Blog

Short blog posts, journal entries, and random thoughts. Topics include a mix of personal and the world at large. 

Pay for poop

Word on the street is Starbucks will cease its open-door restroom policy. To use the restroom in that blessed realm of coffee, you’re (once again) going to need to fork over some money. Of course, Starbucks the private enterprise can do what whatever it likes. The burden of providing (free) restrooms to the public should not fall upon the coffee retailer, no matter how many billions the lefties are going to point out that Starbucks makes annually.

Honestly, kudos to Starbucks for providing this service for the past few years. I can remember seeing a Starbucks in a touristy part of San Francisco completely filled with people awaiting to use the facilities. Better it be a Starbucks restroom than a narrow alleyway.

This once again glaringly highlights the complete lack of public restrooms here in America. A common refrain from my friends in Asia when they travel in the States is difficulty finding a restroom. When I visit major cities in Asia, a public restroom is no more than a few blocks away; clean, stocked, and attended. Here in America, unless you happen to be near a public park, it’s de facto pay for restroom use. Typically, it's the restaurant you’re eating at.

On roadtrips you would buy an energy drink at a gas station in exchange for restroom privileges.

It’s been said the reason we don’t have public restrooms in this country is because the homeless and drug-addicts would constantly takeover and ruin them. I can see this, because we can’t seem to prevent the homeless from defecating on our downtown subway escalators. Heck, even BART station restrooms are constantly out of order (or locked up) due to addicts. Unless this gets solved - and a political will to spend money on a public good - public restrooms are a nice thing that we can’t have.

It’s just not in a our culture, I guess.

Avant garde.

Vote local

Who I vote for to be the President of these United States really doesn’t matter. Not because the California delegates will vote Democrat regardless (all those tech bros voting for Trump is kind of just pissing in the wind), but because whoever is the President doesn’t really affect me much materially. Now, who is going to be the mayor of San Francisco - that’s the most crucial race as it pertains to my life.

Because the citizenry might elect the wrong person, one who turns out to be super tolerant towards homeless camping on sidewalks, and petty theft done by teenagers. It was only a few years ago when we recalled a district attorney who didn’t want to persecute criminals. Imagine that! That’s like firefighters coming to the front of your burning home and just standing there. The fire has rights too, am I right?

The current San Francisco mayor - London Breed - knows it’s an election year so she is stepping up efforts to clear homeless encampments. The Supreme Court of the United States did our city a solid by allowing municipalities to ban people from sleeping in public spaces. Where will the homeless go, you ask? How about your house? If you’re so concerned about their wellbeing, why don’t you give up your resources?

See: it’s easy to virtue signal when you don’t experience any of the downsides. I bet the residents of the Tenderloin district is happy to finally see some enforcement action towards the homeless problem.

The local elections matter tremendously. Act accordingly!

New view.

The RV life of San Francisco

In the surrounding area near the university where I work are a few long boulevards where usually students park their cars. In recent years, a tiny armada of RVs have popped up, establishing semi-permanent residence on those same streets, only moving during days of street cleaning on a particular side. Personally I take the bus to work so I’m not antagonistic towards these RVs folks taking up precious parking space with their overly lengthy vehicles; though I’m slightly curious what students have to say about these people setting up de-facto homes on the side of the road.

That said, I’m definitely not amongst the camp of people wishing these RV campers to go away and find home in appropriate trailer lots, rather than squatting on public streets. I’m innately familiar with how batshit insane housing costs are in the San Francisco Bay Area; if I didn’t live at home with my parents (thank god for being Asian so this isn’t frowned upon culturally), there’d be no freaking possibility I can reasonably afford to rent a quaint place, much less buying a house here. The people in the RVs face the same difficulties, and these essentially mobile homes costing magnitudes less are their only option to continue on living and working in the city.

The present housing situation is such that either you have to already own a home for years ago, or make enough (read: a lot) money to comfortable rent or buy. The rest of us have to get by some way somehow.

Honestly, as long as these people in the RVs are not disturbing the public or making a mess (and I haven’t noticed or read anything that they were), I don’t see any issues with them setting up shop on these long boulevards. These behemoths can’t fit in a typical residential street parking space anyways, so the RVs are relatively separated and contained. It is all a bit unsightly? Yes, but the situation in San Francisco is that desperate. Sadly, the city is clamping down on these so called vagrants: most long streets with ample length already have signage forbidding large vehicle parking from midnight to 6 AM. I’m afraid the two near our university will see the same fate sooner or later.

And it would indeed be a tragedy; this entire housing situation is. San Francisco is turning into Monte Carlo, a place for the rich and already have. Starting a family here with a middle-class income is at the moment not a reality. I remain positive for the future, though that’s likely just stubbornness in holding on to the slim hope that I will be able to remain living in the city I grew up in for decades to come.

Sunset glow.