From the Oct.11 Victoria News
City takes aim at urination
Don Denton/Victoria News
By Brennan Clarke
Victoria News
Oct 11 2006
Drunken bar patrons eyed as major part of problem
Pop-up toilets, open-air urinal "trees," and automated public toilets dubbed APTs are some of the solutions Victoria city council is looking at the stem the flow of public urination in the city's downtown core.
The devices were identified in a comprehensive report from downtown community development co-ordinator Mike Hill discussed at Thursday's committee-of-the-whole meeting.
Noting that "the provision of public washroom facilities is a global issue," the report cited a lack of public washrooms as a major contributing factor to widespread public urination.
"Pop-up toilets have received a lot of media coverage, but that's only one possibility in addressing public urination," Hill said.
The Pop-up toilet, under the trade name Urilift, are used in a growing number of European cities. The devices can be raised for use during peak hours, then lowered into a cylindrical hole when not in use.
Self-cleaning APTs common in Europe, as well as North American locales such as Seattle and San Francisco, are pricey and attract social problems such as drug-use, vandalism, prostitution and theft of bathroom supplies and fixtures.
The report was the result of close to two years of study, spearheaded by Coun. Charlayne Thornton-Joe, council's downtown liaison.
"I have a lot of tolerance for someone that's homeless, senior or a person who has a health problem," said Thornton-Joe, who toured public washrooms in a number of other cities as part of the initiative.
"I do think it's a right and not a privilege to have access to urinals."
Public washrooms in the Bay Centre are heavily used, but not open after hours. About one-third of tourists surveyed reported difficulty finding a washroom to use downtown.
However, the report found that beer-filled bar patrons are as much to blame as homeless people.
Police can issue tickets for public urination, but those are seldom paid, said Thornton-Joe, adding that moves the city makes must be accompanied by a public education campaign.
"It very frustrating the amount of people that just don't even consider the consequences," Thornton-Joe said, recalling instances of Porsche-driving businessmen and ladies "dressed to the nines" relieving themselves on buildings and in alleyways.
Downtown merchants frequently arrive at work to find one or more people have relieved themselves in the doorway of their business, she added.
Hill said the city plans to install a couple of urine trees in Bastion Square, a regular target of peeing pub patrons.
Coun. Dean Fortin called for a beer tax to help cover the cost of public urinals, an idea that Lowe later rejected as too complicated.
In mid-July, Victoria re-opened the city's only full-time public washroom and stationed commissionaires outside round the clock.
The move has reduced the amount of urination in the stairwell of the city hall parkade and attracted up to 225 user a day.
Sixty-five per cent of those are members of the general public, 20 per cent were deemed to be homeless people and 10 per cent were people "who had been drinking alcohol."
Outside the meeting, Mayor Alan Lowe said the cost of staffing the Centennial Square washroom over a one-year period will be $180,000.
Thornton-Joe said that expense is "well worth the dollars."
Coun. Sonya Chandler said proper bathroom facilities fall into the category of basic amenities that every city should provide.
"I think of it as just part of being a people-friendly community," she said.
"There are several opportunities here for personal dignity."
Ok, I need help understanding this: if there are 225 users of the Centennial Square WCs per day (and from the article, note it says "up to" that number, meaning that there are many days when there are fewer users), that comes to a high of 82,125 users per year. Then the article quotes Mayor Lowe as stating that it will cost $180K to staff that WC for one year (i.e., staff only costs, meaning that there are additional infrastructure/ maintenance costs). But factoring only the staffing costs, this means that it costs tax payers ~$2.20 per whizz. Am I the only one who thinks this is beyond the pale?
I wonder how much revenue could be generated by fining those who urinate illegally on the street -- i.e., enforcing the existing bylaws against public urination?
:?