Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: ConstitutionCowboy on February 21, 2020, 11:20:11 AM
-
Back when I was in the Navy(the late 60's), just about every port we pulled liberty in had public restrooms. (Some were even bisexual.) Wouldn't it be cheaper and a whole lot more sanitary for these sewer cities to build public restrooms?
Woody
-
Would those people use them if they were close by and free? Would these be the type of people who deliberately vandalize such facilities?
There are self cleaning toilets they could install as well. At least I know someone designed one, but I don't know if they were actually installed.
-
Seattle has tried the self-cleaning toilets and then pulled most of them out. They were extraordinarily expensive, were frequently vandalized and were being used for prostitution and injecting drugs.
Seattle, and other cities, are now trying the Portland Loo: https://portlandloo.com/
Almost every business and office building in metro areas of Puget Sound has a sign on their door saying no public restrooms, or restrooms for customers only, or there is a keycode required for restroom access. This is due to issues with the homeless, vandalism, or people discarding their used needles in the bathroom trash.
The fact remains that without accessible toilet facilities, people still need to go regardless.
-
It occurs to me there used to be bathhouses and other places like that, but they were also used for prostitution among other things and were closed down. At least I remember hearing about some of it in the 80's at the height of the AIDS scare.
There is usually a reason why we can't have nice things. Some people are just disgusting human beings.
-
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/its-austere-and-uncomfortable-thats-precisely-the-reason-the-portland-loo-is-finding-a-home-in-king-county/
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/after-earlier-embarrassment-seattle-resumes-public-toilet-quest/
-
Because that would be providing resources to the homeless, and we are supposed to punish the homeless, like that will make the problem go away or something. Like how it's ok to spend public money to put concrete caltrops where they sleep, and retrofit benches so they can't sleep on them. And destroy all the flop houses and low cost housing.
The serious answer is we could do exactly that. It's not perfect but other places do have public restrooms and even bath houses. In Japan they also have some private solutions like manga cafes and capsule hotels where a guy can at least get a shower and sleep. But in the US it's more like if you are poor then F you, then when the problem doesn't disappear we are confused.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_baths_in_Paris
Any attempt to provide services to the poor is often seen as encouraging poverty. I can see the thought process, but it might not help. Like banning drugs seems like it would help reduce drug problems too, but it's not that simple. I doubt I will see the day where we have heroin vending machines in the US but I have to admit our current methods are not perfect.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/feb/17/opioid-vending-machine-opens-vancouver-mysafe-canada
-
It's not perfect but other places do have public restrooms and even bath houses. In Japan they also have some private solutions like manga cafes and capsule hotels where a guy can at least get a shower and sleep. But in the US it's more like if you are poor then F you, then when the problem doesn't disappear we are confused.
I think you know a lot about Japan, so feel free to correct me, but I wonder if that system works so well in Japan primarily because of the culture. I think even the most destitute Japanese person would commit ritual suicide before they even thought of leaving those places in the same condition some of our homeless leave places that are provided for them.
I have to wonder if San Francisco would even see less poop on the streets if more public areas were provided, or if the homeless there would just continue pooping the streets plus poop up the spaces provided for them.
I think if US homeless would show more personal responsibility (and I'm sure some of them do - I recall Gunsmith has avoided homeless shelters like the plague when he has been homeless) it would be easier to set up and maintain spaces for them.
-
I think you know a lot about Japan, so feel free to correct me, but I wonder if that system works so well in Japan primarily because of the culture
Well yeah, here is not there. The thing about Japan is that it's full of Japanese people. They also have regular old fashioned homeless people in Japan. They are under most bridges in central Tokyo. But there is also a large contingent of people, who knows if it's thousands or millions, who are functionally homeless, but because they are able to scrape together living resources they are actually *functioning* homeless and still manage to have a job. If the environment were more hostile to the poor, there would be much higher numbers of regular-homeless.
I think in America we assume all homeless are mental or drug addicts. A lot are. But as the economy worsens there will be a larger contingent of people who are homeless just because they are homeless. Between minimum wage laws, degree inflation, skyrocketing housing costs, no cheap housing construction allowed, can't get a job with an arrest record, absent or unreliable transportation, etc. etc. there's going to be a larger number of people who could be more functional, but we aren't making the environment easy for them to be.
To me it's a very American thing to have a lot of rungs on the lower bit of the ladder so people have every opportunity to better themselves if they can. Then you will still have a homeless problem but hopefully the bare minimum. That's not necessarily what I see. Instead I see more that America is a good place to live if you are (relatively, by world standards) rich. But not a good place if you are poor. And I don't like policies that remove mobility and opportunity for poor people, especially if people think they are helping the poor people situation by doing it.
A central question is whether the government should spend money on helping the poor at all, or just laisse-faire. However currently laisse-faire is a joke already in America. Can't build any cheap housing, because we don't want slums. Can't provide credit to those who need it most, because exploitation. Can't hire people for what the market will bear because minimum wage. Can't even have cheap cars because of safety standards. What I see is active policies that remove the lower rungs of the ladder without replacing them with anything. If you look at Europe policies, they are more welfare-y. I don't necessarily want a welfare state but, maybe like how you can't have a welfare state and open borders, maybe you can't have a bunch of policies like this without also throwing money into welfare. I mentioned Japan as well because I see they have some things in place that are more private market or at least they don't get in the way as much when the market tries to solve scarcity.
A US double-wide is classes above most houses in Japan. Your standard Japanese apartment would be illegal to build here for a hundred different reasons. A Japanese single-family home, I have never seen such construction anywhere in America to such low standards--no central HVAC even in the North where it's freezing. But if it's all that you can afford, you would probably rather have a house than no house.
-
Well yeah, here is not there. The thing about Japan is that it's full of Japanese people. They also have regular old fashioned homeless people in Japan. They are under most bridges in central Tokyo. But there is also a large contingent of people, who knows if it's thousands or millions, who are functionally homeless, but because they are able to scrape together living resources they are actually *functioning* homeless and still manage to have a job. If the environment were more hostile to the poor, there would be much higher numbers of regular-homeless.
I think in America we assume all homeless are mental or drug addicts. A lot are. But as the economy worsens there will be a larger contingent of people who are homeless just because they are homeless. Between minimum wage laws, degree inflation, skyrocketing housing costs, no cheap housing construction allowed, can't get a job with an arrest record, absent or unreliable transportation, etc. etc. there's going to be a larger number of people who could be more functional, but we aren't making the environment easy for them to be.
To me it's a very American thing to have a lot of rungs on the lower bit of the ladder so people have every opportunity to better themselves if they can. Then you will still have a homeless problem but hopefully the bare minimum. That's not necessarily what I see. Instead I see more that America is a good place to live if you are (relatively, by world standards) rich. But not a good place if you are poor. And I don't like policies that remove mobility and opportunity for poor people, especially if people think they are helping the poor people situation by doing it.
A central question is whether the government should spend money on helping the poor at all, or just laisse-faire. However currently laisse-faire is a joke already in America. Can't build any cheap housing, because we don't want slums. Can't provide credit to those who need it most, because exploitation. Can't hire people for what the market will bear because minimum wage. Can't even have cheap cars because of safety standards. What I see is active policies that remove the lower rungs of the ladder without replacing them with anything. If you look at Europe policies, they are more welfare-y. I don't necessarily want a welfare state but, maybe like how you can't have a welfare state and open borders, maybe you can't have a bunch of policies like this without also throwing money into welfare. I mentioned Japan as well because I see they have some things in place that are more private market or at least they don't get in the way as much when the market tries to solve scarcity.
A US double-wide is classes above most houses in Japan. Your standard Japanese apartment would be illegal to build here for a hundred different reasons. A Japanese single-family home, I have never seen such construction anywhere in America to such low standards--no central HVAC even in the North where it's freezing. But if it's all that you can afford, you would probably rather have a house than no house.
You make much sense.
We need a good dose of unchained entrepreneurship. That will fix a lot of what ails this country. That, and unleashed market forces.
Woody
-
A medium sized (football field size) asteroid strike midway between Alcatraz and Treasure Island would solve a lot of their problems.
-
A medium sized (football field size) asteroid strike midway between Alcatraz and Treasure Island would solve a lot of their problems.
All I wanna know is, will the crap on the streets of San Francisco splatter far enough to reach Oklahoma? If so, call in a slightly smaller asteroid. Thanks in advance.
Woody
-
All I wanna know is, will the crap on the streets of San Francisco splatter far enough to reach Oklahoma? If so, call in a slightly smaller asteroid. Thanks in advance.
Woody
Free fertilizer.
-
"A Cure for the Sanitation Problem in California Cities"
Shouldn't this be in the coronavirus thread >:D
-
All I wanna know is, will the crap on the streets of San Francisco splatter far enough to reach Oklahoma? If so, call in a slightly smaller asteroid. Thanks in advance.
Woody
That's why the impact site should be to the east of SF, push that *expletive deleted*it towards Hawaii.
-
What benefit would providing public toilets for the "homeless" do if rather than using the facilities as normal people would they spread their urine and fecal matter on the doorknobs, walls, mirrors, sinks, and ceilings?
-
That's why the impact site should be to the east of SF, push that *expletive deleted*it towards Hawaii.
Just be careful on how far East you set your impact point, bud. =D
-
What benefit would providing public toilets for the "homeless" do if rather than using the facilities as normal people would they spread their urine and fecal matter on the doorknobs, walls, mirrors, sinks, and ceilings?
Just don't touch anything! If you must, wear rubber gloves.
Woody
-
I think the homeless (many of them if not most) are there because someone is subsidizing them and putting up road blocks to anyone who tried to keep them away.
I have also heard that shoplifting is becomes a big problem since California changed their laws to make most small theft a citation level crime with no arrest. I do not know if this is connected with the homeless or not.
-
I think the homeless (many of them if not most) are there because someone is subsidizing them and putting up road blocks to anyone who tried to keep them away.
I have also heard that shoplifting is becomes a big problem since California changed their laws to make most small theft a citation level crime with no arrest. I do not know if this is connected with the homeless or not.
Theft under $950 is not prosecuted in California.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-prop-47-shoplifting-theft-crime-statewide
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9pgh5EO6lw
Bad Laws Cause Homeless Crisis
John Stossel
4.5 minutes in he highlights a guy who wants to renovate an old meat packing plant into a small set of apartments. He can't get approval to do it.
-
A medium sized (football field size) asteroid strike midway between Alcatraz and Treasure Island would solve a lot of their problems.
This guy. This guy has the right solution.
-
A few years (couple of decades or so) ago it was proposed that Treasure Island be turned into a homeless camp. The proposal was shot down.
By the homeless.
It was too far away from their begging grounds.
-
Back when I was in the Navy(the late 60's), just about every port we pulled liberty in had public restrooms. (Some were even bisexual.) Wouldn't it be cheaper and a whole lot more sanitary for these sewer cities to build public restrooms?
Woody
The homeless population in CA consists mainly of drug addicts and the mentally ill. Neither of those groups is known for their personal hygiene.
The public toilets would benefit the public at large, and would help the homeless who aren't listed above, but that would only work until the addicts and crazies turned the toilets into homes and drug dens.
-
This is how you cure sanitation (and other) problems in San Francisco...
You start at city hall and start working your way outwards.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.boweryboyshistory.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F07%2Fsoylent.jpg&hash=16bf5710b86bd111f239900466d39b2373448e86)
-
The Kung flu may sort out the problems for them.