That doesn't make any sense. Public toilets are for the public. Anyone who finds themselves in a situation where they need a toilet. A tourist, for example. Or maybe just someone who finds nature calling at an inopportune time. I'm sure we've all been there.

Also, even if it WAS for people who have nowhere else, that doesn't mean that it should be covered with shit.

No one is saying it should be covered in shit. I'm just explaining that projects like this in SF are targeting a very specific issue - a large homeless population.

Yes, but San Francisco also has a large tourist population.

Speaking of targeted, this public project almost feels like it was designed to piss off conservatives. Which is a shame, because older tourists are a big segment of the market there. And foreign toursts. And just like climate change and summer homes on the coast, I hate that there will be ironic endings to this for conservatives.

Obviously, the homeless population and climate challenged have it worse. But we didn't need to make others suffer.

Such a shitty situation. Pin sanitation worker pay to software engineering rates or higher and build some fucking toilets.

It just makes life more difficult. It's work in a way, dodging all this.

Have you ever taken a shit in a public toilet? It is a disgusting, degrading experience. I’m still traumatized from the one time I had no choice, and I said never again.

It really depends on a place. I used public toilets in Europe without much issue.

All of the public toilets I used as a tourist in Europe cost a euro, bathroom operators have an incentive to keep their bathrooms clean. San Francisco (lived there for 4 years) does not adequately maintain their toilets, echoing other comments in this thread, they're literally the worst I've seen. Even the NYC MTA (i.e. subway) bathrooms were better, bathrooms which tend to be portrayed as being especially dirty

All the more reason to not dismiss them as for "people with nowhere else to go" and simply make sure that they are well maintained and people aren't using them as their personal poop graffiti space.

Ideally, public toilets are for everyone - for the public...

And ideally people wouldn't be homeless, but here we are in reality.

It's shocking that this is a normal opinion. Taipei is a much bigger city than SF. There are public restrooms everywhere. Every single metro station has clean, indoor restrooms. Not just "available" restrooms, I mean clean, like cleaner than most gas station restrooms in the US. Parks also have restrooms. Failing that, you can probably find a private one at 7/11.

I really can't believe how shitty major US cities are, nor can I fathom how they got there and how we think it's normal. It can't be just "public funding" because Taiwan isn't exactly a socialist welfare state either, yet the cities are downright urbane.

I'm not saying "every public bathroom is for homeless people". I'm saying in San Francisco that is the problem being addressed. I have traveled to many countries with public toilets that do not have these issues, I am aware of what is possible.

A tiny minority of people ruin things like this for everyone, and the US doesn’t have the political will to deal with them (they likely need involuntary commitment to mental institutions).

When I lived in SF, I couldn’t believe the amount of trash on the street. How can so many people litter so much? Then one day, I happened to witness a homeless guy taking all the trash out of every trash can on the street and just dumping them.

That one guy was undoing a week of effort by thousands of people to keep things clean of litter. That kind of behavior should be considered a serious offense, but no one cares, about either the guy or the trash. Have a paper straw! That will fix it.

This may be true in San Francisco and certainly is in many other parts of the U.S.

It is not true in places with functioning government.

Yes, obviously. We're talking about San Francisco where this toilet is being built with a very explicit purpose.

I responded to the blanket assertion. I wouldn't want people in civilized places to think that public toilets should only be "for the people who have nowhere else".

What's different between a traditional public toilet that anyone can use and a homeless toilet? You seem to imply there's a difference that affords extra explanation and justification.

I'm not implying any difference at all. I'm not saying the public can't use the toilet, I'm saying that the main problem that the government is trying to address is one with the homeless population.

Your arguing an ideal and they are making a point about practice and fact. The practice on the ground and public policy is that certain "public toilets" are for the homeless. This informs government decisions about how they are designed, who has to maintain them, where they are placed, and who uses them.

A public toilet in the tenderloin is a homeless toilet in all but name. A public toilet in Golden Gate Park is actually a public toilet in the sense that you are talking about.

Then they should rebrand from public toilets. Maybe a sign that says "poopy poopy homeless toilet" would clear up the confusion.

At that point we should just give up and make a pit latrine and ask the homeless to defecate openly into that.

In any normal city, public toilets are for everyone.

> Public toilets aren't really for you, they're for the people who have nowhere else.

This is an incredibly stockholm-syndrome take. If you live in a place that isn't a total failed state, normal people actually can use the public toilets!

honestly though, public toilets are usually so dirty in my area (unless there are entry fees) that I rather use a shop's toilet instead. This is not about failed states, but a large portion of the populace not giving a shit about others... or giving too much shit perhaps =)

Where do you live?

Japan has excellent toilets. They have that by doubling down on cleaning, not on expecting their people to care more (they don't).

this mindset is why you have terrible public services.