Residents of San Francisco’s Noe Valley recently celebrated the opening of a public toilet that had become infamous for its projected cost of $1.7 million. The funding had been secured by Assemblyman Matt Haney, but the backlash from the public and Governor Gavin Newsom led to the money being clawed back and the party being canceled. The city’s Recreation and Parks Department general manager, Phil Ginsburg, responded angrily to Haney’s criticism, explaining the lengthy and expensive process required for public construction projects and pointing out that Haney, as an elected official, bore responsibility for the costs.
The process for planning and designing the public toilet involved community engagement, refining the design based on feedback, soliciting bids from contractors, obtaining approvals from multiple agencies and stakeholders, and construction. Ginsburg suggested policy changes to streamline the process, such as rewriting building codes, eliminating multiagency approvals, and lifting boycotts on certain states, all of which could save time and money. The city now estimates that the Noe toilet only cost around $200,000, highlighting the potential for cost savings through different choices in the construction process.
The installation of the public toilet in Noe Valley was made possible through a donation of a modular toilet by a company in Nevada and labor provided by a company in Pennsylvania, further emphasizing the high costs associated with traditional construction methods. Despite the relatively low cost of the restroom and quick installation time, the bureaucratic procedures and permissions took about a year to navigate. Mayor London Breed proposed modest reforms to ensure similar debacles do not occur in the future, including allowing city agencies to jointly purchase construction services and goods for smaller projects and removing certain review requirements.
The issues faced by San Francisco in constructing a public toilet are not unique to the city, but rather reflect broader challenges in construction and regulation across the country. Regulation is often put in place to prevent negative outcomes rather than facilitate positive ones, leading to lengthy and costly processes in public works projects. There is a need for individuals willing to stand up against nonsensical legislation and remove barriers that hinder progress. While San Francisco’s situation may seem extreme, many other cities face similar challenges in navigating complex regulatory processes and bureaucratic hurdles.
Ginsburg’s assertion that restroom building costs are consistent with inflationary pressures on San Francisco public works projects highlights the larger systemic issues at play. Despite efforts to implement reforms, such as those proposed by Mayor Breed, the fundamental challenges in public construction processes remain. Cities like New York also grapple with expensive public toilet installations, signaling a need for comprehensive and systemic changes to streamline regulatory processes and reduce costs in public works projects nationwide.
