Downtown task force backs modified urinals plan

The Downtown Night Life Task Force has approved a modified plan for public urinals in the downtown core.

The new plan -- the details of which will remain largely under wraps until it is presented to the emergency services, community services and operations committee July 20 -- would see the units installed downtown on a more permanent basis instead of just during the bar-crowd times previously envisioned.

They would also be of a different design than the garden-shed style earlier proposed.

We'll have more in the paper tomorrow.

Comments

[Edward Pickersgill]

Would this whole thing count as an example of trickle down economics?

[Grunt]

Edward:In addition to the urine that would "...trickle down..." the cost of maintenance would also "...trickle down..." to the City's budget.More reasons for the hiring of additional staff which is already at an historical high.If facility(ies) are to be permanent,who'll be paying for the building permits, infrastructure requirements(water and wastewater),decontamination,handwashing items,etc?Will there be a "user-pay" system in place to defray costs(i.e.,pee-for-a-price)or,perhaps there will be leased advertising space on the structure(s)?Will facility(ies) be available to all genders?

[kheimbuch]

And again, all this to cater to the problems caused by a small minority of businesses - a handful of bars. The 'pissoirs" are merely addressing symptoms of the problems in the core.

I think that cleaning up the downtown core and taking it in a new direction should be a pending municipal election issue. Why should the taxpayers of Guelph have to pay for this, especially in these economic times?

[D C]

Some Mayors give us beautiful parks. Others open wonderful theaters and museums.

Farbridge will forever be known as the Mayor who brought us pissoirs.

Rather embarrassing. Or, at least it should be. John Galt must be rolling over in his grave.

Congratulations, Karen. An excellent demonstration of leadership.

[Harry]

D.C.
An excellent point but don't expect the residents of Guelph to understand and support your point.

Case in point: Former Mayor Counsel brought us the River Run Centre for the Performing Arts. He also donated generously to the fund-raising for this city jewel. Some Bone-heads in Guelph claimed that this constituted "Conlict of Interest" and attacked the Mayor's integrity --and the brilliant voters of Guelph rewarded him by voting him out of Office. So much for beautiful parks and theaters. Were the detractors the genisis of the Civic Leak?

However a pissoir is a thing of essential beauty(to some - mainly weekend party types) and now the Downtown Board is going to redesign the pissoirs for modesty panels and dual use and more, as well as going after the City to pay its share - i.e. - most of the capital costs and all of the operating costs.
Caveat:- Does anyone recall the Royal City Park public washrooms and the embarrasment arising from the "innovative use" of those facilities? Maybe our beloved city historians could refresh our memories about the tragic events that led to the removal of those facilities?

With all this nonsense, the downtown is planned to have more residential infill! Just who do the powers at City hall think will rush to live in this jungle?

[D C]

I completely agree, Harry. Joe Young campaigned against Counsell's "costly" River Run Theater and was elected. Then he took office, promptly changed his mind and bathed in the glory of its Grand Opening. That Counsell is not popularly credited with the Theater that he created is perhaps one of the sadder moments in this city's journey.

But, that's politics. And the pissoirs are an issue of common sense, or lack thereof.

I do hope that Mayor Farbridge and the entire City Council hold a magnificent press conference to demonstrate their wonderful decision-making prowess and to show the world how progressive Guelph is. One day, our grandchildren will wonder "You mean there was a day when you couldn't just pee in the streets, Grandpa?"

[Rashid]

I am a 35 year old university grad. I do not belong to a gang nor would I consider myself a hooligan.

Two weeks ago, my wife and I went Downtown to celebrate our 10th wedding anniversary. After dinner we decided to go dancing till the wee hours.

We left the bar shortly before 2am and grabbed a quick bite to eat. Then the cab search began.

After waiting for 45 minutes for the all too few taxis, my ability to hold my bladder was being severely tested.

I asked a police officer for directions to a public washroom. He stated that there were none available.

What is a reasonable person suppose to do in this situation?

[Lisa]

Frankly, I really don't want to see a bunch of drunken men peeing in public. I get, they are peeing in public anyhow and this is a way to direct their flow, but could the urinals be made just a tad more private? Couldn't they set up a fully enclosed facility similar to the ones that have popped up around Calgary? Also, women need to use the facility too and no one wants to see women peeing in public either. A fully enclosed facility would allow for uni-sex use. Get with the program city of Guelph and take a look at Calgary's "clean-up" initiative. I have documented the public washroom facility they have set up if anyone wants to see the photos. The facility has a self-cleaning toilet seat that withdraws itself for cleaning after every use, the facility is completely sensor operated and even plays elevator style music for the person doing their duty. We don't need anything that fancy, but private it should be!

[Harry]

Right on Lisa.
Why are females completely ignored by the "problem solvers". Lets solve the total problem, not just the cheap, quick and Very dirty male problem. Public washrooms are needed downtown, and they must satisfy the three "S''s - Safe, secure, and sanitary

As for Rashid, maybe he should have gone
p-p before he left the place where he was patronizing.
If his bladder got full and he could not hold it, maybe he has TB - Tiny Bladder!
No sympathy here.

[Scott]

Lisa,
One of the key factors in Guelph's efforts so far was that the units' users be visible to police to prevent illegal activity from going on, hence the refusal to install port-a-potties.
But the "female issue" will be an interesting one. When the city was talking about a pilot project they said having the units accessible only to men was justified since it was only going to be a few weeks to see whether they get used, and if so they would look for an option that included women as well.
Now that the task force seems to be recommending permanent facilities, look for renewed pressure to make them unisex.
Should be another interesting discussion at the ECO committee meeting on the 20th.

[kheimbuch]

Let me get this straight. The police stipulate that "the units users be visible to police to prevent illegal activity from going on".

So, The whole decision on the design of the urinals (and their privacy) is up to the police then, just so the police can be able to watch people urinate?? Am I the only one who finds this a tad creepy?

I really do not believe that the police (or the State for that matter) should not be able to dictate whether or not law abiding citizens should have the right to privacy when going to the washroom.

[Shorty]

Scott:
Security cameras were used at Royal City park to determine "illegal" activity amongst consenting males.
Even this level of privacy invasion is disconcerting, but it is a lot more acceptable than having the whole world, police included, having the opportunity to observe anyone's aim.
The solution cannot be for just one sex(males). It is time for the City to belly up to the Urinal and put in downtown public facilities for women too.
I am shocked, that other than Lisa, not one other woman has raised any concerns. With 9 females on Council, you would think that this discrimination would not be tolerated.
I love this "tempest in a p-pot".

[D C]

Having been challenged by drunk, "manly" bar-goers simply for having mistakenly chosen to drive home through downtown at the wrong hour, I cannot even begin to imagine what adolescent games will arise from encouraging young, drunk men to haul out their goods in public.

I wonder if police will be laying charges of indecent exposure when patrons are a little slow in zipping up afterward ... or worse.

I certainly do not envy officers themselves for having to deal with all of the new problems that will flow (hehe) from this mess ... although the Chief's insensitive comments re: women a few weeks ago makes one wonder how the police will react to all of this.

It just all seems so high school.

[Lulu]

I'm with Lisa...WHY aren't the women being considered in this "solution"? Don't they pee too? (Don't use the "they go before they leave" argument unless you want it thrown back at the men as a case against the pissoirs!)

A cloverleaf designated for each sex, with C-shaped swinging (& locking) doors that will fold into the opposite urinal for storage but will cover only the middle of the person for modesty, and a urinal with a lower, and more lily-shaped rounded hole, would suffice for BOTH sexes. Gender-designated urinals would even work. EVEN pissoirs with free disposable funnels for women would work, especially if their taxes are helping pay for these things.

Abigail Adams once wrote to her husband, "Please don't forget the ladies"... I hate to think that hundreds of years later, people are STILL forgetting us! WTH??!?!

[Ruth]

Surely in this day and age, it is sex discrimination to exclude facilities for women.

[P.L.]

Don't worry. The City has opted to provide facilities for NEITHER sex.

(for the time being at least)

[D C]

So, how much did this silly idea cost us?

And when will the city finally accept the fact that it is incurring a tremendous amount of expense (policing, cleaning, etc.) as a direct result of a select few very selfish and irresponsible bar owners. And then actually begin to charge those directly responsible for the problem for the costs of dealing with the problem.

If the City can go to court with SUBBOR and Urbacon, then it can go to court with the bar owners. Enough is enough.

We read of these massive revenue shortfalls and pending service and facility cuts but nobody at City Hall seems to have the fortitude to go after the bar owners.

It's pathetic to think that bus routes and community centers will be cut in order to continue to appease these selfish bar owners who have been ruining the downtown for years.

[Edward Pickersgill]

My understanding is that almost all of the downtown bars are owned by one operator so perhaps the word "few" is misleading.

[kheimbuch]

D.C. - I suspect a big reason the city is loathe to put pressure on the bar owners to clean up their act and be more socially responsible is that if they did this, the bar owners would be incentivized to move elsewhere in the city. If this happened and we had bars spread across the city, then the police services would start to argue that their job would become more costly and less safe in terms of response times etc... And then there is the money generated in tax revenues from the bars - city officals will criticize them for the problems they cause, but haven't found another viable profit model for large commercial spaces when they become vacant.

I agree with you, the downtown is in a sad state and now with the proposed free parking looming core merchants will have it even harder; in the night they get their windows smashed by drunks, and in the day, fewer shoppers because of the increased cost of parking.

And this isn't off-topic of public urinals either, as they are an example of people mistaking symptoms for the disease; thin out the amount of bars and barely-drinking-age drunks in the core and the issue of public urination becomes a non-sequitur.

[j dimontino]

The bar owners should "clean up their act and be more socially responsible?" I would also suggest that goof-ball patrons who are perfectly capable of relieving themselves in a washroom, yet continue to foul the streets/sidewalks should be the ones to clean up their act and be more socially responsible!

[kheimbuch]

@j dimontino - the bar owners close off w.c facilities at last call before a lot of their patrons have a chance to use them at closing time, patrons who in most cases, have been served well over the legal limits. That's the kind of social responsibility I am talking about. Bob Bell addressed exactly this point this past summer:
http://news.therecord.com/article/552981

@Edward: yes, it is one person who owns the majority of bars. To my knowledge this person isn't even a resident of the city. They serve on the "downtown nightlife task force" and "downtown business assoc" of a few cities where they own similar venues.

[j dimontino]

kheimbuch, I understand that bar owners have a responsibility, but so does the individual customer - I believe, even more so.
"...patrons who in most cases, have been served well over the legal limit." Really? I'm certainly not excusing the bars from shirking their responsibilities as licensed servers, but people must be held accountable for their own actions. I know, dealing with alcohol service issues and concerns is never easy, regardless of which side of the bar you're on.
I'm curious about "one person who owns the majority of bars." Does anyone know (factually) what the percentage is?

[Scott]

One company, CMG Entertainment, owns six bars downtown including The Palace, Trapper's Alley, The Underground, Bobby O'Brien's, McCabe's and Cowboys.
Their website is www.partytown.ca

[j dimontino]

Thanks Scott. I don't mean to flog a horse here, but based on some previous posts, I'm just looking at a bit of clarification: so, is that "one person" that owns a "majority" of bars downtown?

[Bill Hulet]

I heard a rumour that the one person who owns most of the bars downtown got his start in Guelph because he had a bar in downtown Kitchener was making life miserable for everyone there and the only solution that the Council there could come up with was to buy him out. The rumour says that he used that money to start buying bars in downtown Guelph.

Scott, would you know if this is true or just an "urban legend"?

[kheimbuch]

@Bill: that 'one person' is still also on the "Downtown Kitchener BIA":
http://www.kitchenerdowntown.com/contact

Implicit in the post is the question (which I think D.C. and others also alluded to): do bar owners have a disproportionate amount of influence and legitimacy over other business interests in downtown Guelph?
(the amount of human resources into the 'pissoir' issue comes across as reinforcing that perception)