5 ms·

Why is it so infeasible for government to keep their facilities clean, while Buc-ee's can have sparkling clean facilities and still turn a profit?

lotsofpulp 22d ago
Infeasible for a government would mean it is sufficiently expensive that it is not politically popular to spend that much money on public bathrooms. Also, Buc-ees does not offer free bathrooms in urban, dense areas with higher proportions of mentally ill and drug addicted populations, so that comparison makes no sense.
- CWuestefeld 22d ago
  I used Buc-ee's as an example because they're famous for their clean bathrooms. But there certainly exist clean bathrooms in urban areas. I'd venture to say that those aren't all in high-end establishments that exclude any "riff-raff". It's possible to find clean toilets in urban McDonald's or Wal-Mart; maybe not all of them, but certainly not none either. And regarding expense on public bathrooms: * San Francisco spent $1.7M on a single toilet * Seattle spend $5 installing 5 toilets. * NYC's public restrooms routinely cost $2M-$4M Now, those are building projects rather than ongoing operations. But it shows that governments are willing to spend absurd amounts on toilets. I don't know exactly what the problem is, but there's something about government (mis)management in the issue.
  - lotsofpulp 22d ago
    The problem is a small minority ruining the commons. https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2026/08/vandals-set-fires-in-several-oregon-state-park-restrooms-along-coast.html https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2026/08/vandals-set-fires-i...
    - CWuestefeld 21d ago
      Sure, but why is it that government-run institutions are (we're being told in this thread) uniquely vulnerable to the problem? Why isn't it happening at Buc-ee's or at McDonald's in the same degree?
      - lotsofpulp 20d ago
        Those places are staffed or closed between 10pm and 7am, dissuading vandals: >The vandalism happened between about 10 p.m. on Aug. 21 and 7 a.m. the following day, according to officials. But also, the lack of desire to spend money on staffing government restrooms in the first place.

lotsofpulp 22d ago

Infeasible for a government would mean it is sufficiently expensive that it is not politically popular to spend that much money on public bathrooms. Also, Buc-ees does not offer free bathrooms in urban, dense areas with higher proportions of mentally ill and drug addicted populations, so that comparison makes no sense.

CWuestefeld 22d ago
I used Buc-ee's as an example because they're famous for their clean bathrooms. But there certainly exist clean bathrooms in urban areas. I'd venture to say that those aren't all in high-end establishments that exclude any "riff-raff". It's possible to find clean toilets in urban McDonald's or Wal-Mart; maybe not all of them, but certainly not none either. And regarding expense on public bathrooms: * San Francisco spent $1.7M on a single toilet * Seattle spend $5 installing 5 toilets. * NYC's public restrooms routinely cost $2M-$4M Now, those are building projects rather than ongoing operations. But it shows that governments are willing to spend absurd amounts on toilets. I don't know exactly what the problem is, but there's something about government (mis)management in the issue.
- lotsofpulp 22d ago
  The problem is a small minority ruining the commons. https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2026/08/vandals-set-fires-in-several-oregon-state-park-restrooms-along-coast.html https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2026/08/vandals-set-fires-i...
  - CWuestefeld 21d ago
    Sure, but why is it that government-run institutions are (we're being told in this thread) uniquely vulnerable to the problem? Why isn't it happening at Buc-ee's or at McDonald's in the same degree?
    - lotsofpulp 20d ago
      Those places are staffed or closed between 10pm and 7am, dissuading vandals: >The vandalism happened between about 10 p.m. on Aug. 21 and 7 a.m. the following day, according to officials. But also, the lack of desire to spend money on staffing government restrooms in the first place.