Slashdot Mirror
Seattle Flushes $5M High-Tech Toilets
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."
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.
I'm confused. This type of toilet is quite popular all sorts of places, so I guess they must be cheaper than providing toilets in some other way. But as Seattle aren't going to be replacing them with anything else... that is going to be cheaper. So, what's the story? That Seattle can't afford public toilets?
ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
That sucks, but this is how progress works. You can't know if something will pan out in advance, because there are too many variables.
And if it had been a massive success, $5M would have been pocket change compared to the convenience and cost effectiveness of full automation.
Like, you know, every product out there.
This is like when they put up park benches that are intentionally made uncomfortable to sleep on. I understand why, but something is just wrong with society when that happens.
Let's see: They estimated maintenance costs of $600,000 a year. 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.
I don't read replies by ACs.
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.
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.
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.
Pay toilets were popular in the U.S. in the 1970s. They ended up being banned 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.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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.
The drug itself is not addictive. The effects of the drug are addictive. This is true of anything really. If it makes you feel better than you usually do, you can get addicted to it. This is the same reason that for some, even exercise can be addictive.
Luckily I do not suffer from that particular affliction.
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.
I've seen people do far more harm to themselves with a World of Warcraft addiction than a pot addiction. Just because some losers may not be able to handle something doesn't mean the people who aren't losers should be denied the use of it. That kind of thinking is a race to the bottom because there are always idiots who can't handle any given freedom.
Except that heroin is not 100% addictive: perhaps more like 10% 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 - 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. It's less damaging to your body than addiction to cigarettes or alcohol.
As Bill Hicks 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.
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.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
"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.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood