3 ms·

> As for wild urination and litter, the issue here is that public toilets and trash bins are scarce. Yes! I don't get why more people (and elected officials) d

> As for wild urination and litter, the issue here is that public toilets and trash bins are scarce. Yes! I don't get why more people (and elected officials) don't realize this. The city I live in (Philadelphia) has approximately zero public toilets. Many of our train stations also constantly smell of urine. These two things seem related?

mschuster91 5y ago
> Yes! I don't get why more people (and elected officials) don't realize this. They realize, but they don't care. Their equation is: Why put in public taxpayer money (and thus, risk their own "political capital") for a service that's: - mostly going to be used by homeless (and a few people with medical issues like IBS) - going to be constantly vandalized (graffiti), mistreated (discarding tampons and condoms in toilets is a "classic"), abused ("glory holes", drug consumption, ...) or in questionable hygienic conditions (e.g. people flinging poo to the walls and ceilings), requiring a significant maintenance budget - mostly going to improve the quality of a service (public transit) that mostly poor and other down-on-their-luck people are using when the ones that vote for the politicians don't profit? Not to mention that many small city/town budgets are already severely under strain. Middle-class and rich people and companies don't need public transport, they have cars, and they don't need public toilets as they have toilets at home, at their employment place and if need be can afford to buy a snack at a restaurant to use their toilet. That perverse incentive is why it needs regulation of minimum standards for urban areas at a state or better federal level.
- ryukafalz 5y ago
  > Middle-class and rich people and companies don't need public transport, they have cars This I think misses the geometric constraint here: in particularly dense city centers, there isn't really room for cars. I'm fairly well-off and have a car in the city, but I wouldn't bother trying to drive it around here, because it's honestly less convenient than taking public transport. You can drive to your destination fairly quickly, but you then have to find a place to park the car and walk from there to where you're going. In Center City especially, that can take nearly as long as the drive there in the first place. No thanks. My car mostly only gets used when I want to leave the city.
- ryan_lane 5y ago
  > mostly going to be used by homeless (and a few people with medical issues like IBS) This is a weird trope, and also just generally cruel. First: when public restrooms are generally available, they tend to be well used (I use them frequently in Tokyo, for instance). Second: even if they are mostly used by the homeless, that's good for them and us, because it means they have a humane place to use the bathroom, and it means we see less feces on the street and fewer places smell like piss.
  - mschuster91 5y ago
    I'm not describing my own viewpoint here, but the thought train of average centrist to right-wing politician. They don't care in a positive way about poor, ill or otherwise disadvantaged people unless they can use their plight to gather votes (which is a rare occasion in itself).

mschuster91 5y ago

> Yes! I don't get why more people (and elected officials) don't realize this. They realize, but they don't care. Their equation is: Why put in public taxpayer money (and thus, risk their own "political capital") for a service that's: - mostly going to be used by homeless (and a few people with medical issues like IBS) - going to be constantly vandalized (graffiti), mistreated (discarding tampons and condoms in toilets is a "classic"), abused ("glory holes", drug consumption, ...) or in questionable hygienic conditions (e.g. people flinging poo to the walls and ceilings), requiring a significant maintenance budget - mostly going to improve the quality of a service (public transit) that mostly poor and other down-on-their-luck people are using when the ones that vote for the politicians don't profit? Not to mention that many small city/town budgets are already severely under strain. Middle-class and rich people and companies don't need public transport, they have cars, and they don't need public toilets as they have toilets at home, at their employment place and if need be can afford to buy a snack at a restaurant to use their toilet. That perverse incentive is why it needs regulation of minimum standards for urban areas at a state or better federal level.

ryukafalz 5y ago
> Middle-class and rich people and companies don't need public transport, they have cars This I think misses the geometric constraint here: in particularly dense city centers, there isn't really room for cars. I'm fairly well-off and have a car in the city, but I wouldn't bother trying to drive it around here, because it's honestly less convenient than taking public transport. You can drive to your destination fairly quickly, but you then have to find a place to park the car and walk from there to where you're going. In Center City especially, that can take nearly as long as the drive there in the first place. No thanks. My car mostly only gets used when I want to leave the city.
ryan_lane 5y ago
> mostly going to be used by homeless (and a few people with medical issues like IBS) This is a weird trope, and also just generally cruel. First: when public restrooms are generally available, they tend to be well used (I use them frequently in Tokyo, for instance). Second: even if they are mostly used by the homeless, that's good for them and us, because it means they have a humane place to use the bathroom, and it means we see less feces on the street and fewer places smell like piss.
- mschuster91 5y ago
  I'm not describing my own viewpoint here, but the thought train of average centrist to right-wing politician. They don't care in a positive way about poor, ill or otherwise disadvantaged people unless they can use their plight to gather votes (which is a rare occasion in itself).