The 3.2 Million Dollar Outhouse

[Fairweather]

There's some discussion about how small objects can appear large when you don't have a reference point - like a water bottle looking like a person in a white out - on the Rainier forum.

 

Same principle seems to apply here.

 

How much should a rest area cost, exactly?

 

Not sure. But I think $3.2 million is a bit on the high side. Especially when we are amputating the feet of Washington State kids for lack of adequate funding.

[ivan]

There's some discussion about how small objects can appear large when you don't have a reference point - like a water bottle looking like a person in a white out - on the Rainier forum.

 

Same principle seems to apply here.

 

How much should a rest area cost, exactly?

 

Not sure. But I think $3.2 million is a bit on the high side. Especially when we are amputating the feet of Washington State kids for lack of adequate funding.

we're a society that spends more on pet food than on feeding homeless people - go figure

[genepires]

can we feed dog food to homeless people? I got some bags to hand out.

[G-spotter]

Will climbers also sleep in the shitter, like they do in the Alps?

[Off_White]

I think $3.2 million is a bit on the high side.

 

It kind of sounds that way, but on a per-poop basis amortized over 10 years, its probably cheaper than the bathrooms in your house.

 

Still, I'm pretty sure I could have built that for $3.15 million...

[klenke]

"its probably cheaper than the bathrooms in your house."

 

Explain that one to me, Hoss.

 

 

[Crux]

Much of this depends upon just how much people give a shit.

[Off_White]

Klenke, I'm talking a per-use basis.

 

Your house: assume you have two bathrooms, one's a 60sf half bath and the other is your 120sf master bath. $300 per square foot makes your bathrooms cost $54,000. You don't live alone, call it an average of 6 uses per day, over 10 years, equals 21,900 uses at $2.47 per use.

 

Rest area: 300 uses a day over the same time period yields a per use cost of $2.92. Its within shouting distance of the same cost.

 

I don't know how many uses the rest area will actually get, I just pulled that number out of my, uhm, ass.

[klenke]

Well with that kind of logic I guess it makes sense...to you.

 

How come no one has made reference parallels to those ridiculous toilets they put in Pioneer Square then removed?

http//www.katu.com/home/video/4560662.html

http://mynorthwest.com/?nid=189&sid=56505

 

A $10 Million shelter from the cold for Seattle's "finest" for four years. And by finest I'm not referring to the Seattle Police.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Klenke, I'm talking a per-use basis.

 

Your house: assume you have two bathrooms, one's a 60sf half bath and the other is your 120sf master bath. $300 per square foot makes your bathrooms cost $54,000. You don't live alone, call it an average of 6 uses per day, over 10 years, equals 21,900 uses at $2.47 per use.

 

Rest area: 300 uses a day over the same time period yields a per use cost of $2.92. Its within shouting distance of the same cost.

 

I don't know how many uses the rest area will actually get, I just pulled that number out of my, uhm, ass.

 

Woahhhh... voodoo math.

 

The cost of this facility is for the past 10 years. No shits have been taken here yet, period. That's 3.2 million/zero uses = . You can't amortize shit yet. ;-)

 

The facility, once it becomes operational will incur additional costs - for the electricity and water bills, cleaning and TP restocking fees, maintenance and repairs, etc. So there is an ongoing expense.

 

I still stand by the fact that for 3.2 million you could buy a damn fine mansion in Elbe. This is a simple shitter. How much should it cost? I'd say a couple hundred thousand. No wonder we - the state, the nation - are in debt up to our asses.

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Proof positive that a fancy shitter does indeed attract assholes.

[AlpineK]

I still stand by the fact that for 3.2 million you could buy a damn fine mansion in Elbe. This is a simple shitter.

 

Yeah, but if you bought a 3.2 million dollar home, do you want people pounding on the door at all hours seven days a week asking to use the bathroom.

[Fairweather]

Let's face it, for 3.2 million dollars you could buy the whole fucking town. Including the trains. And probably Scaleburgers too.

 

Give Olympia the money and they will find a way to waste it.

[ivan]

Unlike Europeans, Americans typically aren't willing to pay to poop. No problem with the public sector--it does a lot of things well. Unfortunately, controlling waste (pardon the pun) isn't one of them.

sounds like your problem is w/ the people then - if americans won't shell-out to shit, relying instead on the state, aren't they, not their pet congresses, to blame?

Edited February 7, 2012 by ivan

[rob]

No wonder we - the state, the nation - are in debt up to our asses.

 

meanwhile Carnival Cruises pays 1.1% tax on a cumulative 11.3 BILLION in profits.

 

Sure....we're bankrupt because of the BATHROOMS. Right. Wink wink.

Edited February 7, 2012 by rob

[AlpineK]

Right,

 

Our party will get rid of Obamacare and government funded shitters!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

No wonder we - the state, the nation - are in debt up to our asses.

 

meanwhile Carnival Cruises pays 1.1% tax on a cumulative 11.3 BILLION in profits.

 

Sure....we're bankrupt because of the BATHROOMS. Right. Wink wink.

 

Meanwhile Rob ignores wasteful spending because he's jealous of people making money... and it's as "if" I support Carnival paying 1.1% tax on profits. Hey, here's a concept - gov't lives within its means and doesn't flush money down the toilet - starting with the one in Elbe!

 

And in their defense, at least Carnival isn't squandering millions on wasteful projects - they actually make a profit. What a concept!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I still stand by the fact that for 3.2 million you could buy a damn fine mansion in Elbe. This is a simple shitter.

 

Yeah, but if you bought a 3.2 million dollar home, do you want people pounding on the door at all hours seven days a week asking to use the bathroom.

 

That shitter is just one tiny example of wasteful gov't spending you can multiply a few 10's of thousands of times around the nation. And I am not excluding the military either.

[rob]

and it's as "if" I support Carnival paying 1.1% tax on profits. Hey, here's a concept - gov't lives within its means and doesn't flush money down the toilet - starting with the one in Elbe!

 

And in their defense, at least Carnival isn't squandering millions on wasteful projects - they actually make a profit. What a concept!

 

You DO support them paying only 1.1% in profits because you vote for republicans who consider closing corporate loopholes to be "raising taxes." And when anybody points out that this company is a tax scofflaw, you just accuse them of being "jealous." So, from my perspective, you absolutely DO support them paying such a low amount. Otherwise, you wouldn't have attacked me, you would have said something like, "damn, that's messed up!" -- instead, you said something like, "good for them!"

 

Also, taxing 1.1% (instead of the actual rate) on 11.3 billion IS "flushing money down the toilet." LOL!

[KaskadskyjKozak]

and it's as "if" I support Carnival paying 1.1% tax on profits. Hey, here's a concept - gov't lives within its means and doesn't flush money down the toilet - starting with the one in Elbe!

 

And in their defense, at least Carnival isn't squandering millions on wasteful projects - they actually make a profit. What a concept!

 

You DO support them paying only 1.1% in profits because you vote for republicans who consider closing corporate loopholes to be "raising taxes." And when anybody points out that this company is a tax scofflaw, you just accuse them of being "jealous." So, from my perspective, you absolutely DO support them paying such a low amount. Otherwise, you wouldn't have attacked me, you would have said something like, "damn, that's messed up!" -- instead, you said something like, "good for them!"

 

Also, taxing 1.1% (instead of the actual rate) on 11.3 billion IS throwing money away. LOL! I guess that kind of math is too hard for republicans to muster.

 

Wrong on all counts. Having a bad day, Rob?

 

 

[rob]

and it's as "if" I support Carnival paying 1.1% tax on profits. Hey, here's a concept - gov't lives within its means and doesn't flush money down the toilet - starting with the one in Elbe!

 

And in their defense, at least Carnival isn't squandering millions on wasteful projects - they actually make a profit. What a concept!

 

You DO support them paying only 1.1% in profits because you vote for republicans who consider closing corporate loopholes to be "raising taxes." And when anybody points out that this company is a tax scofflaw, you just accuse them of being "jealous." So, from my perspective, you absolutely DO support them paying such a low amount. Otherwise, you wouldn't have attacked me, you would have said something like, "damn, that's messed up!" -- instead, you said something like, "good for them!"

 

Also, taxing 1.1% (instead of the actual rate) on 11.3 billion IS throwing money away. LOL! I guess that kind of math is too hard for republicans to muster.

 

Wrong on all counts. Having a bad day, Rob?

 

 

Nope, having a great day. I just hate it when "conservatives" pretend to be all about ending wasteful spending while refusing to end corporate loopholes and subsidies. It's like watching a whore pretend to be a virgin. And then when anybody points out that the republicans are wasting money by giving a free ride to the extreme rich and to wealthy corporations, you just say that they're jealous. It's really annoying to see you pick sides -- railing against 3 million dollar bathrooms but refusing to acknowledge that a 1.1% tax bill is ludicrous. It's disappointing.

 

It's OK though, I'll admit that you're right and I'm wrong. Does that make you feel better?

Edited February 7, 2012 by rob

[rob]

I would LOVE to see some conservatives stand up to the republican party. I'm a liberal but I stand up and disagree with the democratic party ALL THE TIME. Publicly. And other liberals, for that matter.

 

But, just because you're a conservative, you have to toe the party line and pretend that it's OK to let corporations pay 1.1% tax on 11 billion, and that I'm just jealous? Will you lose your conservative credentials if you're caught admitting that such a 1.1% tax is a crime?

 

Lame. Seriously lame.

 

Edited February 7, 2012 by rob

[KaskadskyjKozak]

I would LOVE to see some conservatives stand up to the republican party. I'm a liberal but I stand up and disagree with the democratic party ALL THE TIME. Publicly. And other liberals, for that matter.

 

But, just because you're a conservative, you have to toe the party line and pretend that it's OK to let corporations pay 1.1% tax on 11 billion, and that I'm just jealous? Will you lose your conservative credentials if you're caught admitting that such a 1.1% tax is a crime?

 

Lame. Seriously lame.

 

What is lame Rob is that YOU are choosing to attack me for not spitting out your party line on an unrelated topic, coupled with making personal attacks.

 

We are discussing a (IMO) wasteful gov't expense. Have you chimed in and agreed that it is wasteful? No. Have you chimed in and stated why it is OK to spend 3.2 million on this toilet? No. You are changing the subject and demanding that I talk about my position on something completely different. The problem here is not insufficient tax revenue - it's spending the revenue we already get on stupid, inflated projects.

 

How many 3.2 million dollar toilets in WA state would you like Carnival to pay for Rob? The one in Elbe? I guess where we differ here is I am OK with taxing Carnival more, but not to waste the money on boondoggle expenses.

 

 

[Off_White]

KKKKK, there's nothing voodoo about the math, though its all estimated back-of-the-envelope stuff, a serious comparison would require more data and research. You pay for the bathrooms in your house before you ever use them too, though truth be told the bank usually owns your toilets.

 

Fact is, the cost is much more complicated than you think, and covers much more than just the cost of construction. Here's the explanation from (link) WSDOT:

 

We've received a few inquiries about the SR 7 Safety Rest Area Project and wanted to provide you with more information about why the project cost what it did.

 

The $3.2 million project cost (not $4.2 million as reported incorrectly by some media) was higher than we would have liked. However, this project highlights the challenges of meeting an important safety and service need for hundreds of thousands of tourists who travel through Elbe, a community of 29 (according to the 2010 Census).

 

In a rural location, finding a location that met certain factors was not easy. Crews had to work to find a potential location and land that:

 

Met engineering and environmental standards

Satisfied grant conditions

Included line of sight when entering/exiting SR 7

Required that visitors not have to cross rail lines

Was available for sale

 

Beginning with initial site selection in 1998, we identified and evaluated several sites, both private and public lands. Each evaluation had costs, including site analysis and tests, preliminary engineering and so on. We continued to discover reasons that the sites, for one reason or another, would not work – and all of this added to the cost.

 

After 14 years of development and working through these challenges – we agree it’s been long and difficult – we are pleased we now have a facility open and operating and ready to service thousands of travelers who pass through Elbe each year on their way to Mount Rainier National Park.

 

Below, you can find a breakdown of the costs to adapt a two-story, 3,000-square-foot former Civilian Conservation Corps bunkhouse and garage that date to the 1930s. The structure fits within the rural landscape but is maintained to modern standards. While not what you may find along I-5, it’s far from what some have called an “outhouse.”

 

This project was funded with $1.913 million in federal funds, $748,000 in state funds, and $543,000 in Federal Scenic Byway Grant Funds for a total project cost of approximately $3.2 million. Our construction project budget was $1.44 million.

 

Here is our project description and a breakdown of the costs:

 

Total award to contractor Pease and Sons: $1,101,689. The contractor’s cost breakout includes:

Rehabilitation of historic building with two urinals and five vault toilets: $749,085

Site lighting, pavement, grading, storm-water drain system, striping, walkways, and gates: $255,390

Landscaping: $17,500

Subtotal: $1,021,975

Tax (7.8%): $79,714

 

Our construction budget includes approximately $338,370 for construction engineering/inspections, risk contingencies, and project administration (for a total project construction cost of $1.44 million).

The right-of-way and acquisition was $271,000. This location was not a state property.

The cost for this site selection and preliminary engineering was $1.493 million. This process, which began in 1998, included identifying and evaluating multiple sites, both private and public lands. In a remote location, finding that location was not an easy task.

 

So in the end, it was a 14 year process that brings much relief to travelers headed to Mount Rainier.

[rob]

I would LOVE to see some conservatives stand up to the republican party. I'm a liberal but I stand up and disagree with the democratic party ALL THE TIME. Publicly. And other liberals, for that matter.

 

But, just because you're a conservative, you have to toe the party line and pretend that it's OK to let corporations pay 1.1% tax on 11 billion, and that I'm just jealous? Will you lose your conservative credentials if you're caught admitting that such a 1.1% tax is a crime?

 

Lame. Seriously lame.

 

What is lame Rob is that YOU are choosing to attack me for not spitting out your party line on an unrelated topic, coupled with making personal attacks.

 

We are discussing a (IMO) wasteful gov't expense. Have you chimed in and agreed that it is wasteful? No. Have you chimed in and stated why it is OK to spend 3.2 million on this toilet? No. You are changing the subject and demanding that I talk about my position on something completely different. The problem here is not insufficient tax revenue - it's spending the revenue we already get on stupid, inflated projects.

 

How many 3.2 million dollar toilets in WA state would you like Carnival to pay for Rob? The one in Elbe? I guess where we differ here is I am OK with taxing Carnival more, but not to waste the money on boondoggle expenses.

 

 

You must have misunderstood me. I think a 3.2 million dollar toilet is absolutely ridiculous -- I just don't think it's "why america is bankrupt" or whatever it is you said, which is what I objected to.

 

The reason America is in debt is not because of 3 million dollar toilets, and it's disingenuous to claim so. It's because of the money we spend on defense, and because of the many subsidies we give to corporate interests and other wealthy lobbyists. You're complaining about pennies while congress is handing out cigars wrapped in $20 bills to their wealthy and influential friends. THAT'S why we're in debt. Not because of welfare moms and expensive toilets. That doesn't mean I want to keep wasting pennies, too. It's just about assigning the proper causation here.

 

For the record, I don't expect you to toe any party line. I just expect you to use logic, and logic dictates that it's possible my objection to a 1.1% tax on 11 billion in profits MIGHT just be influenced by something other than jealousy.