I hate paying for something just to use the bathroom. I would rather fish for change then buy a coffee I don’t want.
I think the government could operate these services successfully but in a previous post, you highlighted hostile architecture, which I think plays a part. We do not adequately care for citizens and adopt exclusionary practices to keep certain people out. The public ends up in legion with these practices because they can afford to be included. Coffee for a wee seems like a good deal. No benches, no houseless people. Good deal.
We also don’t like “free” things in our society either. We get obsessed counting who contributes without accepting it’s for the greater good. People steal, take advantage, and lie. They will. How do we build better despite this?
And I completely agree: the government's failure to care for homeless citizens actually places the burden on places like Starbucks. Because we have no public utilities, that forces minimum wage employees to deal with homeless people who come in looking for the most basic of needs.
Instead, we should have adequate public services to treat the causes of homelessness (mental illness, high rent, etc.) so awesome aspects of public life (like a Public Starbucks) can be enjoyed by all.
I think this comes down to the debate of whether institutions are more effectively run by the government or by private institutions / businesses. Theoretically this is a decent idea, but I can’t imagine it working in practice.
I’d personally rather give my money to Starbucks in exchange for a bathroom cleaner than what is readily available on the outskirts of a public park. I’d rather spend money at a private business that, in return, gives me consistent, quality service (clean-ish bathrooms and tasty coffee) than pay taxes that are then used by a state that has repeatedly proven to be ineffective with budgeting, allocation of spend, and achieving effective outcomes.
Plus, even if we do find a way to build these structures with our existing budget, what would prevent them from being usurped by homeless people as free, warm shelters? I imagine these places would smell pretty badly, and get dirty within days. Who would be motivated to maintain a high standard of hygiene? Would we then need to develop a new state-run program to run health checks on these free-for-all bathrooms and shelters? And then where would that money come from?
This is such a great idea, and if you ever go to Chicago head down to the river walk to see it executed really well by the City government! Locations for coffee, ice cream, food, and beer available if you want to purchase them. On the flip side, water, bathrooms and scenic seating if you want to relax or not walk around the city looking for the next McDonald's bathroom.
My initial thought was to put them in the most foot trafficked areas. I envision them the same size as a Starbucks, so governments could purchase storefront spaces in these areas to give citizens relief & relaxation.
I'm all for libraries, but the reason I feel like we need a separate entity is libraries are usually massive buildings far from downtown/shopping areas and the such. Not that I'm against increased library funding, just that this is scoped to a different mission.
I hate paying for something just to use the bathroom. I would rather fish for change then buy a coffee I don’t want.
I think the government could operate these services successfully but in a previous post, you highlighted hostile architecture, which I think plays a part. We do not adequately care for citizens and adopt exclusionary practices to keep certain people out. The public ends up in legion with these practices because they can afford to be included. Coffee for a wee seems like a good deal. No benches, no houseless people. Good deal.
We also don’t like “free” things in our society either. We get obsessed counting who contributes without accepting it’s for the greater good. People steal, take advantage, and lie. They will. How do we build better despite this?
Thanks for reading!
And I completely agree: the government's failure to care for homeless citizens actually places the burden on places like Starbucks. Because we have no public utilities, that forces minimum wage employees to deal with homeless people who come in looking for the most basic of needs.
Instead, we should have adequate public services to treat the causes of homelessness (mental illness, high rent, etc.) so awesome aspects of public life (like a Public Starbucks) can be enjoyed by all.
I think this comes down to the debate of whether institutions are more effectively run by the government or by private institutions / businesses. Theoretically this is a decent idea, but I can’t imagine it working in practice.
I’d personally rather give my money to Starbucks in exchange for a bathroom cleaner than what is readily available on the outskirts of a public park. I’d rather spend money at a private business that, in return, gives me consistent, quality service (clean-ish bathrooms and tasty coffee) than pay taxes that are then used by a state that has repeatedly proven to be ineffective with budgeting, allocation of spend, and achieving effective outcomes.
Plus, even if we do find a way to build these structures with our existing budget, what would prevent them from being usurped by homeless people as free, warm shelters? I imagine these places would smell pretty badly, and get dirty within days. Who would be motivated to maintain a high standard of hygiene? Would we then need to develop a new state-run program to run health checks on these free-for-all bathrooms and shelters? And then where would that money come from?
This is such a great idea, and if you ever go to Chicago head down to the river walk to see it executed really well by the City government! Locations for coffee, ice cream, food, and beer available if you want to purchase them. On the flip side, water, bathrooms and scenic seating if you want to relax or not walk around the city looking for the next McDonald's bathroom.
You're not asking for too much!
Oh, I'll have to check that out!
It's such a common-sense and entirely possible way to improve quality of life, so it's no surprise someone thought of it before me.
My initial thought was to put them in the most foot trafficked areas. I envision them the same size as a Starbucks, so governments could purchase storefront spaces in these areas to give citizens relief & relaxation.
I'm all for libraries, but the reason I feel like we need a separate entity is libraries are usually massive buildings far from downtown/shopping areas and the such. Not that I'm against increased library funding, just that this is scoped to a different mission.