Seattle Press on Line - City Council candidates on public toilets

City Council 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?

Position 2

(incumbent, Richard Conlin)

Dakotta JK Alex: I think it's a great idea. Judy Nicastro pointed out the toilets come out to a nominal fee a day (about the same as the wage for an employee) but this is also more efficient and sanitary. I would also promote "positive" advertising on it to help with the costs.

James Egan: The toilets cost $128,000 per year each. One question I have is whether a private non-profit organization, which employs low-income persons to do "day labor," couldn't be contracted for less than that amount to keep the toilets clean? If regular stand-up toilets cost, say $30,000 each, and the cost of hiring a person 16 hours per day (at $8/hour) each day adds up to $46,592 [in] annual expenses, it seems it might be cheaper just to have the toilets maintained by local service groups. Although this would involve another step [rather] than a knee-jerk self-cleaning toilet response, it is actually cheaper and benefits people such as low income day laborers.
Alternatively, regular public toilets could be maintained by persons currently incarcerated in the King County jail. There is a tremendous workforce within the jail that the public has not been taking advantage of, and aiding to become working class, productive citizens. That should change.

Michael Preston: When these public toilets were approved one council member called it a social justice issue. It seems to me that this amount of public funds could have better been used to place video cameras in all police cars in the City of Seattle. We need to increase trust and decrease fear between the police and the community. As a council member I would have attempted to get toilets that could have been cheaper and would be maintained by unemployed homeless people. To provide jobs for unemployed street people is a social justice issue.

Position 4

(incumbent, Jan Drago

Jan Drago: I believe that it is a basic responsibility of the City to provide public toilets. They should be provided in each business district that requests them. As a small business owner I began working for public restrooms 15 years ago and I’m leading the current effort. The first five restrooms will cost drainage ratepayers $1.70 per year. That money could not be used for more police or homeless shelters. The Council will revisit the advertising alternative for more restrooms and consider the legal and policy issues.

Curt Firestone: I approve of public restrooms. I think we need them in every commercial area of Seattle and we must have signage so that people can locate them. The restrooms should be built in accord with the architecture of the neighborhood. And I believe that we must be able to change our outdoor advertising ordinances to allow for payment. If stadiums can have corporate names, restrooms can have advertising. Seattle should build every new public building with public restrooms having their own outside entrance; open before and after work hours and on the weekends.

Susan Harmon: I think public toilets are a sign of a civilized society and have always thought them a good idea. However, I would have liked the council to have taken Nick Licata's advice to wait one week to open the process to include other bidders. I did not understand why the sudden rush to spend more than might be necessary when the need for public toilets has been long-standing.

Position 8

(incumbent, Richard McIver)

Grant Cogswell: Considering that the city planned to build toilets in 1995 and we have had Honey Buckets in our neighborhoods for the six years since, and that public toilets make public space friendlier, I think in the veto of the toilets the Mayor is being penny-wise and pound-foolish.

Stan Lippmann: For $6.4 million we can [and] should build and man a public bath under Pioneer Square or Occidental Park.

Richard McIver: I voted against the high-tech potties, believing that we have other more pressing priorities, including transportation. While there is little question of the need for additional restroom facilities, these are simply too expensive. I also question whether five of these high-tech potties will have any significant impact on the problem. It is hard to imagine that those currently using alleys and doorways to relieve themselves are going to walk blocks, if not miles, to use one of these new toilets.

Heath Merriwether: I think after five years of arguing over the need, it’s time to move forward with the toilets. I agree the cost is of concern, but I believe we should move forward with them while looking at ways to amend the ordinance to allow limited advertisements to supplement the cost.

Jerome Wilson: We need public toilets all over the city, and we need more than five. The price tag bothers me. I'd explore opening up the ban on advertising downtown—even though the City Attorney's office is afraid of lawsuits that might follow—to help mitigate the costs.

Reader Comments

Discuss this article in the forums!

No comments yet!