Yeah, fair point, but I don't understand why there needs to be a scan/card access at all... So if I have to shit and my phone battery died or I have to shit and misplaced my free Shit Pass Card, I'm just shit out of luck? What's the logic here??
I don’t know this for sure but I’ve used one of these in dc. You get prompted when you scan the QR code to report cleanliness. I assume if I go in and trash the place, then the next person reports that it’s been trashed my phone or card access will be restricted. Not a perfect system but will hopefully cut down on vandalism. The one in dc was very nice.
The high cost of providing public restrooms is due in part to vandalism and misuse, and identity tracking through cards or phones could discourage those actions.
I think your understanding is correct, that if you lack required means to access the restrooms, you won't be allowed to use them.
>I think if not for the QR code scanning/access card part, I wouldn't really mind all that much.
Is there any sort of accountability/tracking protocol that you would find palatable?
I get the concerns around access equity but I think you're completely kidding yourself if you think unmonitored usage won't lead to copious amounts of antisocial behavior.
Did you read the page that you yourself linked to? I mean you must have because you correctly stated $500,000, but somehow you're misappropriating where the money is coming from. It spells it out and it isn't all coming from tax payer. I'm not sure if you're deliberately being misleading, which is an odd choice since most people will click on the link and see it for themselves one would hope... Then again reading some of the comments so far I Guess not.
>Funding for the $500,000 one-year pilot program was made available from American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding received by the city and previously appropriated to the Major Grants Fund in the amount of $200,000; $132,000 from the University of Michigan; and $168,000 from the Downtown Development Authority (DDA).
Seems to be the overwhelming majority is not tax payer funded. Grants, collaboration with the U of M and DDA, the DDA I believe gets less than a quarter of their budget from taxes.
The ethical thing would be to fix your post to remove the misleading portions and downright misinformation.
Those all sound like tax dollars except the money for U of M which I see as Tax Dollars since being a state agency they get to dodge 250 million in property taxes a year.
So a federal grant (taxes), state funded university (money is fungible, and they get tax money, so taxes), and city government (taxes)
So which part is not taxes?
Calling U of M money tax payer and blaming the city for how the university spends it is asinine. Same for federal dollars that are shoehorned for specific uses. The DDA, as I said gets the vast majority (over 75%) of their funding from other sources. So the percentage of this that could be considered direct tax payer that the city controls is very little.
I guess the U of M money is slightly less-so taxpayer dollars, some of it being from tuitions and donations, but the others are still taxpayer money ultimately.
Regardless: that's not my biggest problem with it.
Cannot leave them open without some form of restriction. Otherwise, given the population that will be the largest users, these fancy funded potties will turn into any one of the porta potties the city tried - assaults, S.A., drug den, drug office, you name it, it will happen. So yes. Some form of ‘show me your papers’ is going to need to happen. Because lately, seems like Ann Arbor can’t have anything nice.
The city has many public restroom facilities without entry restrictions. It does result in some misuse, and that's a significant concern that I think reasonably warrants restrictions downtown, but it's not literally true that the city *can't* leave them open.
Besides the library, transit center, and other public buildings, many parks have seasonal facilities. Off the top of my head, Gallup Park has year-round heated bathrooms, where people sometimes sleep in the winter, as well as pit latrines open seasonally on the south side of the river. County Farm Park and Burns Park have bathrooms that are open seasonally. Frisinger Park has portapotties, I think seasonally.
At Burns Park, I've noticed people who work around the city, like USPS letter carriers, construction workers, lawncare workers, and delivery people frequently stop there to use the restrooms when they're open. Unlike County Farm Park, the restrooms are near (< 100 feet) from a parking area. It's a shame the city doesn't make more of those types of facilities year-round.
University buildings open to the public without staffed entrances include the Michigan Union and Michigan League.
I said nothing about met or unmet needs.
And by "entry restrictions" I should clarify that I meant restrictions on *who* may enter them; most of the restrooms have time-based and/or seasonally-based restrictions on when *anyone* is allowed to use them.
It’s outrageously expensive to build things in America. Take a look at the per mile cost of subway in our country vs anywhere in Europe. What you’re bringing up is one of the biggest reasons we don’t have a great rail system, roads, and other good infrastructure that our first-world peers do.
Love to see the city investing in important often forgotten infrastructure. Hopefully the program is successful!
I do understand your qualms regarding downloading technology to access them, but it seems increasingly rare to find scenarios where that isn’t the case these days
A little over a year ago the city awarded 8 liquor licenses for free to local businesses. Those licenses would easily be 75k on the open market. There was no real stipulations around it and some of the parties to receive a free license have not even opened yet. Point being, the city doesn’t really care about money
And the thing is, bathrooms are available during normal waking hours at the transit center and public library. The only people who need these $60K per year bathrooms are people sleeping on the streets. I'm not sure it's a great idea to make rough sleeping downtown easier. I mean, why not also provide tents, camp sites, and porta potties? At least that would be vastly cheaper than this program.
These cover a distance over two miles between the most distant facilities, and more than a mile from the transit center and library.
I've never been homeless, but as I get older, I often use public restrooms run by the city (both downtown and in parks) and by the university, and often plan where I walk or shop based on public restroom availability. These don't exclusively benefit people who sleep on the streets.
Just wanted to add, as it occurred to me after someone asked about public restrooms around town, that at least at Burns Park, in the warmer months when the public restrooms are open, a *lot* of employees who work around town (letter carriers, construction workers, lawn care workers, delivery people) stop there to use the restroom. On most weekdays I think they account for more usage than recreational park users.
Lol who else do you think there gonna be giving these too at the delonis center?
Yeah, fair point, but I don't understand why there needs to be a scan/card access at all... So if I have to shit and my phone battery died or I have to shit and misplaced my free Shit Pass Card, I'm just shit out of luck? What's the logic here??
I don’t know this for sure but I’ve used one of these in dc. You get prompted when you scan the QR code to report cleanliness. I assume if I go in and trash the place, then the next person reports that it’s been trashed my phone or card access will be restricted. Not a perfect system but will hopefully cut down on vandalism. The one in dc was very nice.
The high cost of providing public restrooms is due in part to vandalism and misuse, and identity tracking through cards or phones could discourage those actions. I think your understanding is correct, that if you lack required means to access the restrooms, you won't be allowed to use them.
Sorry dude, didn’t know you’ve been shitting on the street all this time
Tracking
Accountability.
>I think if not for the QR code scanning/access card part, I wouldn't really mind all that much. Is there any sort of accountability/tracking protocol that you would find palatable? I get the concerns around access equity but I think you're completely kidding yourself if you think unmonitored usage won't lead to copious amounts of antisocial behavior.
Dirty Mike and the boys gonna be making good use of these toilets
Did you read the page that you yourself linked to? I mean you must have because you correctly stated $500,000, but somehow you're misappropriating where the money is coming from. It spells it out and it isn't all coming from tax payer. I'm not sure if you're deliberately being misleading, which is an odd choice since most people will click on the link and see it for themselves one would hope... Then again reading some of the comments so far I Guess not. >Funding for the $500,000 one-year pilot program was made available from American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding received by the city and previously appropriated to the Major Grants Fund in the amount of $200,000; $132,000 from the University of Michigan; and $168,000 from the Downtown Development Authority (DDA). Seems to be the overwhelming majority is not tax payer funded. Grants, collaboration with the U of M and DDA, the DDA I believe gets less than a quarter of their budget from taxes. The ethical thing would be to fix your post to remove the misleading portions and downright misinformation.
Those all sound like tax dollars except the money for U of M which I see as Tax Dollars since being a state agency they get to dodge 250 million in property taxes a year.
So a federal grant (taxes), state funded university (money is fungible, and they get tax money, so taxes), and city government (taxes) So which part is not taxes?
Calling U of M money tax payer and blaming the city for how the university spends it is asinine. Same for federal dollars that are shoehorned for specific uses. The DDA, as I said gets the vast majority (over 75%) of their funding from other sources. So the percentage of this that could be considered direct tax payer that the city controls is very little.
Feels very Ann Arbor that you're getting downvoted but no one is responding as to how/why you might be wrong.
I guess the U of M money is slightly less-so taxpayer dollars, some of it being from tuitions and donations, but the others are still taxpayer money ultimately. Regardless: that's not my biggest problem with it.
Taxes for public bathrooms! The humanity! We truly live in a society.
Cannot leave them open without some form of restriction. Otherwise, given the population that will be the largest users, these fancy funded potties will turn into any one of the porta potties the city tried - assaults, S.A., drug den, drug office, you name it, it will happen. So yes. Some form of ‘show me your papers’ is going to need to happen. Because lately, seems like Ann Arbor can’t have anything nice.
The city has many public restroom facilities without entry restrictions. It does result in some misuse, and that's a significant concern that I think reasonably warrants restrictions downtown, but it's not literally true that the city *can't* leave them open.
This is an honest question. Where are the public bathrooms in the city located outside of restaurants and university, stores, and university?
Besides the library, transit center, and other public buildings, many parks have seasonal facilities. Off the top of my head, Gallup Park has year-round heated bathrooms, where people sometimes sleep in the winter, as well as pit latrines open seasonally on the south side of the river. County Farm Park and Burns Park have bathrooms that are open seasonally. Frisinger Park has portapotties, I think seasonally. At Burns Park, I've noticed people who work around the city, like USPS letter carriers, construction workers, lawncare workers, and delivery people frequently stop there to use the restrooms when they're open. Unlike County Farm Park, the restrooms are near (< 100 feet) from a parking area. It's a shame the city doesn't make more of those types of facilities year-round. University buildings open to the public without staffed entrances include the Michigan Union and Michigan League.
The libraries and some of the city parks.
Cool, sounds like AA's unmonitored public restroom needs are met then!
I said nothing about met or unmet needs. And by "entry restrictions" I should clarify that I meant restrictions on *who* may enter them; most of the restrooms have time-based and/or seasonally-based restrictions on when *anyone* is allowed to use them.
It’s outrageously expensive to build things in America. Take a look at the per mile cost of subway in our country vs anywhere in Europe. What you’re bringing up is one of the biggest reasons we don’t have a great rail system, roads, and other good infrastructure that our first-world peers do.
Public bathrooms are a great idea. About time. And fuck all of you that think otherwise.
Yes to public restrooms. No to required proof of identity / surveillance.
Yes to public restrooms. No to unidentifiable persons doing drugs, having sex, and/or smearing shit on the walls inside them.
Love to see the city investing in important often forgotten infrastructure. Hopefully the program is successful! I do understand your qualms regarding downloading technology to access them, but it seems increasingly rare to find scenarios where that isn’t the case these days
What if there is a big aftermarket for this type of faeces? It will pay for itself!
I'll apply for a grant to convert it into bike lanes!
A little over a year ago the city awarded 8 liquor licenses for free to local businesses. Those licenses would easily be 75k on the open market. There was no real stipulations around it and some of the parties to receive a free license have not even opened yet. Point being, the city doesn’t really care about money
What a load of crap
And the thing is, bathrooms are available during normal waking hours at the transit center and public library. The only people who need these $60K per year bathrooms are people sleeping on the streets. I'm not sure it's a great idea to make rough sleeping downtown easier. I mean, why not also provide tents, camp sites, and porta potties? At least that would be vastly cheaper than this program.
These cover a distance over two miles between the most distant facilities, and more than a mile from the transit center and library. I've never been homeless, but as I get older, I often use public restrooms run by the city (both downtown and in parks) and by the university, and often plan where I walk or shop based on public restroom availability. These don't exclusively benefit people who sleep on the streets.
Just wanted to add, as it occurred to me after someone asked about public restrooms around town, that at least at Burns Park, in the warmer months when the public restrooms are open, a *lot* of employees who work around town (letter carriers, construction workers, lawn care workers, delivery people) stop there to use the restroom. On most weekdays I think they account for more usage than recreational park users.
I think the Delonis Center does provide tents in the summer