You Can’t Escape The Nanny State — Even In The Toilet
Here’s issue #4,567,822 that the government has no business sticking its dirty, little, fingers into:
“Mayor Bloomberg signed the so-called “potty parity” bill yesterday, requiring more women’s toilets in newly built arenas, bars, convention halls and movie theaters.
For every toilet in the men’s room, there must be two in the women’s, according to the new law.
So what if the clientele of a business turns out to be overwhelmingly male? Does this law make any sense then? Especially since bathroom space isn’t unlimited or cheap. For businesses that are in that position, say a bar than has overwhelmingly male patrons, this is just another wasteful and unnecessary expense tacked on by the nanny state.
Moreover, why is the government even getting involved in this issue anyway? Sure, there may be some women who don’t have as much bathroom space as they want in some establishments, but does that merit a law being passed to fix it?
This may seem to be a small issue, but this sort of “death by a thousand cuts” is a big part of what’s wrong with government.
You have some niggling problem, the government gets involved, it leads to great cost and expense for the people effected, and as often as not, the problems created by the government intervention are worse than the original problem (extra expense, paperwork, decreasing space available floor space, and possibly even shortages of men’s toilets).
The government shouldn’t have gotten involved.
Hat tip to Ravenwood’s Universe for the story.
*** Update #1 ***: Here’s a suggestion made by kpu979 in the comments sections that will likely happen in some cases, especially in the renovated buildings that are covered by the law:
“Of course the cheap way for restaurant owners to comply with this silly law is to destroy half of the mens room toilets.”
How’s that for the law of unintended consequences?