A "pissoir" might be commonplace in France — but it's shameful and degrading to a group of Christians and neighbors in San Francisco, who sued the city last week in an unprecedented move.
The heated debate revolves around a European-style public urinal in Dolores Park, located near the city's colorful, predominantly gay Castro neighborhood. The $40,000 pissoir (Piss-WAH) was erected at the corner of 20th and Church streets after neighbors demanded something be done about public urination.
According to plaintiff attorney and Pacific Justice Institute president Brad Dacus, it's the only pissoir in the country, and therefore the first lawsuit of its kind.
Dacus said the open urinal is a "slap in the face" to passersby who have public urination "thrust upon them." He vowed to take the issue to the Supreme Court if need be.
"The open-air urination hole violates the privacy of those who need to use the restroom but would be required to expose their bodies and suffer the shame and degradation of urinating in public view," the lawsuit states. "Seclusion in bodily evacuation is a societal norm and constitutes one of the most basic expectations for privacy."
It also calls the pissoir "indecent," "offensive to the senses," "grossly unseemly" and "offensive to manners and morals."
Dacus' institute filed the suit April 14 in San Francisco Superior Court along with Oakland-based attorneys Kevin Snider and Michael Peffer of the Pacific Justice Institute and Conrad Reynoldson of Seattle's Washington Civil and Disability Advocate.
Plaintiffs include the San Francisco Chinese Christian Union, Richard Lam, Peggy Lam, Patrick Sullivan and Sylvia Terpstra, all of whom either use the park, live near the park, or take the J-Church Muni bus there.
They claim the pissoir is a health hazard that violates the city's plumbing code and discriminates against women and the disabled. But Supervisor Scott Wiener said those arguments are thin: There are 26 other traditional toilets elsewhere in the park for women and those in wheelchairs.
He said Recreation and Parks Department leaders feel the urinal is working, but conceded that more screening will be added to the open-air bathroom.
The pissoir was part of a $20 million park renovation stemming from a year's worth of community meetings — at least 50 — which included talks about a new kind of toilet in Wiener's district.
"The community wanted to try a pissoir in the southwest corner of the park near 'gay beach,' to take the pressure off the rest of the bathrooms," Wiener said. "It's mostly males who are there anyway, it wasn't expensive and it can be easily removed if it doesn't work out."
Neighbor Cheryl LaBrecque said she isn't personally offended by the pissoir but can sympathize with families who have small children.
"I might be bothered by it," she said.
Holly Greenberg, formerly of Manhattan, said it's nothing to get flustered about.
"I can ignore it," said Greenberg. "I'm from New York."
For its part, the city of San Francisco issued a snarky, unabashedly left-leaning press release titled "Ain't that a pissoir?!" In it, the city calls the Pacific Justice Institute a bunch of "religious conservatives" represented by a legal foundation that the Southern Poverty Law Center identifies as an "anti-LGBT hate group."
City Attorney Dennis Herrera pointed out Dolores Park is known for its storied "counter culture," which embraces "immodest sunbathers, pot brownie vendors, spectacular city views, and famously irreverent 'Hunky Jesus' contest." Herrera also proudly noted the park — where 5,000 people can gather on a busy weekend day — ranks No. 1 on Yelp among San Francisco's best nude parks.
"If I had to predict the top 100 things in Dolores Park likely to offend these plaintiffs, I wouldn’t have guessed that this would make the cut," city attorney spokesman Matt Dorsey said.
But to Dacus, nipping the pissoir in the bud is important because the moral tone will set a precedent for the entire country.
"We don't have this in the United States," he said. "We don't accept this culturally, morally, and more importantly, we don't accept it legally. The city of San Francisco is obligated to comply with the law. They can't ignore that simply because of their own political desires to placate some group."
Photo Credit: NBC Bay Area