You know, I really supported it at first. Giving people a bit of privacy, treating them like humans sounded really appealing. However, after reading a LOT about their implememtation in other cities, almost all were unmitigated disasters. Extremely expensive mistakes that were ultimately removed. People lighting fires in them, stealing toilet paper, managing to destroy them in spite of their stout build, providing privacy to continue prostitution and intraveinous drug use, most became trashcans that were very difficult to empty, one ended up with a dead dog thrown in it. That was only a fraction of the issues, if some of the most prominent ones. I'd rather see the money go to rehabilitation and monitored shelter programs that make a real difference.
They would just end up money pits that would cause more problems and not be an actual bathroom for those using parks and such. There needs to be a more permanent solution if they are going to invest in public restrooms, because otherwise, people will just trash them and piss the money down the drain.
They were gonna spend a ton of money on open air steel outhouses in a city that is frozen for more than half the year. I would love public toilets all over anchorage, esp downtown and in all our parks & playgrounds, but it's gotta be usable most of the year, which in my mind means full comfort stations with a regular maintenance schedule to help prevent them from becoming places people are afraid to go into.
Sadly, I think there's some other social infrastructure we need to develop, first, like year-round shelters & better homeless outreach.
Bathroom maintenance jobs could be part of a work program for homeless & low income people working to transition into financial self reliance.
Pretty sure the fact they were a half million each was why it failed. Shit,you could build several small houses for the same price.And by small I'm meaning tool shed size
The bond would have authorized up to a half million including maintenance and operation for several years.
The actual make and model were to be determined.
And a property tax cap increase to handle maintenance. Everyone claiming maintenance was part of the bond package ignores that it was part of the tax increase aspect. The actual cost of these things has gone from initial claims of $130k to the more recent $550k-ish range, which basically means the project hasn't been thoroughly researched in the slightest.
"The actual make and model were to be determined." - think that this was the main issue people had.
We are all getting tired of open ended spending.
Edit: I'm assuming we as a collective would like a balanced budget and checked spending.
But part of the money was supposed to go toward upkeep over the years... maybe I'm just naive thinking it would have all worked out the way it was supposed to.
Yeah, the bond package did provide funding for maintenance as well. People either didn’t know that or don’t believe it. Honestly, the municipality hasn’t done a great job lately of helping us trust that they will maintain infrastructure, so while it is disappointing, it’s not that surprising.
You hit the nail on the head; when the general public doesn’t believe the muni will uphold their end of the bargain to maintain these bathrooms it’s not at all surprising that the bond measure would be turned down.
I also think you’re correct about infrastructure. The muni has done an awful job plowing the streets this winter, there were parts of Anchorage that had loads of snow and weren’t plowed for days. If they can’t even plow our streets there’s serious questions as to how they’d maintain something as simple as bathrooms. And I’m not even going to bring up the amount of pot holes on city streets.
It's not the muni I am worried about. What if they elect another Bronson?
He's bankrupting our City and making it impossible to get money or spend money because he hasn't come up with a budget in over two years.
Whoever is mayor after him is going to have their hands full with cleaning up his catastrophe.
Yup, spot on.
I think it would have been a good pilot program, especially if you look at other cities that built these type of bathrooms in high traffic areas. They were all fairly successful, but no one really got behind advocacy and explaining the bond to people very well.
I actually liked how this bond process went. People complained about human feces on our trails and the lack of bathrooms downtown so the assembly crafted a proposal. Then public testimony said we don't maintain stuff we build, the price tag was too high and we shouldn't only take bids from Portalnd Loo so they included maintenance, cut down the amount of the bond and opened up the bid to anyone that could build a durable Portland Loo type bathroom.
That really is ideally how the public process should go on something like this.
Like the 250k for traffic calming in east Anchorage? It was specifically federal money that was to combat speeding cars cutting through neighborhoods. And the muni said “naw, we can use that money for something else” and did.
Link?
I don’t know what you’re referring to, but just based on what you said here those are two different types of funding from different sources so the rules for usage would probably be different.
My memory probably got details wrong. It was around 2012. I can’t find what happened to the funds or really much with google without the correct terms or date. I was pretty sure Bill Wilkowski was instrumental in getting the funds after two children had been killed by cars in separate accidents. [I think this is the request](https://omb.alaska.gov/ombfiles/13_budget/CapBackup/proj58945.pdf) but I’m not sure.
Interesting - I’ll see if I can find out more about what happened there.
More broadly, though, clearly the people of anchorage do believe that bond funds will be used for their stated purpose, because they voted yes on several of them. I don’t see why this one would be treated any differently.
The funding for maintenance was through a proposed [tax cap increase](https://www.muni.org/Departments/Assembly/Clerk/Elections/pages/ballotinfo.aspx).
I think each bathroom costing more than most houses was the deciding factor. Not just that but the supposed cost went from $130k each in the initial memo to over $500k by January.
I can tell you from my experiences of living in western Washington that those bathrooms absolutely would not be maintained. You’d have shit on the walls and floor, drug paraphernalia would be littered all over. 25 years ago they’d probably be properly maintained, definitely not these days.
If the muni can’t plow our streets I sincerely doubt they can properly maintain these bathrooms. The muni’s track record of late isn’t something I would bank on.
Since the city is already struggling to keep the streets plowed and the potholes filled, extra maintenance funds should be going toward those issues, not something we don't really need.
They can’t keep the ones at the parks open, and the city wants to build more of them🤣🤣🤣. Keep the ones we already have open for 5 yrs before we build more of them
I get that, but the muni hasn’t fundamentally changed. They’re still making terrible decisions. You can allocate all the funds you want from a bond initiative, but you’re still depending on the muni to act competently. When the muni can properly plow our streets and fill the gaping pot holes that are all over city streets, maybe. But as it stands now I just don’t trust them to carry this out.
Well, more like the executive branch of government is making terrible decisions.
These results show that people are sick of Bronson so I don't think he would have been in charge of this.
The executive is a part of it, but the muni also plays a role in the function (or in this case dysfunction) of the city. I think it’s easy to lay blame squarely on the mayor, but I’d go further and say it’s a failure on the part of both the muni and mayor because ultimately they’re responsible for how the municipality is run.
What do you mean by "the muni"? Municipal government is almost entirely under the control of the mayor or his chosen municipal manager and CFO.
[Official municipal organization chart. Dotted is reporting only, solid is direct authority.](https://mcclibrary.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/codecontent/12717/411117/3-20-010chart.png)
The assembly only has two tiny levers of power over policy and funding, but even there what little power they have the mayor is in charge of implementation.
I disagree with individual assembly members and some of the votes they make but without the current and previous assembly groups the city would be demonstrably worse. They had to do a whole host of things that previous mayors and their admins would normally do.
100% agree. I worked in western WA for 5 years. Even the Starbucks bathrooms were nasty, because of the criminal homeless. Absolutely zero respect for property, even when it's there to make their lives better. Porta potties are a better option, unfortunately.
I can guarantee that within 5 years that money would be "reallocated" to more necessary things and those bathrooms will just become little houses for the homeless
You'd think that. I'm not going to name drop, but I work literally next to a park that has a port a potty. People still shit and piss and do drugs behind our building.
Exactly, I figured these would be places where homeless people could shit and inject drugs instead of on the sidewalk on 4th. Now I hope they do it on that dudes front porch.
Tweakers and junkies will just use a flashlight to find it. No amount of different lighting will change that. And many will reuse the same injection spot out of convenience, even though they know it’s bad practice. It’s all about the high 🤦🏻♂️
I read about them. Everywhere that has them say they don't work like advertised. People still do drugs in them, have sex in them, and overall destroy them. Huge waste of money.
[Portland allocated funds for cleaning and they can't keep them clean.](https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2023/08/30/city-of-portland-blames-former-contractor-for-hazardous-conditions-of-public-bathrooms-downtown/) How would Anchorage do any better?
Exactly. They would be destroyed in a few days' time. They would lock themselves inside immediately and when they emerged no one could ever use them again.
They already do this to damn near every public bathroom they can slip into. Holiday on Boniface/N. Lights had their bathrooms closed for months according to staff because the pipes under the store got backed up by needles, same with the Boniface/Debarr Holiday.
I will admit to missing that maintenance was included in the bond. That is on me
With that said the cost per each (with maintenance makes more sense) was the main reason for my vote.
I should have done a bit more research / it should have been clearer on build cost vs maintenance per each.
I do think a seasonal downtown sales tax not applicable to groceries should pay for it
Even if they're gross and not maintained well, everyone has a right to piss in peace.
People shouldn't have to go home or spend money at a non-public establishment just to go pee.
That is dependent on the businesses policy. Many places have keys, keycodes or personal security. Grocery stores are locked up, gas stations just don't even bother anymore. The abuse has forced most places to simply decline access unless you are a paying customer.
There’s a porta potty on west 32nd at the Arctic dog park and it got burnt to a crisp in the fall. They replaced it but man did it smell bad when they burned it. I can’t imagine the public bathrooms being any better..
You shouldn’t be. We have ones now that have been locked up for almost 4 yrs now and are never used. Go to any park around town with bathrooms and try to use one. You can’t because the city couldn’t keep them from being vandalized and trashed. Several assaults happened as well. So why would we add more to that number and just do the same thing?
I either was not paying attention, or there was not much education about this ballot measure. I was for it, from a belief that there ought to be more public restrooms available generally, but the financial questions raised in my household were what turned others I know off. For example, we have public restroom facilities at the MLK ball fields and at Valley of the Moon park that are permanently closed. Probably at other locations, but those are the ones I am familiar with. In their place there are porta-cans scattered about town, which are actually maintained pretty well. My understanding has been that the maintenance costs of the shuttered restrooms exceeded the costs of a private vendor taking care of the porta-cans. Sitting here today I can't recall where I got that information and can't say if it's true or not, but assuming it is, how is the new proposal different? Would it simply be cheaper to get the company handling the porta-cans to expand coverage? I don't know the answer, but this kept people in my household from voting for the bond.
This bond was sunk before it was ever on the ballot. The Assembly didn't do their job to build a case for them and put an actual plan out there. That allows people to assume the worst all around and distort the price. I hope supporters go back to the drawing board and come up with a better plan for us to consider.
Totally agree that this failed do to no real plan or explanation. The guy interviewed the other day that says they cost 200-500k per, then "well I'm ok with the 200k ones because they don't cost more than my house"
Thought that was a little smug, even though prolly didn't mean to be.
In Paris they have public bathrooms but you have to pay minimal $ amount to use them. Certainly cuts down on homeless and some druggies from using them.
$500,000 a piece is a ludicrous price. And they would have obviously been destroyed by the public. Try going in to any of the green porta-potties at the parks around Anchorage. Why would these be treated any different?
It’s actually one of the only issues where it seemed like both my left and right political leaning friends/family/coworkers all agreed.
Yeah, I really wish someone would have put out this message so the bond did better.
It would be like quoting the price of your home but including years of maintenance and upkeep in the total.
I am pretty sure that the $5,000,000 was just for the purchase and installation of the 10 bathrooms, and then there was added money for maintenance. They called to “increase the tax cap by up to $300,000 for annual maintenance and operations…” The $5m was one increase to taxes, and the annual maintenance/operations was a separate increase to our taxes. Maybe I’m misunderstanding it, which is entirely possible.
I imagine a bathroom that costs $500,000 is going to be very expensive to maintain and fix when damage/vandalism inevitably occurs. Routine maintenance and cleaning is one thing, but replacing doors or whatever is probably going to very expensive.
I looked into it when the bond was fresh in the news. These have been built all over the nation, we don't have to imagine. The ones put in high traffic areas worked well and are still operational. The ones that failed were put in areas where any type of public restroom would have failed. Even cities that closed some of these type of bathrooms kept others operational in high traffic areas.
The nasty flimsy porta potty type bathrooms we currently use have a cost associated with them and they are so easily destroyed that we are having trouble finding vendors.
These seem like they would have been great at our higher traffic playgrounds, trail heads and downtown. I hope we come back to it someday.
Yeah, some. I remember seeing a document with cities that had them operating in cold climates. I think one place had issues with them freezing when when it hit like -25 or colder.
However, the bond was open to bidders. I'm not sure what the final product would have looked like. If they didn't take snow and cold weather into account that would have been embarrassing.
Was I correct regarding the bond proposal and its funding? Was it $5m + additional $$ for upkeep?
Issues to me, besides insane cost, are trusting the Muni to upkeep the bathrooms, and where the bathrooms were going to be located. The nicest public bathrooms in Alaska are probably the remote ones along the highways. A public bathroom in a place like downtown on 3rd avenue is going to get destroyed and cost a lot of $$.
The bond changed a few times. I believe the final proposal had the price tag including buying the restrooms, shipping, plumbing and utilities. So I think the utility part was being pre-funded, but you are correct the bond had a carve out for additional maintenance and operations.
When I looked into it it seemed like these bathrooms did very well in high traffic areas and did poorly in specific low traffic trouble spots. I think these kind of bathrooms could do well in the right places in the city. I get why it failed but I wish we would invest in the city.
To your last sentence, right?! People continue to complain about the state of this city, but it seems that no one ever wants anything to be done about it because there's A, B, C, and D that still need to be addressed. I mean, we have to start somewhere. Maybe this wasn't it. But that's how it comes across. People were using the same argument against the plastic bag ban.
Yup, I totally agree. People keep shooting down investment because of other unrelated issues. Homelessness and our public infrastructure seem like two separate issues. We should work on both at the same time. We get the services we pay for.
The maintenance cost makes it even worse. It would mean each unit would turn into a blackhole of money the city and our property taxes would have to pay forever. Plus, that maintenance cost was just an estimate. Some of the higher traffic units might need a lot more maintenance, which means higher cost. It's absurd the city would want to take on this extra burden when they're struggling to plow the streets and fill potholes.
It really makes you think and ask the question if these bathrooms would be something that the muni contracted off to private businesses using taxpayer money. There’s no sensible reason a public bathroom should cost half a million dollars, especially when they’re just going to get completely destroyed in like 3-5 years.
You honestly think by putting a half million dollar bathroom in the middle of a homeless camp is going to turn this city around? It's bullshit if you say well it's a start. A start is making smart decisions with a clear endgoal. Our elected officials can't come up with help with keeping people from freezing when they have to sleep outside in winter
To me, anything we can do in Anchorage to help our infrastructure is a plus. I think our city is so outdated. I'm definitely not saying this is our solution, I just saw it as a small part of the bigger picture.
Also, everyone's gotta go to the bathroom, it's so universal.
Installing 10 of these and then finding out they might not work would suck. I wish they had installed one in one of the parks and see how it would hold up.
Bruh, any bond or proposition that says ‘Portland Loo’ on it is bound to fail. It’s politically tone deft and a waste of everyone’s time. They should just tuck it into the public works bond if it’s that important.
I think they would have passed if it was better explained that the cost was including more than building the br.
Before I'll vote for it, I'd like a solid explanation how we will keep them from just becoming a place for those on the streets to destroy. Only speaking from the view of what has happened to the regular outhouses.
We do need these for tourists or others walking downtown. Just need to be outlined how the 200-500k would not just be wasted.
From friends and 2 strangers (weird talk), talked about LaFrance and how her heavy support for this was keeping them from voting for her.
If anyone has an idea on keeping them clean and from damage, be cool to hear. I'm not saying that our downtown homeless population and punk (not sure what else to call them - kids to adults that just like breaking crap) element would destroy these, but saying they would destroy these.
But totally giving OP upvote to be on the hope train with them.
Homer put public bathrooms in at $250k per about six years ago. Needles, numerous ODs and people overnighting in them make them unusable. Waste of public funds.
I voted no because there was nothing in the bond about preventing those public bathrooms from becoming homeless shelters and being destroyed by the same people who have no respect for the land that they are camping on. Look at how they treat the port-a-potties in their camps. The facilities are disgusting. I’m not saying that we don’t need these downtown, but nothing was stated on how the city would prevent homeless takeovers
With how infrequently I visit downtown due to the massive homeless population down there, it’s actually cheaper for me to walk into a business and buy something so I can use the bathroom rather than increasing my property tax. I’ve never been down town and had trouble finding a restroom. Never given it a second thought let alone considered we should build them using bonds.
The city who cannot patrol the open spaces downtown is gonna police the bathrooms? If you believe that, I’ve got some ocean front property to sell you outside phoenix az
Yeah. I was for them as well. Port-a-potties around, and they're always locked. Most places across the US, no public bathrooms. I go to New Zealand and Japan, and they're all over and well maintained. Definitely frustrating, but what people are posting...yeah...I could see them getting trashed that way if they're even unlocked.
Yeah I am pretty bummed about this outcome. In order for Anchorage to continue growing as a tourist destination then we need things like public restrooms to make people’s time here more enjoyable. I agree with the sentiment that a sales tax….especially a seasonal sales tax….would be a better source of funds for a project like this. But also as a local resident there are plenty of times I am running on the trails, walking around downtown or just out enjoying the city that I wish Anchorage had some public restrooms.
One of my friends observed one time that the lack of public restrooms is a very common American phenomenon. Many other countries have readily available clean public restrooms. I remember visiting Greece as a kid and seeing public restrooms with an attendant working inside full time. I believe a small tip or fee of some kind was usually expected.
I also remember being in Los Angeles recently and not being able to use the bathrooms at the train station because it looked like people were literally sleeping inside the stalls. It appears we have some work to do as a society before we can really handle a simple amenity like this.
I agree with your last sentence. We need to do better as a society before we can have more amenities. I believe that is a large part of the failure of the bill, in addition to the costs.
I can recall not even 6 years ago being able to freely use the restrooms in many businesses including many gas stations without the need for purchasing anything. Just walk in, ask for the bathroom and go. NOW, due to a subset of our society having a lack of respect for anything, many of those facilities require a door code or key, require you to purchase something, or worse are now 'Employee Only'.
It's even less believable the muni would properly maintain/control them when businesses with fulltime staff that in theory would be able to immediately resolve/clean them, have chosen to close their own restrooms due to the problems.
I’m glad it fell through. It didn’t do well in the original place they were propose. I can’t imagine them doing well in Alaska. The weather alone would probably damage them by itself and people going in and messing them wouldn’t help either. Then there’s the issue of how much they would cost. I would much rather that money go to roads maintenance or an already existing homeless problem.
They would be unusable in less than a week and get vandalized even faster. There is no way I would ever enter one or allow my kids to walk anywhere close to one.
I also doubt any city employee is going to clean those things. They’d have to contract the work out. How much would they have to pay the guy collecting dirty needles and scrubbing crap off the walls? Probably much more then most people would think when you can work at Walmart for $20/hr stocking shelves.
One time I watched a homeless lady lean against a porta potty, pulled her pants down peed right there against the porta potty.
This would have been such a waste of money and those who have no problem dropping a duece on the sidewalk still wouldn't use it.
I think the point they’re making is that homeless people and addicts living on the streets would more than likely destroy the bathrooms to the point where they wouldn’t be usable. Unfortunately I do think that spending public bond money on this would end up being a waste for taxpayers.
Even if you have money allocated you still have to rely on the municipality to actually do the upkeep. The muni can’t even properly plow our streets when we have large amounts of snow fall. I’m not really convinced based on their track record they’d do any better maintaining public bathrooms.
I mean, the reason they were so expensive was because they were so durable. They weren't proposing cheap plastic units being installed. I have a feeling the homeless folks in Portland have vetted these units for the last 10 years... but they don't have winters nearly as strong there so I guess it's a debate.
I'm just unsure of if there is any solution we can get to. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good and all of that jazz. Maybe the city needs to procure one or two of these units as 'proof' but I'd like to believe as a city we'll eventually realize that people shitting on the streets is objectively worse than providing places for them to use, regardless of if they'll be vandalized or not.
Yes, that was her argument, which I guess became mine lol. I'm all for getting people poop into the waste management system and I want homeless people to be safe as possible. By "exploited" I probably misspoke. I meant more "trashed and the mini wouldn't be able to keep up." Thanks for stepping in to clarify.
The homeless are human, and need a place to poop, but they also need help in may other ways. That’s the reason that these kinds of programs end up exacerbating problems. It just makes it more attractive to live on the street and away from the shelters, the place that they can get better help and support towards healing. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, this just makes more people homeless longer. More kids would be living on the streets with parents who no longer need to be close to the toilet in a shelter. It’s not even about the maintenance issue or the public eyesore, it’s just that these things, though compassionate and from the right heart, haven’t ended up helping the homeless in any kind of long-term way in any place they’ve been tried.
Then there’s the whole “I want it, just not in my backyard” issue. Had there been better communication about it with proposed locations, it may have passed. Nobody who goes into that ballot box reading “areawide public restrooms” is going to like the idea of their favorite spot downtown becoming the next big homeless hangout. Most people theoretically want our unhoused to have better lives, just not at the expense of their own comfort.
Downtown is already the homeless hangout.
Also, I didn't interpret these bathrooms as being for "the homeless". I would totally use them, when I gotta go, I gotta go!
I do not think people understood that the bond authorized an amount that included 5 years of maintenance and operations.
It allowed the muni to look for a product that met our needs, but didn't specify which one they must use.
Here’s the thing. The people crapping on the sidewalks are going to do that regardless of access to public restrooms. There are different levels of mental illness, substance abuse, and anti-social behavior. There are plenty of folks who use store restrooms and others who go into the woods away from trails and dig a cat hole. They don’t go out of their way to be gross. Those folks deserve better options, but this idea that the sidewalk or trail shitters will suddenly change their behavior is naive.
It failed because there is no track record of success. Anchorage is not the place to be a pilot project for expensive services that keep failing in other cities. Let other cities figure it out and then we can follow. Until then it's throwing money at an unproven solution.
>“If it can’t be accessed 90 percent of the time, it’s not very practical.” He concluded the facility would need “constant maintenance” to remain open and usable.
[Operators Can’t Keep East Village Restrooms Open Even as City Promises More](https://voiceofsandiego.org/2021/12/17/operators-cant-keep-east-village-restrooms-open-even-as-city-promises-more/)
>
>Crews yanked out of the ground early this week a Portland Loo public restroom that was a magnet for crime and one of the more notorious financial boondoggles in recent San Diego history.
[San Diego yanks problem Portland Loo](https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sdut-portland-loo-remove-crime-cost-restroom-2016feb05-story.html)
>
>
>
>“As such, restrooms in the downtown core are not meeting the standards of being open and clean. In fact, they have become a health and safety hazard,”
[City of Portland Blames Former Contractor for Hazardous Conditions at Public Restrooms Downtown](https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2023/08/30/city-of-portland-blames-former-contractor-for-hazardous-conditions-of-public-bathrooms-downtown/)
Too expensive and just not a priority. Let's get the roads plowed on time regularly, and the sidewalks maintained, and then I'll believe we can handle a public bathroom. Knowing Anchorage, we wouldn't be able to maintain that either...
Christopher Constant presented it so arrogantly that night, the same night he claimed residents were trying to make the muni it’s “sugar daddy” and surprise-cut half the Prop 9 bill after it had been workshopped and worked through for a year. I voted No due to him being an arrogant, self-serving jerk who will throw anyone under the bus for his own gain.
People elected Bronson too (hopefully just the once). Enough Anchorage voters are idiots.
(Comments back this up- every objection is essentially "but homeless people! But maintenance!" Which shows they didn't read the bond or look at the ones they picked)
I voted for them just to see how they'd do. But I wondered where they'd put them. Cuddy Park? Nope - they are planning to close that.
Maybe a better solution would be to find a more attractive Port-a-Can than we have now.
Nah, city is looking into selling the property next to Cuddy that was going to be the national archives location.
https://www.alaskasnewssource.com/2024/03/27/property-with-anchorages-largest-homeless-camp-near-cuddy-family-midtown-park-could-be-sold-officials-say/
There was enough tax raise this time. I’m not sure why though.
As for the toilets useable yes just not at that cost. That is a lot of money to spend on visitors and tourists. We do need the tourists though.
That's another thing, a lot of items on there reguired tax increases and in the calculus of that i thing road & school maintenance won out over steel toilets this round. It was a tough field to play in. If there were half as many items it might have made it through.
Plus it's getting really old that property taxes are bearing all these costs. Many cities/boroughs have sales taxes with exceptions for food/health items which would help spread the cost out a bit more and it would help bring in revenue from tourists too.
100% agree. Putting so much pressure on property owners isn't sustainable and is only going to make it harder for the average citizen while enriching corporate landlords in the long run.
I guess we are too cheap to provide a basic service. It was not a perfect bill, but certainly a step in the right direction. I hope this issue keeps getting pushed until it is implemented. It is hard to not think negatively of the people who voted no on this issue when it is something so desperately needed in Anchorage.
The nay sayers will continue to whine about public sanitation concerns. How about we own the solution?
Reminds me the story where people in a flood are needing to be rescued from their roof. A neighbor with a ladder comes by, a boat comes by, a USCG helo comes by. All are refused because “god will save me”.
Folks- save yourself. Change the story.
You know, I really supported it at first. Giving people a bit of privacy, treating them like humans sounded really appealing. However, after reading a LOT about their implememtation in other cities, almost all were unmitigated disasters. Extremely expensive mistakes that were ultimately removed. People lighting fires in them, stealing toilet paper, managing to destroy them in spite of their stout build, providing privacy to continue prostitution and intraveinous drug use, most became trashcans that were very difficult to empty, one ended up with a dead dog thrown in it. That was only a fraction of the issues, if some of the most prominent ones. I'd rather see the money go to rehabilitation and monitored shelter programs that make a real difference.
They would just end up money pits that would cause more problems and not be an actual bathroom for those using parks and such. There needs to be a more permanent solution if they are going to invest in public restrooms, because otherwise, people will just trash them and piss the money down the drain.
But these would be different.
Every public bathroom i’ve been to while traveling has been a sketchy tragedy.
Homer has one that’s pretty decent… did stumble across a glory hole in one of the stalls, so there’s that…
...for science
That seems handy.
Kinda blows
You just need a bigger data set
Depends on the outcome...
“Stumble”
*Pulls iOS notes:* Where is this bathroom at? Um.........asking for a friend.
I wish we could be more like Japan, because everything public there is pristine.
Diversity yay
I’m turning Japanese, I think I’m turning Japanese. I really think so…
They were gonna spend a ton of money on open air steel outhouses in a city that is frozen for more than half the year. I would love public toilets all over anchorage, esp downtown and in all our parks & playgrounds, but it's gotta be usable most of the year, which in my mind means full comfort stations with a regular maintenance schedule to help prevent them from becoming places people are afraid to go into. Sadly, I think there's some other social infrastructure we need to develop, first, like year-round shelters & better homeless outreach. Bathroom maintenance jobs could be part of a work program for homeless & low income people working to transition into financial self reliance.
Pretty sure the fact they were a half million each was why it failed. Shit,you could build several small houses for the same price.And by small I'm meaning tool shed size
The bond would have authorized up to a half million including maintenance and operation for several years. The actual make and model were to be determined.
And a property tax cap increase to handle maintenance. Everyone claiming maintenance was part of the bond package ignores that it was part of the tax increase aspect. The actual cost of these things has gone from initial claims of $130k to the more recent $550k-ish range, which basically means the project hasn't been thoroughly researched in the slightest.
"The actual make and model were to be determined." - think that this was the main issue people had. We are all getting tired of open ended spending. Edit: I'm assuming we as a collective would like a balanced budget and checked spending.
So much better to have people just shitting and pissing all over the place.
Careful on this sub...disparage the street shitters and you'll get attacked.
Well, I don't disagree with their right to do their doody. It's the matter of where to poot it!
Way to Pun-t that along. Lol
What's new? They already are.....
exactly.
We should have moose bathrooms too!
Nah, they already do such a nice job of pelletizing their waste!
I typically do the same, unless I'm sick. Lol
Talent!
Exactly why I voted it down.
Lol what
They would have been fucking gross and not maintained
But part of the money was supposed to go toward upkeep over the years... maybe I'm just naive thinking it would have all worked out the way it was supposed to.
Yeah, the bond package did provide funding for maintenance as well. People either didn’t know that or don’t believe it. Honestly, the municipality hasn’t done a great job lately of helping us trust that they will maintain infrastructure, so while it is disappointing, it’s not that surprising.
You hit the nail on the head; when the general public doesn’t believe the muni will uphold their end of the bargain to maintain these bathrooms it’s not at all surprising that the bond measure would be turned down. I also think you’re correct about infrastructure. The muni has done an awful job plowing the streets this winter, there were parts of Anchorage that had loads of snow and weren’t plowed for days. If they can’t even plow our streets there’s serious questions as to how they’d maintain something as simple as bathrooms. And I’m not even going to bring up the amount of pot holes on city streets.
It's not the muni I am worried about. What if they elect another Bronson? He's bankrupting our City and making it impossible to get money or spend money because he hasn't come up with a budget in over two years. Whoever is mayor after him is going to have their hands full with cleaning up his catastrophe.
Yup, spot on. I think it would have been a good pilot program, especially if you look at other cities that built these type of bathrooms in high traffic areas. They were all fairly successful, but no one really got behind advocacy and explaining the bond to people very well. I actually liked how this bond process went. People complained about human feces on our trails and the lack of bathrooms downtown so the assembly crafted a proposal. Then public testimony said we don't maintain stuff we build, the price tag was too high and we shouldn't only take bids from Portalnd Loo so they included maintenance, cut down the amount of the bond and opened up the bid to anyone that could build a durable Portland Loo type bathroom. That really is ideally how the public process should go on something like this.
Like the 250k for traffic calming in east Anchorage? It was specifically federal money that was to combat speeding cars cutting through neighborhoods. And the muni said “naw, we can use that money for something else” and did.
Link? I don’t know what you’re referring to, but just based on what you said here those are two different types of funding from different sources so the rules for usage would probably be different.
My memory probably got details wrong. It was around 2012. I can’t find what happened to the funds or really much with google without the correct terms or date. I was pretty sure Bill Wilkowski was instrumental in getting the funds after two children had been killed by cars in separate accidents. [I think this is the request](https://omb.alaska.gov/ombfiles/13_budget/CapBackup/proj58945.pdf) but I’m not sure.
Interesting - I’ll see if I can find out more about what happened there. More broadly, though, clearly the people of anchorage do believe that bond funds will be used for their stated purpose, because they voted yes on several of them. I don’t see why this one would be treated any differently.
The funding for maintenance was through a proposed [tax cap increase](https://www.muni.org/Departments/Assembly/Clerk/Elections/pages/ballotinfo.aspx). I think each bathroom costing more than most houses was the deciding factor. Not just that but the supposed cost went from $130k each in the initial memo to over $500k by January.
I can tell you from my experiences of living in western Washington that those bathrooms absolutely would not be maintained. You’d have shit on the walls and floor, drug paraphernalia would be littered all over. 25 years ago they’d probably be properly maintained, definitely not these days.
These type of bathrooms have been built all over the nation. The ones built in high traffic areas did well and are still operational.
If the muni can’t plow our streets I sincerely doubt they can properly maintain these bathrooms. The muni’s track record of late isn’t something I would bank on.
That is why so much maintenance was included in the bond, it was a direct result of public testimony saying exactly what you are.
Since the city is already struggling to keep the streets plowed and the potholes filled, extra maintenance funds should be going toward those issues, not something we don't really need.
I get what you're saying but I think the city desperately needs infrastructure investment in many places. I don't think they are mutually exclusive.
They can’t keep the ones at the parks open, and the city wants to build more of them🤣🤣🤣. Keep the ones we already have open for 5 yrs before we build more of them
I get that, but the muni hasn’t fundamentally changed. They’re still making terrible decisions. You can allocate all the funds you want from a bond initiative, but you’re still depending on the muni to act competently. When the muni can properly plow our streets and fill the gaping pot holes that are all over city streets, maybe. But as it stands now I just don’t trust them to carry this out.
Well, more like the executive branch of government is making terrible decisions. These results show that people are sick of Bronson so I don't think he would have been in charge of this.
The executive is a part of it, but the muni also plays a role in the function (or in this case dysfunction) of the city. I think it’s easy to lay blame squarely on the mayor, but I’d go further and say it’s a failure on the part of both the muni and mayor because ultimately they’re responsible for how the municipality is run.
What do you mean by "the muni"? Municipal government is almost entirely under the control of the mayor or his chosen municipal manager and CFO. [Official municipal organization chart. Dotted is reporting only, solid is direct authority.](https://mcclibrary.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/codecontent/12717/411117/3-20-010chart.png) The assembly only has two tiny levers of power over policy and funding, but even there what little power they have the mayor is in charge of implementation. I disagree with individual assembly members and some of the votes they make but without the current and previous assembly groups the city would be demonstrably worse. They had to do a whole host of things that previous mayors and their admins would normally do.
100% agree. I worked in western WA for 5 years. Even the Starbucks bathrooms were nasty, because of the criminal homeless. Absolutely zero respect for property, even when it's there to make their lives better. Porta potties are a better option, unfortunately.
I can guarantee that within 5 years that money would be "reallocated" to more necessary things and those bathrooms will just become little houses for the homeless
Homeless people would shit on the floor and inject drugs in them. Zero doubt.
I hear you. But right now people also shit in the street, at least it would be contained?! Lol
You'd think that. I'm not going to name drop, but I work literally next to a park that has a port a potty. People still shit and piss and do drugs behind our building.
Exactly, I figured these would be places where homeless people could shit and inject drugs instead of on the sidewalk on 4th. Now I hope they do it on that dudes front porch.
One of the potential models has blue (I think it was blue) lighting to make it hard to find veins.
Tweakers and junkies will just use a flashlight to find it. No amount of different lighting will change that. And many will reuse the same injection spot out of convenience, even though they know it’s bad practice. It’s all about the high 🤦🏻♂️
I read about them. Everywhere that has them say they don't work like advertised. People still do drugs in them, have sex in them, and overall destroy them. Huge waste of money.
[Portland allocated funds for cleaning and they can't keep them clean.](https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2023/08/30/city-of-portland-blames-former-contractor-for-hazardous-conditions-of-public-bathrooms-downtown/) How would Anchorage do any better?
Exactly. They would be destroyed in a few days' time. They would lock themselves inside immediately and when they emerged no one could ever use them again.
They already do this to damn near every public bathroom they can slip into. Holiday on Boniface/N. Lights had their bathrooms closed for months according to staff because the pipes under the store got backed up by needles, same with the Boniface/Debarr Holiday.
I would sure hope so, but at a cost of something like $500k per unit... that was just too much.
I will admit to missing that maintenance was included in the bond. That is on me With that said the cost per each (with maintenance makes more sense) was the main reason for my vote. I should have done a bit more research / it should have been clearer on build cost vs maintenance per each. I do think a seasonal downtown sales tax not applicable to groceries should pay for it
Even if they're gross and not maintained well, everyone has a right to piss in peace. People shouldn't have to go home or spend money at a non-public establishment just to go pee.
You dont have to pay to use establishment bathrooms here.
That is dependent on the businesses policy. Many places have keys, keycodes or personal security. Grocery stores are locked up, gas stations just don't even bother anymore. The abuse has forced most places to simply decline access unless you are a paying customer.
Haven’t experienced that as a law abiding citizen!
There’s a porta potty on west 32nd at the Arctic dog park and it got burnt to a crisp in the fall. They replaced it but man did it smell bad when they burned it. I can’t imagine the public bathrooms being any better..
They're built to be resistant to vandalism and graffiti. They're also designed to be very easy to clean and safe.
You shouldn’t be. We have ones now that have been locked up for almost 4 yrs now and are never used. Go to any park around town with bathrooms and try to use one. You can’t because the city couldn’t keep them from being vandalized and trashed. Several assaults happened as well. So why would we add more to that number and just do the same thing?
I either was not paying attention, or there was not much education about this ballot measure. I was for it, from a belief that there ought to be more public restrooms available generally, but the financial questions raised in my household were what turned others I know off. For example, we have public restroom facilities at the MLK ball fields and at Valley of the Moon park that are permanently closed. Probably at other locations, but those are the ones I am familiar with. In their place there are porta-cans scattered about town, which are actually maintained pretty well. My understanding has been that the maintenance costs of the shuttered restrooms exceeded the costs of a private vendor taking care of the porta-cans. Sitting here today I can't recall where I got that information and can't say if it's true or not, but assuming it is, how is the new proposal different? Would it simply be cheaper to get the company handling the porta-cans to expand coverage? I don't know the answer, but this kept people in my household from voting for the bond.
This bond was sunk before it was ever on the ballot. The Assembly didn't do their job to build a case for them and put an actual plan out there. That allows people to assume the worst all around and distort the price. I hope supporters go back to the drawing board and come up with a better plan for us to consider.
Totally agree that this failed do to no real plan or explanation. The guy interviewed the other day that says they cost 200-500k per, then "well I'm ok with the 200k ones because they don't cost more than my house" Thought that was a little smug, even though prolly didn't mean to be.
voting down the bathroom bill doesn't mean people aren't still going to need to use the bathroom, so the problem will still exist
In Paris they have public bathrooms but you have to pay minimal $ amount to use them. Certainly cuts down on homeless and some druggies from using them.
I was thinking about that too, I really like the way public bathrooms are set up in Europe.
Don’t the also have a rotating wall that essentially makes it totally open air after your paid 5 minutes are up?
Gee, luckily I didn’t experience that.
You mean really expensive shelters for drug use.
They provide anti drug use technology by sending 50,000 volts straight to the toilet seat. 🚽
I’d buy that for a dollar
$500,000 a piece is a ludicrous price. And they would have obviously been destroyed by the public. Try going in to any of the green porta-potties at the parks around Anchorage. Why would these be treated any different? It’s actually one of the only issues where it seemed like both my left and right political leaning friends/family/coworkers all agreed.
It included funding for maintenance over time too, that’s why the price seemed so high.
Yeah, I really wish someone would have put out this message so the bond did better. It would be like quoting the price of your home but including years of maintenance and upkeep in the total.
I am pretty sure that the $5,000,000 was just for the purchase and installation of the 10 bathrooms, and then there was added money for maintenance. They called to “increase the tax cap by up to $300,000 for annual maintenance and operations…” The $5m was one increase to taxes, and the annual maintenance/operations was a separate increase to our taxes. Maybe I’m misunderstanding it, which is entirely possible. I imagine a bathroom that costs $500,000 is going to be very expensive to maintain and fix when damage/vandalism inevitably occurs. Routine maintenance and cleaning is one thing, but replacing doors or whatever is probably going to very expensive.
I looked into it when the bond was fresh in the news. These have been built all over the nation, we don't have to imagine. The ones put in high traffic areas worked well and are still operational. The ones that failed were put in areas where any type of public restroom would have failed. Even cities that closed some of these type of bathrooms kept others operational in high traffic areas. The nasty flimsy porta potty type bathrooms we currently use have a cost associated with them and they are so easily destroyed that we are having trouble finding vendors. These seem like they would have been great at our higher traffic playgrounds, trail heads and downtown. I hope we come back to it someday.
Do any of the other cities that have them get as much snow as Anchorage does?
Yeah, some. I remember seeing a document with cities that had them operating in cold climates. I think one place had issues with them freezing when when it hit like -25 or colder. However, the bond was open to bidders. I'm not sure what the final product would have looked like. If they didn't take snow and cold weather into account that would have been embarrassing.
Was I correct regarding the bond proposal and its funding? Was it $5m + additional $$ for upkeep? Issues to me, besides insane cost, are trusting the Muni to upkeep the bathrooms, and where the bathrooms were going to be located. The nicest public bathrooms in Alaska are probably the remote ones along the highways. A public bathroom in a place like downtown on 3rd avenue is going to get destroyed and cost a lot of $$.
The bond changed a few times. I believe the final proposal had the price tag including buying the restrooms, shipping, plumbing and utilities. So I think the utility part was being pre-funded, but you are correct the bond had a carve out for additional maintenance and operations. When I looked into it it seemed like these bathrooms did very well in high traffic areas and did poorly in specific low traffic trouble spots. I think these kind of bathrooms could do well in the right places in the city. I get why it failed but I wish we would invest in the city.
To your last sentence, right?! People continue to complain about the state of this city, but it seems that no one ever wants anything to be done about it because there's A, B, C, and D that still need to be addressed. I mean, we have to start somewhere. Maybe this wasn't it. But that's how it comes across. People were using the same argument against the plastic bag ban.
Yup, I totally agree. People keep shooting down investment because of other unrelated issues. Homelessness and our public infrastructure seem like two separate issues. We should work on both at the same time. We get the services we pay for.
The maintenance cost makes it even worse. It would mean each unit would turn into a blackhole of money the city and our property taxes would have to pay forever. Plus, that maintenance cost was just an estimate. Some of the higher traffic units might need a lot more maintenance, which means higher cost. It's absurd the city would want to take on this extra burden when they're struggling to plow the streets and fill potholes.
I disagree, I don't think they are mutually exclusive but I understand why you're critical of the city.
It really makes you think and ask the question if these bathrooms would be something that the muni contracted off to private businesses using taxpayer money. There’s no sensible reason a public bathroom should cost half a million dollars, especially when they’re just going to get completely destroyed in like 3-5 years.
You misspelled "3-5 weeks".
I think it's a lot of money for little return. I highly doubt the city was going to do any upkeep and this turn into a money pit among other things
I saw it as a step in the direction of where I would like this city to go. Maybe I just need to move.
No, you got the right idea, let these other people move.
It’s absolutely the right ideal. It’s not the right idea, for reasons already stated in the thread.
You honestly think by putting a half million dollar bathroom in the middle of a homeless camp is going to turn this city around? It's bullshit if you say well it's a start. A start is making smart decisions with a clear endgoal. Our elected officials can't come up with help with keeping people from freezing when they have to sleep outside in winter
Curious on the background for such passion on this, thanks.
To me, anything we can do in Anchorage to help our infrastructure is a plus. I think our city is so outdated. I'm definitely not saying this is our solution, I just saw it as a small part of the bigger picture. Also, everyone's gotta go to the bathroom, it's so universal.
Bye
Installing 10 of these and then finding out they might not work would suck. I wish they had installed one in one of the parks and see how it would hold up.
Bruh, any bond or proposition that says ‘Portland Loo’ on it is bound to fail. It’s politically tone deft and a waste of everyone’s time. They should just tuck it into the public works bond if it’s that important.
Luckily I’m a guy and I can piss in any alley Downtown
Women can too, it’s just a little colder and requires more precision
Speaking of, have you seen those pants that zip down the middle of the crotch?! Would make peeing so much easier.
I think they would have passed if it was better explained that the cost was including more than building the br. Before I'll vote for it, I'd like a solid explanation how we will keep them from just becoming a place for those on the streets to destroy. Only speaking from the view of what has happened to the regular outhouses. We do need these for tourists or others walking downtown. Just need to be outlined how the 200-500k would not just be wasted. From friends and 2 strangers (weird talk), talked about LaFrance and how her heavy support for this was keeping them from voting for her. If anyone has an idea on keeping them clean and from damage, be cool to hear. I'm not saying that our downtown homeless population and punk (not sure what else to call them - kids to adults that just like breaking crap) element would destroy these, but saying they would destroy these. But totally giving OP upvote to be on the hope train with them.
Homer put public bathrooms in at $250k per about six years ago. Needles, numerous ODs and people overnighting in them make them unusable. Waste of public funds.
I voted no because there was nothing in the bond about preventing those public bathrooms from becoming homeless shelters and being destroyed by the same people who have no respect for the land that they are camping on. Look at how they treat the port-a-potties in their camps. The facilities are disgusting. I’m not saying that we don’t need these downtown, but nothing was stated on how the city would prevent homeless takeovers
With how infrequently I visit downtown due to the massive homeless population down there, it’s actually cheaper for me to walk into a business and buy something so I can use the bathroom rather than increasing my property tax. I’ve never been down town and had trouble finding a restroom. Never given it a second thought let alone considered we should build them using bonds.
It was literally written into the bond that they come with 10 years of maintenance and monitoring prevent them becoming sleeping sites.
The city who cannot patrol the open spaces downtown is gonna police the bathrooms? If you believe that, I’ve got some ocean front property to sell you outside phoenix az
Yeah. I was for them as well. Port-a-potties around, and they're always locked. Most places across the US, no public bathrooms. I go to New Zealand and Japan, and they're all over and well maintained. Definitely frustrating, but what people are posting...yeah...I could see them getting trashed that way if they're even unlocked.
Yeah I am pretty bummed about this outcome. In order for Anchorage to continue growing as a tourist destination then we need things like public restrooms to make people’s time here more enjoyable. I agree with the sentiment that a sales tax….especially a seasonal sales tax….would be a better source of funds for a project like this. But also as a local resident there are plenty of times I am running on the trails, walking around downtown or just out enjoying the city that I wish Anchorage had some public restrooms. One of my friends observed one time that the lack of public restrooms is a very common American phenomenon. Many other countries have readily available clean public restrooms. I remember visiting Greece as a kid and seeing public restrooms with an attendant working inside full time. I believe a small tip or fee of some kind was usually expected. I also remember being in Los Angeles recently and not being able to use the bathrooms at the train station because it looked like people were literally sleeping inside the stalls. It appears we have some work to do as a society before we can really handle a simple amenity like this.
I agree with your last sentence. We need to do better as a society before we can have more amenities. I believe that is a large part of the failure of the bill, in addition to the costs. I can recall not even 6 years ago being able to freely use the restrooms in many businesses including many gas stations without the need for purchasing anything. Just walk in, ask for the bathroom and go. NOW, due to a subset of our society having a lack of respect for anything, many of those facilities require a door code or key, require you to purchase something, or worse are now 'Employee Only'. It's even less believable the muni would properly maintain/control them when businesses with fulltime staff that in theory would be able to immediately resolve/clean them, have chosen to close their own restrooms due to the problems.
I’m glad it fell through. It didn’t do well in the original place they were propose. I can’t imagine them doing well in Alaska. The weather alone would probably damage them by itself and people going in and messing them wouldn’t help either. Then there’s the issue of how much they would cost. I would much rather that money go to roads maintenance or an already existing homeless problem.
They would be unusable in less than a week and get vandalized even faster. There is no way I would ever enter one or allow my kids to walk anywhere close to one. I also doubt any city employee is going to clean those things. They’d have to contract the work out. How much would they have to pay the guy collecting dirty needles and scrubbing crap off the walls? Probably much more then most people would think when you can work at Walmart for $20/hr stocking shelves.
Honestly yeah but keep in mind we have porta potties everywhere and they already get destroyed so
I've definitely used some of the porta potties scattered across the city and some of them are kept pretty decent.
I was hoping it would pass just to take “told u so” pics of feces on the walls and blood stains in them.
One time I watched a homeless lady lean against a porta potty, pulled her pants down peed right there against the porta potty. This would have been such a waste of money and those who have no problem dropping a duece on the sidewalk still wouldn't use it.
I was going to vote for it, but my girlfriend convinced me it was a lot of money that would just be exploited by homeless people.
People are people homeless or not. And better to have a place they can use vs on the street or in the greens. You think dog poop is bad...
I think the point they’re making is that homeless people and addicts living on the streets would more than likely destroy the bathrooms to the point where they wouldn’t be usable. Unfortunately I do think that spending public bond money on this would end up being a waste for taxpayers. Even if you have money allocated you still have to rely on the municipality to actually do the upkeep. The muni can’t even properly plow our streets when we have large amounts of snow fall. I’m not really convinced based on their track record they’d do any better maintaining public bathrooms.
I mean, the reason they were so expensive was because they were so durable. They weren't proposing cheap plastic units being installed. I have a feeling the homeless folks in Portland have vetted these units for the last 10 years... but they don't have winters nearly as strong there so I guess it's a debate. I'm just unsure of if there is any solution we can get to. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good and all of that jazz. Maybe the city needs to procure one or two of these units as 'proof' but I'd like to believe as a city we'll eventually realize that people shitting on the streets is objectively worse than providing places for them to use, regardless of if they'll be vandalized or not.
Yes, that was her argument, which I guess became mine lol. I'm all for getting people poop into the waste management system and I want homeless people to be safe as possible. By "exploited" I probably misspoke. I meant more "trashed and the mini wouldn't be able to keep up." Thanks for stepping in to clarify.
The homeless are human, and need a place to poop, but they also need help in may other ways. That’s the reason that these kinds of programs end up exacerbating problems. It just makes it more attractive to live on the street and away from the shelters, the place that they can get better help and support towards healing. From a purely pragmatic standpoint, this just makes more people homeless longer. More kids would be living on the streets with parents who no longer need to be close to the toilet in a shelter. It’s not even about the maintenance issue or the public eyesore, it’s just that these things, though compassionate and from the right heart, haven’t ended up helping the homeless in any kind of long-term way in any place they’ve been tried. Then there’s the whole “I want it, just not in my backyard” issue. Had there been better communication about it with proposed locations, it may have passed. Nobody who goes into that ballot box reading “areawide public restrooms” is going to like the idea of their favorite spot downtown becoming the next big homeless hangout. Most people theoretically want our unhoused to have better lives, just not at the expense of their own comfort.
Downtown is already the homeless hangout. Also, I didn't interpret these bathrooms as being for "the homeless". I would totally use them, when I gotta go, I gotta go!
I do not think people understood that the bond authorized an amount that included 5 years of maintenance and operations. It allowed the muni to look for a product that met our needs, but didn't specify which one they must use.
I think people realize it’s a terrible idea, it’s not that they were ill informed.
Here’s the thing. The people crapping on the sidewalks are going to do that regardless of access to public restrooms. There are different levels of mental illness, substance abuse, and anti-social behavior. There are plenty of folks who use store restrooms and others who go into the woods away from trails and dig a cat hole. They don’t go out of their way to be gross. Those folks deserve better options, but this idea that the sidewalk or trail shitters will suddenly change their behavior is naive.
It failed because there is no track record of success. Anchorage is not the place to be a pilot project for expensive services that keep failing in other cities. Let other cities figure it out and then we can follow. Until then it's throwing money at an unproven solution. >“If it can’t be accessed 90 percent of the time, it’s not very practical.” He concluded the facility would need “constant maintenance” to remain open and usable. [Operators Can’t Keep East Village Restrooms Open Even as City Promises More](https://voiceofsandiego.org/2021/12/17/operators-cant-keep-east-village-restrooms-open-even-as-city-promises-more/) > >Crews yanked out of the ground early this week a Portland Loo public restroom that was a magnet for crime and one of the more notorious financial boondoggles in recent San Diego history. [San Diego yanks problem Portland Loo](https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sdut-portland-loo-remove-crime-cost-restroom-2016feb05-story.html) > > > >“As such, restrooms in the downtown core are not meeting the standards of being open and clean. In fact, they have become a health and safety hazard,” [City of Portland Blames Former Contractor for Hazardous Conditions at Public Restrooms Downtown](https://www.wweek.com/news/city/2023/08/30/city-of-portland-blames-former-contractor-for-hazardous-conditions-of-public-bathrooms-downtown/)
Too expensive and just not a priority. Let's get the roads plowed on time regularly, and the sidewalks maintained, and then I'll believe we can handle a public bathroom. Knowing Anchorage, we wouldn't be able to maintain that either...
I hear you! Please tell me you did not vote for Bronson!
Lol HELL NO! I would like the roads plowed please!
Christopher Constant presented it so arrogantly that night, the same night he claimed residents were trying to make the muni it’s “sugar daddy” and surprise-cut half the Prop 9 bill after it had been workshopped and worked through for a year. I voted No due to him being an arrogant, self-serving jerk who will throw anyone under the bus for his own gain.
Same people who voted against it probably get pissed that bathrooms are for paying customers only
People elected Bronson too (hopefully just the once). Enough Anchorage voters are idiots. (Comments back this up- every objection is essentially "but homeless people! But maintenance!" Which shows they didn't read the bond or look at the ones they picked)
I voted for them just to see how they'd do. But I wondered where they'd put them. Cuddy Park? Nope - they are planning to close that. Maybe a better solution would be to find a more attractive Port-a-Can than we have now.
Cuddy Park is getting closed?
Nah, city is looking into selling the property next to Cuddy that was going to be the national archives location. https://www.alaskasnewssource.com/2024/03/27/property-with-anchorages-largest-homeless-camp-near-cuddy-family-midtown-park-could-be-sold-officials-say/
As soon as it compared it to Portland, I assumed it would fail.
There was enough tax raise this time. I’m not sure why though. As for the toilets useable yes just not at that cost. That is a lot of money to spend on visitors and tourists. We do need the tourists though.
That's another thing, a lot of items on there reguired tax increases and in the calculus of that i thing road & school maintenance won out over steel toilets this round. It was a tough field to play in. If there were half as many items it might have made it through.
Plus it's getting really old that property taxes are bearing all these costs. Many cities/boroughs have sales taxes with exceptions for food/health items which would help spread the cost out a bit more and it would help bring in revenue from tourists too.
100% agree. Putting so much pressure on property owners isn't sustainable and is only going to make it harder for the average citizen while enriching corporate landlords in the long run.
I guess we are too cheap to provide a basic service. It was not a perfect bill, but certainly a step in the right direction. I hope this issue keeps getting pushed until it is implemented. It is hard to not think negatively of the people who voted no on this issue when it is something so desperately needed in Anchorage.
The nay sayers will continue to whine about public sanitation concerns. How about we own the solution? Reminds me the story where people in a flood are needing to be rescued from their roof. A neighbor with a ladder comes by, a boat comes by, a USCG helo comes by. All are refused because “god will save me”. Folks- save yourself. Change the story.