3 ms·

I mean why would they. If they lived in fantasy land with reasonable permitting and running a toilet ment paying for toilet paper, soap, and a janitor to clean

I mean why would they. If they lived in fantasy land with reasonable permitting and running a toilet ment paying for toilet paper, soap, and a janitor to clean it once a day I'm sure they would for the PR win and to sell a few extra Teslas. In San Francisco as discussed in the article this would be an expensive permitting hassle, endless money sink, target for abuse, bad PR from people complaining about unsafe and unclean toilets, and a legal risk if any incidents happen.

HWR_14 7mo ago
Doing it well (so the toilets are clean and safe) obviously costs money. And obviously Tesla would prefer not to pay money. I don't think that's the issue you think it is. Tons of pollution mitigation efforts cost money that companies don't want to pay and yet work because of laws requiring them.
- tinuviel 7mo ago
  Keeping them clean is the easy part. Doing it well would require building the infrastructure, maintenance, manning the station, preventing drug abuse etc, and getting into liabilities due to said abuse. Tons of businesses stop doing business if they are forced into efforts that dont make money. The city/state should own sanitation. Not private companies.
  - deleted 7mo ago
    [deleted]
- phil21 7mo ago
  My city tried to force a public toilets ordinance on local businesses. Those businesses either ignored it or converted to take out only or other business models where they were not bound by the law. It got rolled back pretty quick. Plenty of businesses will simply call your bluff for such silliness. They do not exist to solve social issues local government created in the first place. If local governments can’t even afford to keep public restrooms going at parks, public transit stations, etc. it’s not reasonable to expect businesses to shoulder that cost for them.
  - HWR_14 7mo ago
    Tesla Superchargers aren't going to be able to convert to take out only or other business models
    - tinuviel 7mo ago
      Such businesses will close shop.
      - HWR_14 7mo ago
        Tesla superchargers make enough that they can cover the cost of bathrooms and still be profitable.

HWR_14 7mo ago

Doing it well (so the toilets are clean and safe) obviously costs money. And obviously Tesla would prefer not to pay money. I don't think that's the issue you think it is. Tons of pollution mitigation efforts cost money that companies don't want to pay and yet work because of laws requiring them.

tinuviel 7mo ago
Keeping them clean is the easy part. Doing it well would require building the infrastructure, maintenance, manning the station, preventing drug abuse etc, and getting into liabilities due to said abuse. Tons of businesses stop doing business if they are forced into efforts that dont make money. The city/state should own sanitation. Not private companies.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
phil21 7mo ago
My city tried to force a public toilets ordinance on local businesses. Those businesses either ignored it or converted to take out only or other business models where they were not bound by the law. It got rolled back pretty quick. Plenty of businesses will simply call your bluff for such silliness. They do not exist to solve social issues local government created in the first place. If local governments can’t even afford to keep public restrooms going at parks, public transit stations, etc. it’s not reasonable to expect businesses to shoulder that cost for them.
- HWR_14 7mo ago
  Tesla Superchargers aren't going to be able to convert to take out only or other business models
  - tinuviel 7mo ago
    Such businesses will close shop.
    - HWR_14 7mo ago
      Tesla superchargers make enough that they can cover the cost of bathrooms and still be profitable.