• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

So, racism by Starbucks or just two guys who wouldn't buy a cup of coffee?

GAJ said:
Looks like they go their payday.

And now S'bucks bathrooms in urban areas will be something to avoid based on my personal experience with our downtown restaurant many moons ago.

"Nelson and Robinson settled with Starbucks earlier this month for an undisclosed sum and an offer of a free college education."

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/8317417-181/starbucks-changes-bathroom-policy-following
Click to expand...

Yeah, well don't have people arrested for no fucking reason in your place of business and you can avoid these kinds of things.
 
Starbucks will have to renovate their bathrooms to sloped concrete floor with a drain in the center with stainless steel toilets and a firehose just outside for washing it down.
 
GAJ said:
Looks like they go their payday.

And now S'bucks bathrooms in urban areas will be something to avoid based on my personal experience with our downtown restaurant many moons ago.

"Nelson and Robinson settled with Starbucks earlier this month for an undisclosed sum and an offer of a free college education."

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/8317417-181/starbucks-changes-bathroom-policy-following
Click to expand...

I agree with you GAJ that the bathrooms will (could? Might?) be more dirty, but this whole story may be a consequence of many, BIG, societal factors.
 
Last edited:
GAJ said:
Looks like they go their payday.

And now S'bucks bathrooms in urban areas will be something to avoid based on my personal experience with our downtown restaurant many moons ago.

"Nelson and Robinson settled with Starbucks earlier this month for an undisclosed sum and an offer of a free college education."

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/8317417-181/starbucks-changes-bathroom-policy-following
Click to expand...

Settlement was inevitable. They would have won the case easily, but it would have cost them more in negative press alone by far.
 
ScarySpikes said:
Settlement was inevitable. They would have won the case easily, but it would have cost them more in negative press alone by far.
Click to expand...

No question.

The ex manager was likely paid to keep quiet going forward is my guess.
 
AbsolutEnduser said:
I agree with you GAJ that the bathrooms will (could? Might?) be more dirty, but this whole story may be a consequence of many, BIG, societal factors.
Click to expand...

It's not an easy issue. There are restaurants in Oakland close to homeless locations that close their bathrooms to non customers and have every right to. A steady stream of homeless and filthy bathrooms is a business killer. And having lived in areas with large homeless populations, I am well aware of just how filthy the bathrooms become.

Right now there's a huge problem in Big Sur. There are no public toilets for most of highway one, and in Big Sur only at the state park. There are also tens of thousands of tourists coming down every day ( in high season) and pissing and shitting everywhere. Many of the businesses are on septic systems and do NOT have the capacity to service that load on a daily basis, and they put up signs. If they were forced to open their bathrooms to the public, it would be very injurious.
 
afm199 said:
It's not an easy issue. There are restaurants in Oakland close to homeless locations that close their bathrooms to non customers and have every right to. A steady stream of homeless and filthy bathrooms is a business killer. And having lived in areas with large homeless populations, I am well aware of just how filthy the bathrooms become.

Right now there's a huge problem in Big Sur. There are no public toilets for most of highway one, and in Big Sur only at the state park. There are also tens of thousands of tourists coming down every day ( in high season) and pissing and shitting everywhere. Many of the businesses are on septic systems and do NOT have the capacity to service that load on a daily basis, and they put up signs. If they were forced to open their bathrooms to the public, it would be very injurious.
Click to expand...

Its confounding that towns which depend on tourist dollars struggle with basic public restroom services. Santa Cruz has a huge problem with this as well. Piss poor local government is where I tend to point most of the blame.
 
afm199 said:
It's not an easy issue. There are restaurants in Oakland close to homeless locations that close their bathrooms to non customers and have every right to. A steady stream of homeless and filthy bathrooms is a business killer. And having lived in areas with large homeless populations, I am well aware of just how filthy the bathrooms become.

Right now there's a huge problem in Big Sur. There are no public toilets for most of highway one, and in Big Sur only at the state park. There are also tens of thousands of tourists coming down every day ( in high season) and pissing and shitting everywhere. Many of the businesses are on septic systems and do NOT have the capacity to service that load on a daily basis, and they put up signs. If they were forced to open their bathrooms to the public, it would be very injurious.
Click to expand...
Sounds like piss poor planning on the part of the zoning commission or whoever in the government is supposed to assure that an area can handle the traffic and other things associated with people traversing an area.
 
Mike95060 said:
Its confounding that towns which depend on tourist dollars struggle with basic public restroom services. Santa Cruz has a huge problem with this as well. Piss poor local government is where I tend to point most of the blame.
Click to expand...

What local government? Big Sur is not incorporated. The "town" probably has 100 residents, with another 400-600 along forty miles of coast.

There's no tax base for public restrooms. There's no county money for public toilets, which residents have been asking for for many years. I was involved in that decades ago. There are a couple businesses there that are high end, Posts and Nepenthe, but they can't (or won't) carry the burden of paying tax dollars to give tourists (none of whom go there) a place to piss. It's a semi wild area. A well set up highway would have at least five public places along the coast, with signs. It is not ever realistic to expect county to fund it. Most of the tourists pass through without patronizing local business.
 
Climber said:
Sounds like piss poor planning on the part of the zoning commission or whoever in the government is supposed to assure that an area can handle the traffic and other things associated with people traversing an area.
Click to expand...

What zoning commission? That's the job of the state California Coastal Commission. Neither county nor city can legislate the highway (one, which is also the longest highway in CA.)

But guess what, the Ca Coastal Commission can't make anyone build anything. The only authority who can do that on Highway one is Caltrans.

Simply put, the Highway has been there close to 100 years, and when it went in, traffic wasn't a problem. When I lived there, in the winter there might be three cars a day that you heard on the highway. Often you knew who they belonged to by the sound.

Today it's bumper to bumper 30 mph year round most of the time.

In other word, it's a burgeoning population placing demands on infrastructure never designed for it. Sound familiar? :laughing
 
afm199 said:
What local government? Big Sur is not incorporated. The "town" probably has 100 residents, with another 400-600 along forty miles of coast.
.
Click to expand...

Well then,
This looks to me like a good example of poor organization by choice, in the middle of a state with organized government and organized stream of people going back and forth.
 
afm199 said:
What zoning commission? That's the job of the state California Coastal Commission. Neither county nor city can legislate the highway (one, which is also the longest highway in CA.)

But guess what, the Ca Coastal Commission can't make anyone build anything. The only authority who can do that on Highway one is Caltrans.

Simply put, the Highway has been there close to 100 years, and when it went in, traffic wasn't a problem. When I lived there, in the winter there might be three cars a day that you heard on the highway. Often you knew who they belonged to by the sound.

Today it's bumper to bumper 30 mph year round most of the time.

In other word, it's a burgeoning population placing demands on infrastructure never designed for it. Sound familiar? :laughing
Click to expand...
Instead, we have a governor looking around to spend $10's of Billions on a HSR that nobody wants instead of solving real problems.

Look, my point in the last post is that the whole point of government is to solve (or prevent) issues like this, that's why they take in all of the $$$$ from our taxes.

It's really not rocket science, it's just putting the pieces together in a macro/micro scale so that the state runs the way it is supposed to with the amount of $$$$ put into running it. When that breaks down then it's a clear sign that we have a fucked up government run and populated by people who aren't doing their job properly.
 
afm199 said:
What zoning commission? That's the job of the state California Coastal Commission. Neither county nor city can legislate the highway (one, which is also the longest highway in CA.)

But guess what, the Ca Coastal Commission can't make anyone build anything. The only authority who can do that on Highway one is Caltrans.

Simply put, the Highway has been there close to 100 years, and when it went in, traffic wasn't a problem. When I lived there, in the winter there might be three cars a day that you heard on the highway. Often you knew who they belonged to by the sound.

Today it's bumper to bumper 30 mph year round most of the time.

In other word, it's a burgeoning population placing demands on infrastructure never designed for it. Sound familiar? :laughing
Click to expand...
and of course, the Coastal Commission's general opinion is that nothing should ever be built
 
aminalmutha said:
Charge $20 for out of state dickheads to use the road.
Click to expand...

Spoken of, but very hard to do. And Californians are probably most of the tourists. It's the Yosemite problem. Too many people not enough facility.
 
Climber said:
Instead, we have a governor looking around to spend $10's of Billions on a HSR that nobody wants instead of solving real problems.

Look, my point in the last post is that the whole point of government is to solve (or prevent) issues like this, that's why they take in all of the $$$$ from our taxes.

It's really not rocket science, it's just putting the pieces together in a macro/micro scale so that the state runs the way it is supposed to with the amount of $$$$ put into running it. When that breaks down then it's a clear sign that we have a fucked up government run and populated by people who aren't doing their job properly.
Click to expand...



Heard all the time as if the government and the residents of the state are two independant things and one does not have the power to do anything about it.

If you create the conditions where the citizens are beholden to the government for nearly everything then expecting anything to change doesn't make one bit of sense.

Want something? You got it. Want more? No problem, here it is, we'll just take the money from this and put it over there so you can have what you want. Another program? No sweat. Oh, there are already programs that do that? Hey, whats one more, here you go.

All you have to do is look at Seattle. Its SF all over again and all of California is becoming more and more like SF all the time as well.

The HSR? That couldn't be stopped? Sure it could but there is too much of the California citizenry with their hands out, many exempt from paying for anything to care about a 100 billion dollars they'll never have to pay a dime for because only the fewer and fewer remaining people who actually work and pay taxes will carry that burden.
 
ScarySpikes said:
Settlement was inevitable. They would have won the case easily, but it would have cost them more in negative press alone by far.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top