5 ms·

This is really being blown out of proportion. Spending $400k on a prototype for something that will cost $10M+, will be on every street, will be interacted with

by dntrkv 5y ago

This is really being blown out of proportion. Spending $400k on a prototype for something that will cost $10M+, will be on every street, will be interacted with by every citizen seems pretty fucking reasonable. Their unit costs are basically in line with what other cities are paying. SF has its bullshit, but I don’t see this as that.

bmitc 5y ago
I really don’t see how it’s blown out of proportion. One, the article mentions that it is rather unclear, other than one idea or claim that it’s because of aesthetics, why the project is even being undertaken. That alone is cause for major concern. They’re spending money and wasting resources without even knowing why. Secondly, spending money on something when there’s already a solution seems bewildering, especially when there is no clear reason why those solutions don’t work. If it truly is aesthetics, is that what the people think or was it just someone’s personal feeling? Lastly, San Francisco is riddled with trash and dirty streets. It seems rather surreal they’d spend so much on aesthetic trash cans, that may or may not work better than the existing solutions, when the streets are literally covered with human feces. https://www.npr.org/2018/08/01/634626538/san-francisco-squalor-city-streets-strewn-with-trash-needles-and-human-feces https://www.npr.org/2018/08/01/634626538/san-francisco-squal... Quotes from that article: > San Francisco's streets are so filthy that at least one infectious disease expert has compared the city to some of the dirtiest slums in the world. > "The contamination is ... much greater than communities in Brazil or Kenya or India," says Riley, who researched health conditions caused by extreme poverty in some of the world's poorest regions.
- ZeroGravitas 5y ago
  > Rubenstein from Public Works explained that in 2018, the department could not find a trash can that fulfilled an exacting list of features: a rolling inside can for easy emptying, a sensor to alert workers when a can is full, durability to withstand street life, and be tamper-proof. > ... > There were no off-the-shelf models that met most of those requirements, except for the Bigbelly. But those, at a cost of about $3,900 a can, were deemed too expensive. Nor were they particularly attractive, she said. The PEL [product] can also fit most of the requirements. It costs $6,400,
  - bmitc 5y ago
    I'm not sure that's all that convincing given none of the prototypes have an accurate cost build. Also, the article below has some further detail that no other city has such requirements, so it's confusing why San Francisco does. And it doesn't address the question of will it actually help anything. One of the biggest problems seems to be people just dump trash next to existing trash cans or even where no trash cans are. This doesn't seem to address that. The requirements also address a symptom, homeless rummaging. My original point stands in that it's not blown out of proportion and should be discussed. > https://missionlocal.org/2021/08/san-franciscos-proposed-trash-cans-at-2000-to-3000-a-pop-far-costlier-than-other-cities-bins/ https://missionlocal.org/2021/08/san-franciscos-proposed-tra... The actual three prototypes: > https://sfpublicworks.org/trashcanredesign https://sfpublicworks.org/trashcanredesign
    - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
      You've not demonstrated this is actually costing more than a plausible alternative, just moved quickly on to complaining that it's an outrage to be spending so much and that they should be spending it on other things. Lots of sensible ideas have components that cost more than the cheapest available alternative component e.g. if for example they introduced electric garbage trucks, it would be short-sighted to focus on just the up front cost of that vehicle versus a standard diesel alternative. If other aspects (quiet operation, maintenance costs, fuel expenses, longevity) are counted then it may cost less overall, which is the only figure we should care about. Yes, I can't prove that my hypothetical EV truck will deliver those future cost savings but if you're arguing against it without even mentioning those, then that's a very poor quality of argument and highly suggests you don't have anything better to use as your argument. I'm also highly dubious, of why that article, from the same source, keeps referring to "primarily" and "most" of the bins that other cities use. Either they have a really strong case, and they have no idea how bad their presentation makes them look, or they are using these weasel words because they don't have an actual case. Since it seems to be some local civic government feud, I'm leaning towards the latter. edit: reading further around this, the actual corruption seems to mostly stem from the trash collection being given to a monopoly in 1938, and there being no laws against that monopoly from giving gifts to the city employees that oversee them. Which seems insane, but also run of the mill for the US, where they often manage to be less market-oriented than European governments, while at the same time offering less benefits to the actual people paying for them. One of the drawbacks of living in an oligarchy rather than a democracy I guess.

by dntrkv 5y ago

bmitc 5y ago

I really don’t see how it’s blown out of proportion. One, the article mentions that it is rather unclear, other than one idea or claim that it’s because of aesthetics, why the project is even being undertaken. That alone is cause for major concern. They’re spending money and wasting resources without even knowing why. Secondly, spending money on something when there’s already a solution seems bewildering, especially when there is no clear reason why those solutions don’t work. If it truly is aesthetics, is that what the people think or was it just someone’s personal feeling? Lastly, San Francisco is riddled with trash and dirty streets. It seems rather surreal they’d spend so much on aesthetic trash cans, that may or may not work better than the existing solutions, when the streets are literally covered with human feces. https://www.npr.org/2018/08/01/634626538/san-francisco-squalor-city-streets-strewn-with-trash-needles-and-human-feces https://www.npr.org/2018/08/01/634626538/san-francisco-squal... Quotes from that article: > San Francisco's streets are so filthy that at least one infectious disease expert has compared the city to some of the dirtiest slums in the world. > "The contamination is ... much greater than communities in Brazil or Kenya or India," says Riley, who researched health conditions caused by extreme poverty in some of the world's poorest regions.

ZeroGravitas 5y ago
> Rubenstein from Public Works explained that in 2018, the department could not find a trash can that fulfilled an exacting list of features: a rolling inside can for easy emptying, a sensor to alert workers when a can is full, durability to withstand street life, and be tamper-proof. > ... > There were no off-the-shelf models that met most of those requirements, except for the Bigbelly. But those, at a cost of about $3,900 a can, were deemed too expensive. Nor were they particularly attractive, she said. The PEL [product] can also fit most of the requirements. It costs $6,400,
- bmitc 5y ago
  I'm not sure that's all that convincing given none of the prototypes have an accurate cost build. Also, the article below has some further detail that no other city has such requirements, so it's confusing why San Francisco does. And it doesn't address the question of will it actually help anything. One of the biggest problems seems to be people just dump trash next to existing trash cans or even where no trash cans are. This doesn't seem to address that. The requirements also address a symptom, homeless rummaging. My original point stands in that it's not blown out of proportion and should be discussed. > https://missionlocal.org/2021/08/san-franciscos-proposed-trash-cans-at-2000-to-3000-a-pop-far-costlier-than-other-cities-bins/ https://missionlocal.org/2021/08/san-franciscos-proposed-tra... The actual three prototypes: > https://sfpublicworks.org/trashcanredesign https://sfpublicworks.org/trashcanredesign
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    You've not demonstrated this is actually costing more than a plausible alternative, just moved quickly on to complaining that it's an outrage to be spending so much and that they should be spending it on other things. Lots of sensible ideas have components that cost more than the cheapest available alternative component e.g. if for example they introduced electric garbage trucks, it would be short-sighted to focus on just the up front cost of that vehicle versus a standard diesel alternative. If other aspects (quiet operation, maintenance costs, fuel expenses, longevity) are counted then it may cost less overall, which is the only figure we should care about. Yes, I can't prove that my hypothetical EV truck will deliver those future cost savings but if you're arguing against it without even mentioning those, then that's a very poor quality of argument and highly suggests you don't have anything better to use as your argument. I'm also highly dubious, of why that article, from the same source, keeps referring to "primarily" and "most" of the bins that other cities use. Either they have a really strong case, and they have no idea how bad their presentation makes them look, or they are using these weasel words because they don't have an actual case. Since it seems to be some local civic government feud, I'm leaning towards the latter. edit: reading further around this, the actual corruption seems to mostly stem from the trash collection being given to a monopoly in 1938, and there being no laws against that monopoly from giving gifts to the city employees that oversee them. Which seems insane, but also run of the mill for the US, where they often manage to be less market-oriented than European governments, while at the same time offering less benefits to the actual people paying for them. One of the drawbacks of living in an oligarchy rather than a democracy I guess.