Uh, not sure what I think about this one. I kinda think its gross to have an open-air urinal in a urban park myself that’s only available for men no less. Its not like its situated in the woods surrounded by trees. If that’s the urinal in the picture than for shit’s sake, its situated right in front of a passing train used for public transportation as well. Not exactly a private spot.
San Francisco can keep their open-air piss spot but it doesn’t take a religious organization to have a problem with this. I’m sure there are people that would disagree with me here, but its not like its in a place where you’re out camping and there’s some privacy taken into consideration for those that take issue with this. And sorry, but the City Attorney is being just flippant about this.
I consider myself pretty liberal and even I can understand why someone would have a problem with this.
For me, it’s the sanitation issue. This cannot in any way be healthy.
If they have public restrooms there or are in the process of being built than using it to provide for the homeless shouldn’t be used as an excuse either. This has very little to do with providing for free-wheeling sentient liberals. Sounds like laziness to provide for the public good if anything. I agree, there’s a sanitation issue also at stake. What if someone wants to take a crap there instead? Then do they fine them or is that supposed to be OK too? And where’s the sign that says “Piss, Don’t Crap…By Authority of S.F. Local City Ordinance”. Its just weird.
Frankly, anyone trying to justify it as being for the use of the homeless would make it worse, IMO. What the homeless don’t deserve actual bathroom facilities to use?
From what this article mentions the thing I find most questionable is that they apparently didn’t provide any accommodations for hand-washing? Ew.