Seattle Flushes $5M High-Tech Toilets 433
theodp writes "Hopes were high back in 2004 as Seattle's posh public potties opened for business. But four years later, city officials have said good riddance to the five high-tech toilets, self-cleaning and cylindrical, that had cost Seattle $5 million. The city unloaded them on eBay for just $12,549. The commodes had become filthy hide-outs for drug use and prostitution."
Meanwhile, 3 hours by car away... (Score:5, Insightful)
In Vancouver, BC, drug use and prostitution are (if not outright legal) decriminalized. This means that the government is able to help those with a problem instead of being forced to put them away in prison.
The public toilets getting abused is a sign of a much deeper problem. It's the puritanical mindset of Americans that pushes these normal behaviors into the shadows and away from the help that the victims so desperately need.
It's a total waste of time to sell these things. It just means fewer public bathrooms downtown, and if you've ever been to a city with no public bathrooms (Philadelphia), you know that the terrible smell is the result.
The City of Seattle (Score:3, Insightful)
$5,000,000? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like they got ripped off in the first place. It shouldn't cost that much to develop something like that unless you have no clue about what you're doing.
What is the story here? (Score:5, Insightful)
War on Drugs (Score:3, Insightful)
Just gets better and better.
Still, you get the government you deserve.
Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
And if it had been a massive success, $5M would have been pocket change compared to the convenience and cost effectiveness of full automation.
Re:Meanwhile, 3 hours by car away... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the puritanical mindset of Americans that pushes these normal behaviors into the shadows
Into the shadows? Hardly. Sounds like you've never been to Victor Steinbrueck Park [wikipedia.org] in the middle of the most touristy section of Seattle, where you can see dozens of addicts and homeless cheerfully loitering about day or night. From Wikipedia:
"The park is a popular gathering place for tourists, but also for the mentally ill, vagrants, alcoholics, and drug addicts. Public inebriation, nudity, and calls for assistance for unconscious individuals are common; a fall-off due to increased policing in the 1990s proved shortlived. There are a lot of drug-related misdemeanors and even minor felonies, though there have been no homicides."
The only thing I find shocking is that this outcome surprised anyone.
Must Be A Consultant in there Somewhere (Score:3, Insightful)
Tragedy of the commons (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Well... (Score:1, Insightful)
ARE YOU NUTS!? How in the world does it make ANY sense to not pay a janitor a yearly salary to clean FIVE TOILETS instead of $5 million???? At $55,000 per year you could get 3 janitors on salary for 30 years. I'm pretty sure 3 janitors could clean more than 5 toilets in a day.
You're the kind of jackass that is in Seattle govt.
Re:$5,000,000? (Score:5, Insightful)
Like, you know, every product out there.
Like intentionally uncomfortable benches (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just Remember... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's see: They estimated maintenance costs of $600,000 a year [nwsource.com]. I don't know much about wages in the US, but it's fair to assume that 5 janitors would have done the job at a lower price.
Ignoring the price tag and maintenance cost I'm still wondering why those toilets failed in Seattle. We have toilets from the same manufacturer over here (Berlin, DE) and they don't attract much drug abuse or prostitution, because if you spend too much time in there the door simply opens.
I'm not kidding, it happened to a friend of mine who for some reason unknown to me decided to roll a joint in there. Since he told me I've stopped using them for their intended purpose.
Re:Seattle, You're Doin' It Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
It's called taxation...
Re:Seattle, You're Doin' It Wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
4. Get voted out of office at the earliest opportunity.
It's a sad thing when standing up for the Constitution and working to greatly reduce violent crime guarantees someone would get voted out.
Re:Just Remember... (Score:5, Insightful)
We have toilets from the same manufacturer over here (Berlin, DE) and they don't attract much drug abuse or prostitution, because if you spend too much time in there the door simply opens.
I'm not kidding, it happened to a friend of mine who for some reason unknown to me decided to roll a joint in there. Since he told me I've stopped using them for their intended purpose.
A) Funny parts bolded.
B) Your friend is slow. I suggest a rolling machine.
Re:Must Be A Consultant in there Somewhere (Score:4, Insightful)
Q: "How are the voters of Seattle going to reward that terrible waste?"
A: By reelecting them in a landslide.
No I don't understand why, but its pretty common all across America.
Re:What is the story here? (Score:4, Insightful)
Public facilities in some areas will be ruined by the hopeless loser (it's no troll to call them what they are!) segment of the public, such as bums, drunks, and junkies. That makes providing those facilities a waste.
Re:Meanwhile, 3 hours by car away... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Just Remember... (Score:5, Insightful)
An expensive, fragile, high-tech gadget is dumped into the public space and ends up broken? I'm shocked.
I wonder how the argument for these went:
1. Do you suppose the automatic door-opening could possibly fail or be defeated? No, our technology is foolproof.
2. Do you suppose people may clog it up in a variety of artful ways? No, why would anyone purposefully mess up a public bathroom?
3. Do you suppose it may become a way-station for illegal acts that requires around 15min of privacy? No, all illegal acts require very long times and abundant space.
4. Isn't it expensive to buy/install? Don't worry, people excrete almost continually, the money will just pour in.
5. Won't it be expensive to maintain? No, modern technology maintains itself.
Re:Just Remember... (Score:2, Insightful)
A) "Heh". You must be from the US, where smoking the green stuff at all is automatically equivalent to "drug abuse". So here's a newsflash: alcohol and tobacco are drugs too, and highly physically addictive ones at that (much unlike weed), but using those (in moderation) is fine and does not constitute "drug abuse".
B) True ;) Though if it took him 15+ minutes then surely he was not very practiced, so see (A) w.r.t. using the stuff in moderation. That's not abuse ;)
Re:Like intentionally uncomfortable benches (Score:4, Insightful)
Because you're just pushing the problem somewhere else. The actual problem is homelessness; the homeless sleeping on park benches is just a symptom of the problem. The homeless obviously need somewhere to sleep. Making park benches uncomfortable to sleep on could (I imagine) make the homeless look somewhere else to sleep. Like people's front/backyards. It's the law of unintended consequences.
What society should be doing it helping these people. You can't just treat them like pests and hope they go away. They're still people, they just don't have a home.
Re:Just Remember... (Score:1, Insightful)
Define "safe".
The U.S. has the biggest prison population in the world and outside of the various war zones, the most homicides and violent crime per capita of any country who has a government. You call that freedom?
The United States Government is an epic failure because it's rotten from the inside and run by self serving morons.
-Viz
Re:The City of Seattle (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Just Remember... (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference, I imagine, is in the 'quality' of the public that surrounds the toilets. The particular venue these were installed at in Seattle is a prime tourist area mixed in with a hefty homeless population.
And since it is thriving with tourists, there is a bit of a crime problem as the more enterprising homeless find ways of making do off them.
I've never visited Berlin, but my limited knowledge of it is you enjoy moderately pleasant, if unpredictable, summers with bitter winters. That tends to keep the homeless population either down or 'pinned down' to specific areas.
There hasn't been one time that I've visited Seattle/downtown and not had a problem avoiding tripping over people living on the streets there. It didn't matter where in the area I was.
Granted, that was downtown. But still, you'd have to be a fool to put out any sort of public facilities there without either the expectation that either they would be trashed almost immediately and continuously, or that you'd have to actually pay someone to monitor them almost 24/7.
Re:Meanwhile, 3 hours by car away... (Score:5, Insightful)
The only thing I find shocking is that this outcome surprised anyone.
Surprised, no. Disappointed, yes. I saw self-cleaning public toilets last week in Paris that were being used by the public for what they were intended for, not for illicit behavior. Why is it they work there and not in Seattle? My theory is that it's a societal thing--for some reason the citizenry of Seattle did not kick the druggies and prostitutes out of the toilets when they saw them. If a high enough % of the public objects to bad behavior, it becomes unacceptable and it stops. Parisians apparently made it clear that they wanted their toilets to stay toilets whereas Seattle-ites didn't care enough to maintain control of their city. Until Americans stand up and take back their streets, this is the type of result we might as well get used to.
Re:Just Remember... (Score:5, Insightful)
Pay toilets were popular in the U.S. in the 1970s. They ended up being banned [wikipedia.org] in many cities; where they weren't, vandalism and theft put them out of business.
If you consider that the alternative to free public toilets is people pissing, even crapping, in the alleys, then free public toilets are clearly a public good. If people are using them for prostitution and drug use, if homeless people are using them for shelter, that's a symptom of deeper problems. These problems ought to be solved by removing laws against consensual crimes and by addressing homelessness with affordable housing and decent health care - not by encouraging people to piss in the alley.
Re:Seattle, You're Doin' It Wrong (Score:4, Insightful)
The next group who wishes to stay in office will just change them back though.
Same reason why many conservatives are hypocrites. They'll whine about how the Democrats are being a bunch of commies and how "This isn't the land of my fathers. The government is taking everything away. This country is no longer free!". All the while when they're going on about freedom.
Then if you dare mention legalizing drugs and/or prostitution, letting a TV network show what they want (like, heaven forbid a show with gay characters), or letting anybody worship whatever deity they choose, then they get up in arms. In my area of the country it's been hell just getting the blue laws repealed - there are still some towns that won't let you buy alcohol on a Sunday, and in the town next to the college I attended you couldn't buy general goods on Sunday - the super Wal-mart had a large divider that they had to pull between the grocery section and the general goods on Sundays :S.
Basically, they want freedom so long as the free act passes their "raht" philosophy. If "that ain't raht", then you shouldn't be able to do it - all other approved activities are fine to remain free.
Re:Just Remember... (Score:4, Insightful)
If weed is not addictive, why do so many people have to smoke it (not those or medical reason, regular health people). They crave it, they need it. I have seen a bunch of people (more then 30) where smoking weed was more important then everything else (working, bathing, going to work/school). All those people were weak and could have gotten addicted to anything? Weed is not addicting? Something does not add up.
I know I am going to be flamed into hell for this. But I do not see it. If one smokes weed 1-2 a week so what. The ones who smoke it 5-6 times a day every day and need to smoke it every day, that is an addiction. Most drugs (not all) taken in moderation are not harmful. I would say all drugs taken in extreme amounts are harmful.
Re:Just Remember... (Score:3, Insightful)
These problems ought to be solved by removing laws against consensual crimes and by addressing homelessness with affordable housing and decent health care - not by encouraging people to piss in the alley.
I agree with you on the consensual crimes, but homelessness isn't likely to be solved by affordable housing. Many (most?) long term homeless people have serious addiction or mental health issues. Decent mental health care would probably have a big impact, along with rehab programs.
Re:Just Remember... (Score:5, Insightful)
Luckily I do not suffer from that particular affliction.
Re:Just Remember... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Drug use and Prostitution are normal? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that heroin is not 100% addictive: perhaps more like 10% [reason.com] of heroin users are addicts. And it was first synthesized in 1874 and only became popular after it was independently re-synthesized 23 years later, and was marketed as a non-addictive morphine substitute until 1910 [wikipedia.org] - its addictive nature has in fact been understood for less than a century.
Yeah, you might end up like David Bowie or Keith Richards or hundreds of other famous musicians, actors, writers, artists who have used heroin...for those can afford their fix and have access to the pure stuff, heroin use or even addiction is not a big deal [guardian.co.uk]. It's less damaging to your body than addiction to cigarettes or alcohol.
As Bill Hicks [alternativereel.com] noted, "If you don't think drugs have done good things for us, then take all of your records, tapes and CDs and burn them. Cause you know what? The musicians that made all that great music that's enhanced your lives throughout the years? Real fucking high on drugs."
Which is not to suggest anyone go shoot heroin. The crap you buy from typical street dealers is cut with gods-only-know-what and may well kill you; and really, there are better ways to spend your time and money.
Again, your facts are in error. The prostitution shops were only licensed in 2000, not "decades" ago. And they're shutting down owners believed to have criminal connections, not the entire district.
I will recommend Peter McWilliams' book Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Country, available online at www.mcwilliams.com [mcwilliams.com].
Sadly, McWilliams became a victim of the War on (some) Drugs when his access to medical marijuana, used to treat symptoms of AIDS and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was ended; forced to switch to the ineffective Marinol, he aspirated his own vomit and choked to death.
The misinformation you are spreading is killing people. Please, cut it out.
Re:Like intentionally uncomfortable benches (Score:1, Insightful)
That is the classic weasel American answer. You can't eradicate homelessness, so don't do anything.
Homelessness CAN of course be eradicated. For instance, shoot all homeless people. Or give a bed to every homeless person, and use police force to move them to that bed (taking care of the mentally insane). That proves that you reasoning is wrong to start with.
Now, cities building unsleepable benches are doing the wrong thing. People don't become homeless because there are benches. They use the benches because they are homeless.
Your 'it cost X to get 500 out of the street', and 'more than X to get the remaining 500 out' is wrong too. The real reason for unsleepable benches is the race to the bottom we are in: one city don't want to be seen as some sort of homeless heaven, because it will just get the people from surrounding cities. Then, when all cities have unsleepable benches, they move to some additional stupidities (they are very creative about that in the city I live in). Hence, with the current mentality, you would use X to get 500 homeless out, and get 500 homeless from the neighborhoods to deal with at the same X price.
Saying that it is not cost-efficient to deal with the homeless problem is ridiculous: a city like Seattle is just doing nothing (cost efficient), and, at the end, is now unable to get working public toilet. What kind of civilization is that?
The crux of the issue is in your sentence: "Now, ignoring kind feelings and all, explain to me, taxpayer Joe Average, who already paid a whole lot to get those 950 homeless a shelter, why the remaining 50 still prevent me from using that bank, which I also paid for?"
That is wrong on so many level. You act like if the only problem you have with the homeless is that they prevent you to use the bank. If you could use the bank, then there is ZERO reason for you to do anything for homeless people. THIS is the mindset that must change.
Living in a society that allows homeless people to die on the street, and that builds unsleepable benches to make their life harder may not have a direct cost to you, but is something you should be ready to invest some money to change. You know, just because you are an evolved human. And because a society is judged on how it cares about its weakest members.
People should stop to see every issue as a cost/benefit one, stop putting american flags everywhere, stop pretending to follow the bible and start to actually do the right things themselves or pay for others to do those for them.
Re:Just Remember... (Score:4, Insightful)
Would you prefer the homeless crapped in the street? Thats the alternative, and I'd sure as hell rather pay for a damn public toilet. Granted, this was a stupid way to provide them- a port-o-potty or paying a local business to keep their bathrooms open (and policed) would be a lot cheaper.
Re:Wait a second... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Virtures"? No. I said "and really, there are better ways to spend your time and money." That's hardly calling heroin use a virtue.
The use of clean heroin of known strength and purity is rather safe. Stupid - really, really fscking stupid - but safe. A heroin addict using the "good" stuff does much, much less damage to their body than a heavy drinker or a typical cigarette smoker.
The use of adulterated heroin of unknown purity, often using shared needles, is dangerous. People do it because they can't get clean heroin of known strength and purity. They can't get it because it's banned. It's banned because of misinformation like what you are spreading.
Furthermore, the prohibition creates a violent black market, which fuels a great deal of violent crime.
So, yes. When you spread lies about drugs and work toward their prohibition, you are killing people. You have a small share of responsibility for every junkie who dies from a dirty needle or from bad smack, and for every kid shot in a drug deal gone bad, because you helped create the circumstances of their deaths.
Re:Just Remember... (Score:4, Insightful)
The drug itself is not addictive. The effects of the drug are addictive.
Sir, I hate to say this... in fact, I have never said this before because it IS such a cliche, but please believve me when I say, with absolute conviction, that that is the absolute dumbest thing I have ever heard anyone say in my entire life.
Re:Just Remember... (Score:3, Insightful)
It is pretty difficult to get physically addicted to alcohol (I should know), but it is most definately possible.
I believe this has a lot to do with genetics. Native American tribes have some extremely high alcoholism, while Europeans generally don't, at least without extreme effort.
My theory is that areas that developed alcoholic beverages created evolutionary pressure for people who could handle them. Thus, like Europeans being more resistant to diseases like smallpox, they're also more resistant to alcoholism. As are Asians, and probably Indians.
Re:Just Remember... (Score:1, Insightful)
"If weed is not addictive, why do so many people have to smoke it (not those or medical reason, regular health people). They crave it, they need it. "
compare:
If video games are not addictive, why do so many people have to play them (not those or medical reason, regular health people). They crave it, they need it.
If food is not addictive, why do so many people have to eat (not those or medical reason, regular health people). They crave it, they need it.
If oxygen is not addictive, why do so many people have to inhale it (not those or medical reason, regular health people). They crave it, they need it.
If sex is not addictive, why do so many people have to have it (not those or medical reason, regular health people). They crave it, they need it.
If nicotine is not addictive, why do so many people have to smoke it (not those or medical reason, regular health people). They crave it, they need it.
You can't just make a sweeping generalization like that. It's illogical and makes you sound like a moron. Go look up the real definition of addiction. People struggle with heroine, nicotine, alcohol, gambling, etc. People are pleasure seekers, and anything enjoyable is something that people might do to excess. Pot is just as addictive as any other pleasurable activity, sure, but I've never seen any real studies on the changes that show it to be more addictive than eating or sleeping (compared to say, cocaine, which has a direct effect on the mesolimbic reward pathway [wikipedia.org] and changes the regulation of cellular signaling WRT dopamine in the human brain). Nicotine also causes brain chemistry changes, and ditto for caffeine. I've experienced caffeine withdrawl (more than once, too -- it's never fun).
If you're going to make such a statement, you need to differentiate between something that is addictive because of the sensations (think of nymphomaniacs, people who play WoW every day, or compulsive gamblers) vs. drugs which actually cause chemical dependence.
Re:Just Remember... (Score:4, Insightful)
The Homeless are untouchable and holy to the Liberal Elite. "they can't help it" is a tired old excuse, and part of a sick co-dependency that should be treated by mental health professionals.
Are you trying to be funny? It costs a lot of money to keep homeless people locked up behind bars, a heck of a lot more money than just making a public shelter for them. The great majority of homeless people are suffering from moderate to severe mental problems that are going untreated. When they do get locked up the jail is becoming the de-facto mental hospital for them, something that was not intended but is the reality here in the US.
Re:Drug use and Prostitution are normal? (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow, you're completely misinformed. Somebody already covered the Amsterdam angle, so I'll go after Las Vegas.
Prostitution is not legal in Las Vegas. It is legal in most of Nevada, and in most of Nevada it works quite well. The brothels are always away from the main part of the town, and they can't advertise so most tourists have no idea they are even there. They are clean and health inspectors make sure everything is on the up-and-up, which isn't always the case in Amsterdam. It's legal, so the women actually have recourse if they are abused or taken advantage of, which is pretty rare. What exactly is wrong with that?
If that was the case in Las Vegas, you wouldn't see street walkers and illegal immigrants giving out ads for call girls everywhere. You wouldn't see advertisements littered everywhere, turning the whole city into a trash dump. If drugs were legalized and moved indoors, and controlled aggressively (like a few states control alcohol), you wouldn't see drug dealers on every corner of the strip and half of the city. People could do what they are going to do anyway in controlled, safe environments, and gang violence would drop dramatically. The police could actually work at preventing damage to lives and property, instead of arresting thousands of people for petty crimes.
And what purpose do these laws actually serve? Do they stop people from using drugs or soliciting a prostitute? Obviously not, with the high rates of drug use that exist in this country and the ubiquity of prostitution everywhere (and if you don't think you can find drugs or prostitutes *everywhere* in the US you are sadly mistaken). They only serve to criminalize legitimate, if unappealing, behavior and turn what should be ordinary citizens into felons.
Re:Just Remember... (Score:2, Insightful)
You think jails are cheaper than public restrooms? Seriously?
Just where are they going to go to perform basic bodily functions if there are no public restrooms?
Because people don't keep their problems to themselves. Poverty and homelessness lead to crime and disease, which affect us all.
Re:Just Remember... (Score:1, Insightful)
You sir are a Heartless libertarian cocksucker.
Prople like you are fucking up the whole world.
YOu are full of shit