Seattle Press on Line - Mayoral candidates on public toilets

Mayoral candidates on public toilets

Sep 13, 2001 -- Seattle Press: What is your stand on public toilets, including the recent City Council-approved purchase of five free-standing toilets for $6.4 million over 10 years?

Charlie Chong: I agree with incumbent Mayor Schell. Revise the advertising ordinance to follow San Francisco's model and continue to station porta-potties, which are a lot cheaper.

Max Englerius: I believe that we should have public restrooms available for when people are on the road, particularly as many businesses restrict their facilities to only their customers, but I think the operating costs could be decreased substantially by such things as having prisoner trustees doing the maintenance on them.

Bob Hegamin: Providing "public toilets" is a good idea but, as proposed, the current number of toilets, their widely distributed locations, and the associated costs are unacceptable.
I propose that, as a public service, business owners finance far less costly public toilets in their own communities, with the City providing maintenance, security, and insurance for the facilities.

Richard Lee: Yes, I support the long-awaited downtown public toilets, but the decade long delay should be looked at as what Seattle politics is all about in terms of getting the small things done. And yes, I support an exemption in the city ads ordinance so that the millions of dollars for these downtown units can be offset with side-panel advertising, as is done in other cities.

Greg Nickels: We do need public toilets downtown, but I would revisit the price tag for the five freestanding toilets. I favor advertising to offset the cost of the public toilets.

Paul Schell: I support the need for additional clean, safe public toilets. But, especially with a tightening economy, we simply can’t afford to spend $6.4 million for five toilets when there are better ways to fund them. Other cities, including San Francisco, New York and soon Los Angeles, all have public toilets supported by advertising. Seattle needs to show some fiscal restraint and explore these and other less-expensive options before committing the city to such an exorbitant proposition.
To that end, my staff is developing a proposed ordinance that we will deliver to the City Council in September. It will allow the city to get new public toilets at little or no cost through limited advertising. This need not be a long drawn-out process. Nor should we end up with advertising throughout downtown. We will develop a Seattle solution that meets criteria we set and that will allow the city to get far more than just five toilets.
We’re also working on improving the public toilets we do have, exploring increasing servicing and improving signage.
We need public toilets. But there are better ways we can spend $6.4 million than to provide only five of them.

Mark Sidran: I’m pro-toilet. I think it is important that we have more public toilets in Seattle. It is a reflection of Seattle’s passion for process and consensus that Paul Schell and the City Council have been talking about toilets for years without making a decision. Before I’d spend this kind of money on new toilets, I would explore how we could make better use of all the toilets we already own in public buildings. I’d also look at contracting with businesses to make their toilets available to the public in exchange for a maintenance and security subsidy, which should be far less than $100,000 per toilet per year. Finally, if necessary I’d allow advertising to be used to pay for new toilets.

Reader Comments

Discuss this article in the forums!

No comments yet!