It's always a shame when ideologically motivated policy doesn't line up with reality. Bathrooms are closed to non-customers because the burden of dealing with the occasional mentally ill drug addict isn't worth the risk or expense. This was just as true a few years ago when the policy was changed as it is now, when it has been quietly changed back.
We can't have nice things because not enough of us are nice people. In places like Japan, where people are fundamentally more well-behaved, they can have nice things. I dare someone to ask why Japan doesn't have a problem with violent, drug-addicted, vagrants.
Japan is an ethnostate where people die in quiet desperation. You don’t see society’s ills because they’re deeply stigmatized and brutally repressed by law enforcement.
We can desire a better world than these two opposite poles.
Because they believe in collectivism. If someone is peeing on the street, they think oh how this makes my country look. In SF someone peeing in the street thinks aaah so much relief.
It's like how killer whales share their sense of self with others in the pod.
The access to drugs is a huge thing differentiating but it's also that they didn't close down psychiatric institutions and haven't been in any major wars with a battle-scarred population for a very long time now.
They still have a homeless problem, it's just without exacerbating factors.
Aside from the major differences in social pressures others have mentioned, you've also completely missed that they have free universal healthcare in Japan. One might ask, how would drug addiction and mental health improve in the USA if we had free medical care and mental health care?
Sad that you're so quick to chock up issues in the USA to "not enough of us are nice people" when there are huge material differences between the USA and every other developed nation.
I got stuck overnight in LA last year. Booked a hotel near the airport. Woke up early the next morning and walked a few blocks to a Starbucks.
An old homeless man wandered in, wearing filthy clothing but brand new white sneakers that someone had presumably donated. Speaking loudly to himself about something. Fished around in his jacket for a while and produced some kind of gift card, and ordered a coffee. Then walked to the corner of the store and took a piss on the floor.
An unsolvable problem for the most “progressive” state in the richest country in the world, apparently.
We made it a problem when we stopped caring for our mentally ill. A State run asylum is not perfect but is orders of magnitude better than on your own on the street.
Who’s job would it be to stop it? I’m told the government is incapable of solving problems. The Starbucks employee? How much would I have to pay you to confront this homeless person? More than a barista makes I would imagine. Perhaps the problem persists because it is indeed unsolvable.
As a longtime resident of Tokyo, I commuted through Shinjuku station. The long pedestrian underpass from the station had a strong odor of urine and was filled with people living in cardboard boxes. And it is not just Tokyo. Poverty is everywhere.
Isn't that always the case and the reason we "Can't have nice things"?
Most people are "honest and law-abiding", but you have a few rogues, either civilians or in government, etc., who spoil it for the masses of well behaved people?
It's the soft bullying of the suffering, weak and oppressed. By nature of being sufferers in life, they get a non-zero amount of sympathy, free-passes and get out of jail free cards. Instead of us taking care of them and solving the issue directly, we literally ignore them and then get high and mighty when circumstances happens or if someone dares to be mean to them.
That’s so weird to read, in Western Europe you just ask someone working there for a code to open the door and can use Starbucks bathrooms freely (or you get it printed on your bill if you bought something). In some countries you have a small fee to pay if you’re not consuming anything, for example 0.5€ is common in Germany.
I couldn’t really imagine to not have access to bathrooms, it’s such a critical thing.
In this US, most bathrooms are open and don't require a code. In some US cities, you have to get a code because people will camp in the bathrooms to use drugs.
In most places where I live (San Francisco) it's easy to get access to the bathroom for free if you don't look like you're about to do heroin.
In the vast majority of the US, the norm is that most establishments have free public bathrooms. Having a code or lock is a sign you’re in a bad area here, like having bars on windows.
A good lesson to be learned here about public opinion. Bathrooms were reopened after people raised an outcry over a perceived racial injustice. At the height of such outcrys in the USA. Now, that movement has faded, and at the same time, the public is turning against San Francisco's Chelsea Boudin and others who tried to be permissive with the homeless.
> Bathrooms were reopened after people raised an outcry over a perceived racial injustice.
"The new policy for Starbucks’ 8,000 company-owned US stores comes in the aftermath of an explosive incident last month in Philadelphia, in which two black men were asked to leave a store after using the restroom without making a purchase, and were arrested for trespassing after they refused. The episode triggered protests as well as apologies from Starbucks officials and the Philadelphia police, and led the company to schedule a day of racial-bias training on May 29."
It appears to me that Starbucks openly acknowledged they had a problem. Before this point, there was no official policy so it was up to individual Starbucks employees to decide whether you looked "too shady" to be allowed into the restroom, so the permissive policy was an improvement. Changing from that to an explicitly not permissive policy is also an improvement over how things were before, because now it's clear instead of subjective and down to individual employee biases. Clear policies are good that way!
> the public is turning against San Francisco's Chelsea Boudin and others who tried to be permissive with the homeless.
Chesa Boudin's recall was not meaningfully any representation of a shift in public opinion. He won his office originally with a small portion of the vote due to the ranked choice voting used for the office, and the recall was a yes/no. It was inevitable that once a well-funded recall campaign ran, he would struggle to get over 50% 'yes' votes when he failed to get 50% in his original election. In general, it is very easy to recall politicians in California, and the campaign to remove him was funded to the tune of over $7M usd - way way more than every other measure on the ballot put together. In practice the people who voted for him before voted for him again, and the people who didn't vote for him before didn't vote for him again.
In the end, nothing is likely to change, since SF's problems are not something an AG can solve by themselves. The police were actively refusing to arrest known criminals even when his office asked them to.
This sucks. While traveling across Europe McDonald's and Starbucks's bathrooms have been such a boon to us when we needed one in a pinch and there wasn't a paid for one near by. We've always bought something to thank them for the services but that they're there to use even if we didn't pay them is really, really nice. I can imagine they'd be a horror to clean if abused. I used to clean bathrooms, golf carts, and pick range balls in in high school for a local mid-priced golf range and it was the bathrooms that I always dreaded. They were always disgusting -- and you couldn't use them unless you paid to play nine holes or bought golf balls to hit. Imagine how bad a free toilet might be -- then again, every time I've had to use a Starbucks bathroom they've been immaculate -- likely because some poor employee had to keep them so.
Within two months of Starbucks' big attention-grabbing press release about public bathrooms and charging points, the Starbucks where I lived installed keypad locks on the restrooms and bolted metal covers over all of the power outlets.
Recently, the Starbuckses where I live have removed all of the seating, and now refuse to give water to homeless people.
Starbucks' increasing hostility toward human beings is the reason I no longer go there for myself. Only when I'm picking up something for my wife.
There are even Starbucks locations now that are drive-through only, with the sidewalk-facing side just a door for the employees and a lot of blacked out glass where a cafe should be. Great way to destroy a neighborhood, Starbucks!
[+] [-] thegrimmest|3 years ago|reply
We can't have nice things because not enough of us are nice people. In places like Japan, where people are fundamentally more well-behaved, they can have nice things. I dare someone to ask why Japan doesn't have a problem with violent, drug-addicted, vagrants.
[+] [-] woodruffw|3 years ago|reply
We can desire a better world than these two opposite poles.
[+] [-] ilrwbwrkhv|3 years ago|reply
It's like how killer whales share their sense of self with others in the pod.
[+] [-] jamal-kumar|3 years ago|reply
They still have a homeless problem, it's just without exacerbating factors.
[+] [-] theonemind|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TaylorAlexander|3 years ago|reply
Sad that you're so quick to chock up issues in the USA to "not enough of us are nice people" when there are huge material differences between the USA and every other developed nation.
[+] [-] sky-kedge0749|3 years ago|reply
This can't be the whole story because a "mentally ill drug addict" is still the same person even if they buy something for $1 and become a customer.
[+] [-] tomjen3|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cscurmudgeon|3 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] avalys|3 years ago|reply
An old homeless man wandered in, wearing filthy clothing but brand new white sneakers that someone had presumably donated. Speaking loudly to himself about something. Fished around in his jacket for a while and produced some kind of gift card, and ordered a coffee. Then walked to the corner of the store and took a piss on the floor.
An unsolvable problem for the most “progressive” state in the richest country in the world, apparently.
[+] [-] djbusby|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hotpotamus|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] morninglight|3 years ago|reply
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=tokyo+homeless&hps=1&iax=images&ia...
.
[+] [-] qzw|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GenerocUsername|3 years ago|reply
Wish we as a society could meaningfully discuss these sorts of issues, our inability to tackle reality hurts everyone
[+] [-] mc32|3 years ago|reply
Most people are "honest and law-abiding", but you have a few rogues, either civilians or in government, etc., who spoil it for the masses of well behaved people?
[+] [-] zo1|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dgellow|3 years ago|reply
I couldn’t really imagine to not have access to bathrooms, it’s such a critical thing.
[+] [-] mgraczyk|3 years ago|reply
In most places where I live (San Francisco) it's easy to get access to the bathroom for free if you don't look like you're about to do heroin.
[+] [-] Amezarak|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kyriakos|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ldbooth|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] imchillyb|3 years ago|reply
Of course not. Unions aren't for the corporation, they're for the masses being screwed by the corporations.
[+] [-] jwilk|3 years ago|reply
https://lite.cnn.com/en/article/h_e596a4452e66f1c24519e7badb...
[+] [-] Vladimof|3 years ago|reply
https://www.seattletimes.com/business/starbucks-ceo-says-pub...
[+] [-] phendrenad2|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kevingadd|3 years ago|reply
"The new policy for Starbucks’ 8,000 company-owned US stores comes in the aftermath of an explosive incident last month in Philadelphia, in which two black men were asked to leave a store after using the restroom without making a purchase, and were arrested for trespassing after they refused. The episode triggered protests as well as apologies from Starbucks officials and the Philadelphia police, and led the company to schedule a day of racial-bias training on May 29."
It appears to me that Starbucks openly acknowledged they had a problem. Before this point, there was no official policy so it was up to individual Starbucks employees to decide whether you looked "too shady" to be allowed into the restroom, so the permissive policy was an improvement. Changing from that to an explicitly not permissive policy is also an improvement over how things were before, because now it's clear instead of subjective and down to individual employee biases. Clear policies are good that way!
> the public is turning against San Francisco's Chelsea Boudin and others who tried to be permissive with the homeless.
Chesa Boudin's recall was not meaningfully any representation of a shift in public opinion. He won his office originally with a small portion of the vote due to the ranked choice voting used for the office, and the recall was a yes/no. It was inevitable that once a well-funded recall campaign ran, he would struggle to get over 50% 'yes' votes when he failed to get 50% in his original election. In general, it is very easy to recall politicians in California, and the campaign to remove him was funded to the tune of over $7M usd - way way more than every other measure on the ballot put together. In practice the people who voted for him before voted for him again, and the people who didn't vote for him before didn't vote for him again.
In the end, nothing is likely to change, since SF's problems are not something an AG can solve by themselves. The police were actively refusing to arrest known criminals even when his office asked them to.
[+] [-] gigatexal|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reaperducer|3 years ago|reply
Within two months of Starbucks' big attention-grabbing press release about public bathrooms and charging points, the Starbucks where I lived installed keypad locks on the restrooms and bolted metal covers over all of the power outlets.
Recently, the Starbuckses where I live have removed all of the seating, and now refuse to give water to homeless people.
Starbucks' increasing hostility toward human beings is the reason I no longer go there for myself. Only when I'm picking up something for my wife.
There are even Starbucks locations now that are drive-through only, with the sidewalk-facing side just a door for the employees and a lot of blacked out glass where a cafe should be. Great way to destroy a neighborhood, Starbucks!
[+] [-] Overtonwindow|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomjen3|3 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sofixa|3 years ago|reply