4 ms·

Paris has automatically self-cleaning public toilets all around and they cost around $200k each to build and install. There’s no way this is a remotely reasona

Paris has automatically self-cleaning public toilets all around and they cost around $200k each to build and install. There’s no way this is a remotely reasonable cost and is clearly a grift.

insanitybit 4y ago
The cost isn't in the toilet itself, it's in all of the politics that will go into it. People will fight against it, there will be scrutiny in its design, etc.
- knaekhoved 4y ago
  Honestly, I might fight a public toilet near my house too if I knew the end state was that it would mostly attract homeless people who want to shoot up heroin.
  - yardie 4y ago
    The Paris sanisettes were controversial when they went up. Using the same damn arguments against them. Everyone cares so much about what the homeless and drug users might do and care very little about the millions of others who also use them. And they were unfounded. The self-cleaning and maintenance schedule does not attract homeless. I've literally watched a drug user argue with one because the door forcefully opened automatically after 15 minutes and he marched off to finish his business elsewhere.
    - knaekhoved 4y ago
      > Everyone cares so much about what the homeless and drug users might do Yeah, because it's a huge problem when you have a homeless junkie causing problems where you live. > And [the concerns] were unfounded. ... I've literally watched a drug user argue with one You're not helping your argument here.
  - mtalantikite 4y ago
    I don't know, I'd rather them use a toilet that is self cleaning than do it on the trash bins outside my condo. I've lived in Brooklyn (Williamsburg) for a long time now, and the un-housed people that hang out up the block or sleep in the HSBC aren't happy about having to go to the bathroom in between parked cars on the street. Whenever I've walked by them while they're doing that (which is fairly often), they've always apologized. At least give them a clean, private place to do it.
  - aperson_hello 4y ago
    You don't need to go inside in SF to find people shooting up heroin...
whywhywhywhy 4y ago
Whats the incentive to get it done fast or cheap when you don't have to answer for what you spend and the general public is threatened with incarceration if they don't pay you.
- everybodyknows 4y ago
  It's not their money, it's California's money -- so how much would a SF politician care? > Matt Haney, who secured the $1.7 million funding from the state to install the toilet ...
mtalantikite 4y ago
Came here to say the same thing. There are 400 of them and cost about €6 million per year to operate and maintain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanisette https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanisette
frereubu 4y ago
"Clearly" is doing a lot of work in that sentence unless you've delved deeply into the approval process of this specific toilet. It's absolutely believable that this is just produced by sclerotic bureaucracy.
- nsxwolf 4y ago
  What's the difference between bureaucracy and grift? All those 1.7 million dollars go into pockets, no?
  - kfarr 4y ago
    Honestly it's a big difference. One is payroll and legal, the other is laundered and illegal and the feds regularly prosecute SF gov officials for this.
    - uoaei 4y ago
      I think you should spend more time in corrupt institutions, to better see how one forces the hand of the other in practice.
    - bombcar 4y ago
      The smartest grifters realize their life is a lot easier when the grift is entirely above board and legal.
  - frereubu 4y ago
    In my definition, bureaucracy is unintentional, whereas grift is intentional. I subscribe to the view that in general these things are more likely to be due to cock-up than conspiracy. Not everyone is Robert Moses.
maeln 4y ago
If you read the article, the main reason why it cost so much is not because of the cost of the toilet and the installation per-se, but because there is many, many red tape around doing anything in SF. So it is not necessarily a "grift" ( although many are profiting from it and are probably more than happy about the situation being the way it is ) but the result of decades of laws to regulate public work and spending ( ironically ).
- renlo 4y ago
  > although many are profiting from it and are probably more than happy about the situation being the way it is This is the "grift" part of it; those "many [...] profiting from it" are often times friends or acquaintances of the officials regulating them
  - maeln 4y ago
    Yes, I am aware, but the fact is those laws are put in place (and could be removed) by elected officials. If the resident of SF where so angry about the situation, they could vote against it.
- ryandrake 4y ago
  I’d love to see an itemized break down of “red tape” that actually adds up to $1.7M. We too often accept officials obfuscating costs on these projects into opaque buckets like “studies” and “reviews”. “We’ll of course it’s expensive! It all goes to uh… RED TAPE! Yea that’s where it goes obviously!”
- acchow 4y ago
  > but because there is many, many red tape around doing anything in SF. Right, the red tape still exists to this day to allow for grifters to come in who help "expedite" the process for a fee. So it's really the same thing.
mym1990 4y ago
These were a life saver for me a couple weeks back!
antiterra 4y ago
SF tried those toilets and they were a failure in nearly all categories. They charged $250k in 2019, the wouldn’t be surprised if the full cost to set up is double now. https://missionlocal.org/2019/02/how-san-francisco-flushed-away-scores-of-millions-of-dollars-on-a-wretched-toilet-contract/ https://missionlocal.org/2019/02/how-san-francisco-flushed-a...
Balgair 4y ago
I like how there is currently a porto-john in the exact spot right now. Like, there is currently a working toilet in the exact location that is, to my limited knowledge, doing the bare minimum well enough right now. For likely much less in my entire life than the 1.7M that just building the new toilet will cost. If it's not corruption, then I am more worried.

Paris has automatically self-cleaning public toilets all around and they cost around $200k each to build and install. There’s no way this is a remotely reasonable cost and is clearly a grift.

insanitybit 4y ago

The cost isn't in the toilet itself, it's in all of the politics that will go into it. People will fight against it, there will be scrutiny in its design, etc.

knaekhoved 4y ago
Honestly, I might fight a public toilet near my house too if I knew the end state was that it would mostly attract homeless people who want to shoot up heroin.
- yardie 4y ago
  The Paris sanisettes were controversial when they went up. Using the same damn arguments against them. Everyone cares so much about what the homeless and drug users might do and care very little about the millions of others who also use them. And they were unfounded. The self-cleaning and maintenance schedule does not attract homeless. I've literally watched a drug user argue with one because the door forcefully opened automatically after 15 minutes and he marched off to finish his business elsewhere.
  - knaekhoved 4y ago
    > Everyone cares so much about what the homeless and drug users might do Yeah, because it's a huge problem when you have a homeless junkie causing problems where you live. > And [the concerns] were unfounded. ... I've literally watched a drug user argue with one You're not helping your argument here.
- mtalantikite 4y ago
  I don't know, I'd rather them use a toilet that is self cleaning than do it on the trash bins outside my condo. I've lived in Brooklyn (Williamsburg) for a long time now, and the un-housed people that hang out up the block or sleep in the HSBC aren't happy about having to go to the bathroom in between parked cars on the street. Whenever I've walked by them while they're doing that (which is fairly often), they've always apologized. At least give them a clean, private place to do it.
- aperson_hello 4y ago
  You don't need to go inside in SF to find people shooting up heroin...

whywhywhywhy 4y ago

Whats the incentive to get it done fast or cheap when you don't have to answer for what you spend and the general public is threatened with incarceration if they don't pay you.

everybodyknows 4y ago
It's not their money, it's California's money -- so how much would a SF politician care? > Matt Haney, who secured the $1.7 million funding from the state to install the toilet ...

mtalantikite 4y ago

Came here to say the same thing. There are 400 of them and cost about €6 million per year to operate and maintain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanisette https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanisette

frereubu 4y ago

"Clearly" is doing a lot of work in that sentence unless you've delved deeply into the approval process of this specific toilet. It's absolutely believable that this is just produced by sclerotic bureaucracy.

nsxwolf 4y ago
What's the difference between bureaucracy and grift? All those 1.7 million dollars go into pockets, no?
- kfarr 4y ago
  Honestly it's a big difference. One is payroll and legal, the other is laundered and illegal and the feds regularly prosecute SF gov officials for this.
  - uoaei 4y ago
    I think you should spend more time in corrupt institutions, to better see how one forces the hand of the other in practice.
  - bombcar 4y ago
    The smartest grifters realize their life is a lot easier when the grift is entirely above board and legal.
- frereubu 4y ago
  In my definition, bureaucracy is unintentional, whereas grift is intentional. I subscribe to the view that in general these things are more likely to be due to cock-up than conspiracy. Not everyone is Robert Moses.

maeln 4y ago

If you read the article, the main reason why it cost so much is not because of the cost of the toilet and the installation per-se, but because there is many, many red tape around doing anything in SF. So it is not necessarily a "grift" ( although many are profiting from it and are probably more than happy about the situation being the way it is ) but the result of decades of laws to regulate public work and spending ( ironically ).

renlo 4y ago
> although many are profiting from it and are probably more than happy about the situation being the way it is This is the "grift" part of it; those "many [...] profiting from it" are often times friends or acquaintances of the officials regulating them
- maeln 4y ago
  Yes, I am aware, but the fact is those laws are put in place (and could be removed) by elected officials. If the resident of SF where so angry about the situation, they could vote against it.
ryandrake 4y ago
I’d love to see an itemized break down of “red tape” that actually adds up to $1.7M. We too often accept officials obfuscating costs on these projects into opaque buckets like “studies” and “reviews”. “We’ll of course it’s expensive! It all goes to uh… RED TAPE! Yea that’s where it goes obviously!”
acchow 4y ago
> but because there is many, many red tape around doing anything in SF. Right, the red tape still exists to this day to allow for grifters to come in who help "expedite" the process for a fee. So it's really the same thing.

mym1990 4y ago

These were a life saver for me a couple weeks back!

antiterra 4y ago

SF tried those toilets and they were a failure in nearly all categories. They charged $250k in 2019, the wouldn’t be surprised if the full cost to set up is double now. https://missionlocal.org/2019/02/how-san-francisco-flushed-away-scores-of-millions-of-dollars-on-a-wretched-toilet-contract/ https://missionlocal.org/2019/02/how-san-francisco-flushed-a...

Balgair 4y ago

I like how there is currently a porto-john in the exact spot right now. Like, there is currently a working toilet in the exact location that is, to my limited knowledge, doing the bare minimum well enough right now. For likely much less in my entire life than the 1.7M that just building the new toilet will cost. If it's not corruption, then I am more worried.