San Francisco Wants To Spend $1.7 Million on a Single Public Toilet
Local officials argue that the eye-popping sum is necessary due to rising construction costs, but experts disagree.

The latest construction project straining San Francisco's city budget? A single-stall public restroom that's expected to cost an eye-popping $1.7 million to build.
Last Wednesday, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that a new, 150-square-foot public restroom in central San Francisco's Noe Valley was expected to cost $1.7 million by its completion in 2025. The story sparked outrage from local citizens and state officials alike who balked at the high price tag. While city officials have attempted to chalk up the price to high construction costs, the shockingly expensive budget estimate for one restroom shows the pitfalls of a city where construction is nigh impossible—and the local government is more than willing to overspend.
How did the $1.7 million figure get estimated? Well, according to San Francisco Assembly member Matt Haney (D–San Francisco), who secured the funding, he went with the figure that the Recreation and Parks Department gave him. "They told me $1.7 million, and I got $1.7 million," Haney told the Chronicle. "I didn't have the option of bringing home less of the bacon when it comes to building a toilet. A half a toilet or a toilet-maybe-someday is not much use to anyone."
But why such a steep price tag on something as simple as a single-stall restroom—especially considering that the plaza on which the restroom will be built already has the necessary plumbing for a bathroom? A statement from the San Francisco Department of Recreation and Parks and the Department of Public Works argued the bathroom's exorbitant price tag is driven by the high cost of construction in San Francisco—the highest in the world—as well as increases in construction costs due to inflation and supply chain issues.
"It's important to note that public projects and their overall cost estimates don't just reflect the price of erecting structures," officials wrote in the statement. "They include planning, drawing, permits, reviews and public outreach." Officials also stressed that their estimate is deliberately high in order to account "for the worst-case scenario due to the onerous demands and unpredictable costs levied by PG&E."
Further, actually building the bathroom will involve a dizzying number of roadblocks, notably "community feedback," to ensure that the bathroom's "design is appropriate to its context in the urban environment." After passing community muster, the design will head to local officials for approval, as well as review under the California Environmental Quality Act. Only then can construction start.
While the city government is convinced that their $1.7-million figure is a reasonable, if deliberately high, estimate for a public restroom, other experts disagree. The San Francisco Chronicle spoke with Tom Hardiman, the executive director of the Modular Building Institute in Charlottesville, Virginia. When asked to guess San Francisco's budget for the bathroom, he told the Chronicle, "I'm going to guess high, I think, and say $200,000." When told the real cost, he replied "What are they making it out of—gold and fine Italian marble? It would be comical if it wasn't so tragically flawed."
While Hardiman told the Chronicle that a prefabricated bathroom would be much cheaper, San Francisco law might stand in the way of a much more sensible option. Why? In 2019, the city supervisors reached a Project Labor Agreement, which required union labor for all "covered projects." According to the Chronicle, Noe Valley's single-stall bathroom shouldn't apply under this agreement "because it's not worth $10 million and it didn't come from bond funding."
However, Haney seems to believe that the bathroom project is constrained by the agreement, thus ruling out cheaper, prefabricated options. The Chronicle reports that "he'd be open to modular bathrooms if they didn't violate the Public Labor Agreement." Unfortunately, even if this bathroom is exempt from the law, mistaken city officials are more than enough to effectively rule out this cheaper option made by non-union labor. Another fact making a prefabricated option less likely: The city of San Francisco is barred from doing business with 30 states, due to anti-abortion, anti-LGBT rights, or "voter suppression" laws.
Governor Gavin Newsom (D) has even waded into the controversy. "A single, small bathroom should not cost $1.7 million," a Newsom spokesperson wrote in a statement to the Chronicle. "The state will hold funding until San Francisco delivers a plan to use this public money more efficiently. If they cannot, we will go back to the legislature to revoke this appropriation." However, Newsom's office hasn't seemed to have had trouble approving such expensive projects before. According to the Chronicle, two other single-stall bathrooms were recently constructed in San Francisco, costing $1.6 and $1.7 million respectively.
The price tag for Noe Valley's single-stall public restroom is outrageous. However, so is San Francisco's needlessly complicated process for approving new construction—and its laws restricting who and where this construction can come from. It simply should not be this complicated to build a public bathroom—or just about anything, for that matter. San Francisco's city government has a long and storied history of erecting bureaucratic roadblocks to new construction—from much-needed apartment buildings to a trash can. Blame for such a ludicrously expensive bathroom should thus primarily lay at the feet of an incompetent, regulation-happy city government.
A $1.7 million toilet is a uniquely San Franciscan tale. It's a story of fiscal irresponsibility, yes, but also a story of government ineptitude—and it shows what can happen when bureaucracy and regulation clouds common sense.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Good idea. Then American Socia1ist will have to dodge slightly less human waste on the way to his favorite $1,000-per-plate restaurant.
#LibertariansFor50Californias
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot (vr-57) of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs
…
Just open the link————————–>>> http://Www.TopCityPay.Com
Not sure what the problem is. California is a rich state. No issues for me.
They spend billions on a new stadium or airport, hundreds of millions on a new school or hospital, millions on a new bridge or road. How much should these things cost? When's the last time you comparison shopped for an airport or a bridge or a hospital? You've got no goddamn idea what this shit should cost so when they tell you it's going to be about 89 Brazilian dollars (and 7 years past the deadline it comes in at 210 Brazilian dollars) you just shrug and accept that that's what it costs,
Most of us have a toilet in our house and we know goddamn well they don't cost 1.7 mil. Our whole fucking house doesn't cost 1.7 mil. Get outta here with that shit.
I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and start making extra cash online by follow instruction
On the given website........>>> Topcitypay
The nuts and bolts of it is the supply lines aren't what they used to be. And the city should bowl over these greedy contractors who are probably in the tank for the Republicans. But there I go waxing poetic again.
The contractors are the last people to make money off of all of this, quite literally. The profit is in consulting and in supplying specialty materials.
The money is in being in charge in San Francisco.
But they need to launder their fair share through others like completely unnecessary consultants or their crackhead children.
That's why Biden is a genius. He combined the crackhead children with the unnecessary consultant. That, right there, is a one stop shop for grift and nepotism.
I think it might also scrub your ass and suck your dick for that price.
The San Francisco special?
Why do they need this San Fran is already the world's largest toilet.
As always, the answer is Amazon:
YITAHOME Portable Sink and Toilet, 17 L Hand Washing Station & 5.3 Gallon Flush Potty, for Outdoor, Camping, RV, Boat, Camper, Travel $232.30, Free PRIME shipping in two days.
(4.3 star rating)
Add another $99.99 for the 'privacy structure', also free delivery.
VINGLI 2 Room Shower Tent, 7.5 FT Instant Pop Up Shelter with Carrying Bag, Privacy Changing Room Tent for Portable Toilet, Easy Setup, Perfecr for Camping, Dressing Outdoor or Indoor.
At this point, you're getting off cheap, San Francisco. Take the deal.
I don't see why they need additional spending when people are already pissing and shitting on the sidewalk for free.
The fact that people are pissing and shitting on the sidewalks, etc., is exactly why more public toilets are needed. But they damn well shouldn't cost $1.7 million each, or even 1/10th of that. #GovernmentGreed is helping to keep the streets dirty.
The story sparked outrage from local citizens and state officials alike who balked at the high price tag.
Oh, and it needs to be said...
You voted for it.
Yeah, but someone else was supposed to pay for it.
I'm pretty confident I can do that job for 1.65 million. Where do I drop off my quote?
Unfortunately, you probably couldn't, legally.
They have regulated themselves into this mess. The bureaucratic hoops and reviews and approvals and comment periods, and labor laws, and diversity guarantees, and everything else associated with what ought to be a simple job, make this impossible.
Yes, but note he didn't say he would, in fact, deliver the goods, he just said he believed that he could. Surely his good intentions are more than enough to be awarded this contract, are they not? /sarc
Is he trans-BIPOC enough to count, though?
As a kid I remember when they build restrooms in the town park. Start to finish it took a week. Including the plumbing. Cinderblock, sure, but don't tell me San Francisco isn't too good for cinderblock.
Even if they weren't, you could triple, quadruple or even quintuple the price of one of those blockhouse restrooms and it wouldn't cost $1.7mm.
Where I live you could build the restroom and an attached 4-bedroom 2500 sq ft home (with 3 more bathrooms of its own) and it wouldn't cost 1.7 million.
Yes, but you’re forgetting the fact that in California the public restroom must be entirely self-cleaning and provide free WiFi and an iPad for browsing whilst one is sitting doing the business. The robotics cost alone … ! $1.7M is cheap. /sarc
It is actually more of the opposite. In SF, anything available to the public, including a porta-potty, becomes the shooting gallery or actual residence for the first “homeless” junkie and friends. Past public toilets had timed automatic fully-revealing door opening features, to try to prevent this use and the prospective bidders probably had to guarantee such could not happen to this one. They also had to be constructed in such a way that they couldn’t be broken into and turned into the mess they would have if not so protected. I don’t know if this is similar, or if the new one has to be snazzyer, because of the neighborhood. Here’s the address of a link to what the ones they have now look like: https://imgs.search.brave.com/5PAsMpXnzeahQOou8JY2AeAZOOYFC3CyiEJm7wKNN7U/rs:fit:1000:901:1/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cu/cGxhbmV0aXplbi5j/b20vZmlsZXMvaW1h/Z2VzL3NodXR0ZXJz/dG9ja18xNzQzOTM3/Ni5qcGc I do
"In SF, anything available to the public, including a porta-potty, becomes the shooting gallery or actual residence for the first 'homeless' junkie and friends."
Yes, because Big Governnment has created a situation where excessive regulations driving up the costs of building anything mean that (1) there's not enough low-cost housing (thus too many homeless people) and (2) there are too few public conveniences.
No mention of the need to deal with drug addicts and prostitutes? Boston's hi-tech public toilets shut down if more than two people enter to keep out prosties - God knows how they deal with fatties. And they clean themselves with high-pressure jets of water - to clean out all the filth one expects in such facilities. And of course, they need workers to watch the thing every day to keep the tech parts working.
My father told me that during the War, when he was in Paris, he saw the outdoor urinals along the sidewalk, where men just stood behind a low wall and let loose in (half)-view of passers-by. It would certainly cost a lot less.
These still exist, and not only in Paris. London has them, Amsterdam, too.
They make perfect sense (but the six pints beforehand probably helps in the decision to use them).
There is zero need to "deal with" (read: waste money trying to keep away) drug addicts and prostitutes. SO WHAT if people use them for having sex or doing drugs! Big whoop. Would you rather have those things happening in public view? It's not hurting anybody. Public facilities are meant for the whole public, not only people who meet some threshold of approval among the "respectable" members of society.
I don’t even want to think of the condition this toilet will be in a few hours after it opens, or what will go on inside. Yes, the sidewalk will be the better option
Ton of dough for something that will end up a shooting gallery.
that's because there's a $1.5m 'Nancy Pelosi' kickback
Not to mention the 10 for the big guy.
J/k, but you probably believe it.
"It's important to note that public projects and their overall cost estimates don't just reflect the price of erecting structures," officials wrote in the statement. "They include planning, drawing, permits, reviews and public outreach."
Also graft, kickbacks, union appeasement contracts, baksheesh, cumshaw, palm greasing, etc.
The excessive spending problem is not just in California. In Raleigh NC a Greenway path paved with asphalt costs $100 per linear foot. The train station costs taxpayers about $50 for each passenger. Millions were just spent ruining a good intersection. Public bodies do a poor job spend other people's money.
Exactly. The solution, of course, is to stop information like this from becoming public. That is the usual reaction from said public bodies.
Here is the perfect example of over regulation driving quality of life, and that is not mentioned once in the article, that Libertarians should be looking for everywhere.
If you charged $5 per use, it would take you 50 years to pay it off, but of course, nobody would use it for $5 a visit.
I could build an equivalent for $50K if not for the needless regulations.
Or, sell you my house which has 5 bathrooms, on over an acre of land where the homeless could camp. Let's talk.
Have a public office dedicated to cost saving purchasing and contracting which is manned by elected officials. Those officials would get a budget, also determined by public vote every 2 years. Then these public officials would be paid according to how much they trim off the budget. If the public is not happy with the performance, they vote in new people and/or a new budget. Any surplus after bonuses, is carried over to next year’s budget.
I am now making extra $19k or more every month from home by doing very simple and easy job online from home. I have received exactly $20845 last month from this home job. Join now this job and start making extra cash online by follow instruction
On the given website........>>> Topcitypay
This is yet another illustration of how California is smoking something when they say there will be no new gas vehicles starting in 2035.
To do so would require a huge increase in the electrical grid capacity. How could anyone hear stories about $1.7M toilets or $110B+ high speed rail to nowhere and think California has the ability or willingness to approve and build the infrastructure they'd need to support two million new electric vehicles each year?
Your point is a good one, but the politicians and bureaucrats who create this mess aren't smoking anything. They are intoxicated on power and greed, which are far more potent.
It's no wonder building things in San Francisco is so expensive! Have you tried picking up a hammer their lately?!?