only in Kalifornica. how much does 1 public toilet cost in San Fran? 1.7 MILLION DOLLARS

[The_Waco_Kid]

only in Kalifornica. Gov Ozzie Newsom has to step in to stop this insane waste of money. for once the clown actually does something right. amazing.


Governor's Office Wades Into Noe Valley Toilet Controversy, Says Funds Will Be Withheld

https://sfist.com/2022/10/24/governo...l-be-withheld/


Once again, Gavin Newsom's administration is admonishing San Francisco and its slow-moving, needlessly costly bureaucracy, and holding funds hostage for a planned public toilet in Noe Valley until the city can figure out how to make it less stupidly expensive.


Last week we learned of the planned public toilet in Noe Valley's town square that Assemblymember Matt Haney had secured funds for to the tune of $1.7 million. Why $1.7 million, you ask? Well, Chronicle columnist Heather Knight was on the case, and true to form, not only did Rec & Parks quote that price because of the necessary "planning, drawing, permits, reviews, and public outreach" to construct a 150-square-foot public can, but they said it wouldn't be finished until 2025.


Now, as Knight informs us, the governor's office is making an example of San Francisco once again, and using this public toilet price tag as a symbol of everything currently wrong with our city government.


"A single, small bathroom should not cost $1.7 million," says Erin Mellon, Newsom's communications director, in a statement to the Chronicle. "The state will hold funding until San Francisco delivers a plan to use this public money more efficiently. If they cannot, we will go back to the legislature to revoke this appropriation."


It's true that San Francisco doesn't make anything easy when it comes to construction, and perhaps the state is right to push back on such an exorbitant cost for what should be a very quick and simple project that benefits a neighborhood, and that the neighborhood has already said it wants.


But here we have another tedious string of headlines that reminds us of the provincial nature of our city government's squabbles — let's talk for another six months about this million-dollar toilet! — not unlike the many, many stories we've already had about the city's epic quest to decide on a new trash can.


Also, as Knight notes, this kerfuffle is coming months after the governor's office similarly admonished San Francisco with an unprecedented audit of the city's planning process for housing. Dubbed "housing policy and practice review," the state Department of Housing and Community Development announced in August that it would be undertaking this review because SF can't seem to get out of its own way when it comes to building housing.


"According to San Francisco’s self-reported data, it has the longest timelines in the state for advancing housing projects to construction, among the highest housing and construction costs, and the [Housing Accountability Unit] has received more complaints about San Francisco than any other local jurisdiction in the state," the department said in its announcement about the review. They also added that Seattle approves new housing at a rate three times faster than San Francisco.


Right, so, it takes years to get a housing development through all the necessary design and planning and Board of Supervisors reviews, and it similarly takes two to three years and $1.7 million to design, plan, hem and haw, and construct a public toilet. Any questions?

[reddog1951]

There's always more to the story than presented here, so I wonder why someone from Waco would fixate on San Francisco...it is California and they don't have the same cowboy mentality.

That being said, if one is fortunate enough to live into their seventies and "enjoys" the effects of an enlarged prostate and unreliable colon, any public toilet within running distance is welcome.

A wise friend once told me 3 rules to adhere to after 60:
1. Never pass up a urinal.
2. Never trust a fart.
3. Never waste an election, even if alone.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by reddog1951

There's always more to the story than presented here, so I wonder why someone from Waco would fixate on San Francisco...it is California and they don't have the same cowboy mentality.


bahhahhaaa from Waco? it's a handle. the only thing i'd do in Waco is drive thru it.


That being said, if one is fortunate enough to live into their seventies and "enjoys" the effects of an enlarged prostate and unreliable colon, any public toilet within running distance is welcome.

A wise friend once told me 3 rules to adhere to after 60:
1. Never pass up a urinal.
2. Never trust a fart.
3. Never waste an election, even if alone.

then post it. i'd love to read anything that could justify ONE public toilet costing 1.7 Million dollars. are they intending to make it earthquake proof? put it in a hardened nuclear attack proof bunker? to protect that one person dropping a deuce when that nuke detonates? ya know .. for 1.7 million they just might be able to make it nuke proof. if they buried it 50 feet underground.



so go find the "more to the story". we'll wait.

[eccieuser9500]

Originally Posted by reddog1951

There's always more to the story than presented here, so I wonder why someone from Waco would fixate on San Francisco...it is California and they don't have the same cowboy mentality.

That being said, if one is fortunate enough to live into their seventies and "enjoys" the effects of an enlarged prostate and unreliable colon, any public toilet within running distance is welcome.

A wise friend once told me 3 rules to adhere to after 60:
1. Never pass up a urinal.
2. Never trust a fart.
3. Never waste an election, even if alone.

Pretty sure he's not from Waco.

[eccieuser9500]

Is this the cost of doing business with companies that align with your values? I'm not excusing the cost. Pretty sure there are LGBTQ contractors who can design a fashionable public toilet at cost.

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

so go find the "more to the story". we'll wait.

Supervisor Rafael Mandelman is already scrutinizing one policy that could play a role in high costs—that’s a city ordinance banning contracts with companies headquartered in 30 states that have reduced protections for LGBTQ residents or passed restrictive abortion or voting laws. The city’s Budget and Legislative Analyst’s Office estimated that ordinance could be responsible for 20% higher costs for city projects.

Soifer did say San Francisco, to its credit, has a relatively high number of public toilets—26 for every 100,000 residents—well above the nationwide average of just eight.

And the Noe Valley project is on par with other recent standalone restrooms in the city, including a $1.7 million Alamo Square restroom and $1.6 million for a bathroom in McLaren Park. And according to Tamara Aparton, spokesperson for the city’s Rec and Parks Department, the $1.7 million for Noe Valley isn’t restricted to use for the restroom alone and could go to other improvements on the site.

https://sfstandard.com/community/sfs...t-things-done/

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Is this the cost of doing business with companies that align with your values? I'm not excusing the cost. Pretty sure there are LGBTQ contractors who can design a fashionable public toilet at cost.



Quote:
Supervisor Rafael Mandelman is already scrutinizing one policy that could play a role in high costs—that’s a city ordinance banning contracts with companies headquartered in 30 states that have reduced protections for LGBTQ residents or passed restrictive abortion or voting laws. The city’s Budget and Legislative Analyst’s Office estimated that ordinance could be responsible for 20% higher costs for city projects.

Soifer did say San Francisco, to its credit, has a relatively high number of public toilets—26 for every 100,000 residents—well above the nationwide average of just eight.

And the Noe Valley project is on par with other recent standalone restrooms in the city, including a $1.7 million Alamo Square restroom and $1.6 million for a bathroom in McLaren Park. And according to Tamara Aparton, spokesperson for the city’s Rec and Parks Department, the $1.7 million for Noe Valley isn’t restricted to use for the restroom alone and could go to other improvements on the site.


https://sfstandard.com/community/sfs...t-things-done/

so .. your post proves woke Kalifornica the bastion of diversity and protector of all things ABCLGBTQXYZ can't build public toilets for anything less than exorbitant costs using all their wonderful woke companies because they won't let companies in those nasty "red states" do it for 1/10 the cost. not sure that was the point you were trying to make but as i like to say ....



thank you valued poster!

[reddog1951]

I think the rest of the story has become clearly evident...no one cared about the toilets in the first place....merely "starting up shit". Far more important issues out there. Let California do what they want how they want...it's all about State's rights; right?

[eccieuser9500]

Yes. Racist, bigoted, redneck "ingenuity" would cost less. Your just mad because you thought you had something with this thread. Crybaby.

And yes, I just said so. This first one should hit the mark. "Woulda' cost like-a twenny dollars."

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

so .. your post proves woke Kalifornica the bastion of diversity and protector of all things ABCLGBTQXYZ can't build public toilets for anything less than exorbitant costs using all their wonderful woke companies because they won't let companies in those nasty "red states" do it for 1/10 the cost. not sure that was the point you were trying to make but as i like to say ....



thank you valued poster!

Originally Posted by reddog1951

I think the rest of the story has become clearly evident...no one cared about the toilets in the first place....merely "starting up shit". Far more important issues out there. Let California do what they want how they want...it's all about State's rights; right?

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by reddog1951

I think the rest of the story has become clearly evident...no one cared about the toilets in the first place....merely "starting up shit". Far more important issues out there. Let California do what they want how they want...it's all about State's rights; right?

so that's why Kalifornica passed laws allowing public defecation .. because no one cares. got it.

thank you valued poster.


bahahhaaa


no, actually they didn't. (that was New York City) but the problem is chronic and it's because Kalifornica allows homeless camps any and everywhere. what else did they think would happen?


Fact Check: Has California enacted “Alternative Side of Street Pooping” to regulate open defecation? Here’s the truth


A raft of social media users shared an article published in Mad House Magazine to assert that the California State in the United States has passed a law to tackle the scourge of street pooping in San Francisco.


https://www.opindia.com/2022/01/fact...here-is-truth/


California’s Biggest Cities Confront a ‘Defecation Crisis’


Lawmakers ban plastic straws as a far worse kind of waste covers the streets of San Francisco and L.A.


https://www.wsj.com/articles/califor...is-11565994160


so tell me why it costs 1.7 MILLION to build ONE public toilet to help alleviate the problem Kalifornica caused in the first place by allowing open homeless camps all over San Fran and LA? to name a few.

[eccieuser9500]

Crybaby.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Crybaby.

i only cry when i'm right. from laughing too hard.

interesting your prior post proved "woke Kalifornica" can't build reasonably priced public toilets without those nasty mean "red states".

because that's what it did.


is there not one "woke" company in Kalifornica that can build anything?


at all?

[Precious_b]

Still trying to figure if the SS got a better deal.....Let's see, ~560+ monthly payments...

[Tigbitties38]

Never waste an ERECTION.
I think the list comes from the movie, "The Bucket List".

True wisdom in those words.

Originally Posted by reddog1951

There's always more to the story than presented here, so I wonder why someone from Waco would fixate on San Francisco...it is California and they don't have the same cowboy mentality.

That being said, if one is fortunate enough to live into their seventies and "enjoys" the effects of an enlarged prostate and unreliable colon, any public toilet within running distance is welcome.

A wise friend once told me 3 rules to adhere to after 60:
1. Never pass up a urinal.
2. Never trust a fart.
3. Never waste an election, even if alone.