That's exactly my point: that is not a problem in most other cities. Which is why other cities can have the bathrooms open. For San Francisco to spend money on truly public bathrooms is putting lipstick on a pig.

> that is not a problem in most other cities

The well-meant and originally-necessary drive to end criminalising poverty overcorrected into absurdity by equating poverty with mental illness, and compassion for the mentally ill with not arresting people who smear feces over restroom walls. This fallacy, which dovetailed with anti-police sentiments, is most pronounced in San Francisco. But it’s also present in other American cities.

Eh, New York City would absolutely benefit from more public restrooms (paid or not). Central Park is a prime example.

San Francisco has the problem of inequality and an incompetent management, backed by people who wish the "homeless problem" just magically disappeared overnight.

The toilets and piles of human defecation rolling down the hill are a consequence of the above, and unsolvable until the above is addressed first. You can't borrow ideas from other cities around the world because those don't have rampant inequality.

The obsession with "Inequality" is misplaced envy. The issue is government policies that enable and support lawbreaking.

So arrest all the homeless then?

If they break the law then yeah, why not? They’re not above the law.

General principal among civilized peoples is you can't punish people for breaking laws they they are unable to follow through no fault of their own.

"Through no fault of their own" is the point of contention with this topic. One side believes the homeless are mostly victims of circumstance, the other that they're mostly victims of their own poor choices and addictions.

There are no free public toilets. So the homeless shit in the street. Arresting them for that fixes nothing. Except maybe buys you a day or two without shit, until another homeless person settles in.

There are plenty of public toilets where I live, and the homeless use them the same as the rest of us.

Can the tv news both sides nonsense. Other points of view are the failure of governments to provide services to their citizens. For example what if the government provided for different solutions and support for those with mental and physical illness. What if governments provide stable housing AND emergency shelters. You can't just work harder to afford housing and you can't just go to AA to treat your addiction and underlying conditions.

>Other points of view are the failure of governments to provide services to their citizens.

of which services are funded by and voted in by taxpayers.

So yes, to some extent it is the people's fault.

And while certainly not in all cases, it’s at least sometimes their deliberate choice and preference to live a life of zero responsibility.

Ship drug users off to drug camp? All the drugs you want, free, for as long as you live. Test clean for a week and you're out.

Friendly reminder that sending people to camps with the tacit expectation that they will not leave the camp again alive is something that we all agreed not to want a repeat of in history.

Wow. HN is one of the few places I'd expect to encounter someone stuck in Kohlberg Stage 4.

When some people can afford a place to live and others can’t, I’d say that inequality is a problem. Calling it envy doesn’t address that at all.

Envy of what?

Other large cities in the US have exactly the same problem.

> That's exactly my point: that is not a problem in most other cities.

Except it is a similar problem in most cities?

The only exceptions are cities with nasty weather which basically "solves" the homeless problem every winter or cities which basically shuffle the homeless into jail.

I haven't really seen any big city (even in Europe) "solve" their homeless problem any other way.