crimes. Now, that might not matter as much for homeless people, except that if they're ever to have a hope of being integrated back in to society they shouldn't have the extra stigma of having been incarcerated (especially not for something they couldn't help, like simply going to the bathroom when there were no bathrooms around). Third, it costs a great deal of money to keep someone in jail, the money would be better spent on bathrooms, housing, and mental health care. "SF is failing to accomplish any of these things despite a gigantic budget." If there really is plenty of money, it's clearly being misspent. At least we can agree on that, though I have a feeling that if we looked at the details there'd be plenty to disagree about over which money is being misspent, how to spend it, which programs to cut, and which to fund.
  - cameldrv 7y ago
    My intent is not coming through correctly here. What I'm saying is that to the extent that we have a bunch of people that don't have anywhere to use the bathroom, SF is not civilized. Now it's also not true that there is literally nowhere to use the bathroom, but various policies have made it more difficult to find a place and many homeless people who may also be high, drunk, or crazy, don't make the effort. As for jail, jail is a nasty place. It is certainly a destructive form of punishment. We don't have many other forms of punishment though in our legal system. In SF, it has been decided that because jail is a bad punishment, that not punishing at all is superior. This gets you rampant car break-ins, shoplifting, and people being assaulted on the street. The purpose of jail is not to put people in jail, it's to convince people to not commit crimes because they fear it. For drug addicts, a stint in jail often is what forces them to kick the habit. Unfortunately the SF city jail is full of drugs. I'd be all for alternate methods of punishment that are less destructive. Make the street pooper clean up the street for a couple of days, say. Budget-wise, SF spends almost $300 million a year on the homeless. I can't tell you where it all goes, but that is a lot of money to spend for the result SF is getting.