Anecdotally, the Starbucks at the very center of downtown Austin usually has a couple of homeless people in it. They'll come in, use the bathroom, get some AC, maybe even take a nap in a chair. The baristas happily refill their cups with clean water.<p>As a customer, there's sometimes a smell, and you tend to sit where you can keep an eye out (since you never know the mental state of people in that situation), but I've never witnessed any real problems.<p>Honestly, it's heartwarming. It's dystopian, of course, that the provision of basic needs like these falls to a private coffee chain, but regardless of that I admire what they're doing (even though it's probably PR-driven, if we're being honest). It's not unpleasant enough for me as a customer that I'd refuse to go to that location (or even walk half a dozen blocks to the next one).
The flaw with private companies providing a public service is inevitably the erosion of demand for public goods and standards. The public sector should be held to higher standards considering how large their budgets are and most of it is spent wastefully. Europe and other developed countries have a far superior public goods availability, service and outcomes with similar GDP going to the public sector.<p>In the US one has to compare all taxes including federal, state and city/county levels with other countries.
On an anecdotal note: As someone who is self employed, I used to sit at Starbucks a lot to get work done in a different environment than my home. Getting out really helps me.<p>However, I've started to avoid Starbucks because of the homeless issue. I'm in SoCal, and I completely relate to the struggles of the homeless. I even donate my time to a local food pantry and our shelter. The smell and crazy stares are one thing, but what really drives me away is the bathroom use. The Starbucks near me have 1-2 bathrooms, and it's happened to me that these bathrooms can be occupied by a homeless person for 30+ minutes. This is an unreasonable amount of time for me to wait when I have to go and coffee is a diuretic.<p>Now when I want to work outside my home I drive to a library that's in an area without public transportation or nearby places for the homeless to congregate, and I can use it because of that. There's a starbucks with similar characteristics (not near public transport, no place to congregate near by), but it's too far. The library that's closer to me, the one I would prefer to go to, is completely overrun by homeless.<p>The homeless issue is so complex. Every solution has its pros and cons. The terrible thing is that there seems to be two sides to our communities and each side seems to only see the pros or cons of any solution (depending on their ideological bend) while the other does the same. No one seems to be weighing the pros AND cons in a reasonable way, or accepting that there are no perfect solutions. The issue is so polarized, even very intelligent people seem incapable of even admitting something as simple, and I would hope obvious, as the fact that any solution will have pros and cons. It's as if there's no getting past 'the other tribe has terrible ideas' mentality.
The point is they knew it would be bad for business and did it anyway in a rare case of corporate empathy.<p>EDIT: Okay corporations aren't people therefore cannot have empathy. Can we say "forced empathy?" There's probably a real word here. Either way Starbucks budged under some moral compass forced or otherwise.
One of the things that bothers me about this study is the use of SafeGraph, which provided "anonymized" data that included GPS location, race, and income.
FWIW My outside “office” is a local McDonald’s and I far prefer it to Starbucks. Much less noisy and crowded. If you’re on a budget you can just buy a soft drink for $1 or go crazy and spend $1.19 on a cheeseburger as well.
The problem is that the bathroom policy wasn't the only change. Around the same time you had many people suddenly labeling Starbucks racist for having two black men arrested [1].<p>So how much in the 7.3% decline of traffic is attributable to the bathroom policy change and how much to the racism issue?<p>[1] <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/28/coffee-shop-racism-starbucks-arrests" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/28/coffee-shop-ra...</a>
In Vancouver, Canada, this is a problem. But we also have the bigger problem that the public bus system, operated by private companies, allow the homeless to get free rides. It makes some routes unbearable and even dangerous.
I wonder if cities would consider a liability waiver for any business that wanted to contribute to a public bath house. There are many different homeless programs in place but there are few places where the unhomed can shower and use a toilet. That leads to a host of other problems, like the Starbucks one mentioned. When I suggested to a city council member that perhaps one or more of these businesses in town could pitch in to build a bath house they were not supportive.<p>My impression from "reading between the lines" was that the city was both "trying to be helpful" and trying hard not to be <i>too helpful</i> or <i>too good</i> which would encourage the homeless to converge here. If that really is the underlying policy I think it sucks.
I was surprised when I visited the Starbucks on University Avenue in Palo Alto recently: the bathrooms require a code to enter. The baristas happily gave me the code, and I wonder if homeless are also able to get it, but it did seem a bit weird. Wouldn't an easier solution be to just say that bathrooms are reserved for customers?
Starbucks had to eat the cost because being publicly lambasted for being "racist" for having private bathrooms turned out to be a greater cost.
Community involvement by a large corporation should be applauded. I wonder if there is a study to show how Starbuck's action is impacting on the homeless community. Is it positive or negative?
The cure for homelessness is a home. Doesn't have to be fancy or big.<p>To keeps costs down even further, build community facilities. Those who can afford it can pay some rent.<p>I don't see that as a complex issue. It's simply rational. And where it's been tried, it works.
Is there a study showing how much business they lost from the backlash when they didn't let people use the bathroom? This may be the better business decision.
Starbucks had a great run from the early 2000s. I wouldn't have guessed that this is the way they go, but already I've noticed it's becoming less and less popular. Add in the long term effects of coronavirus on people's propensity on going out for going out's sake, the economic recession causing people to stop spending, increases in demographics who do not drink coffee, and you begin to see how Starbucks will decline massively like Blockbuster, Sears, et al. It started its decline a couple years ago after that incident that caused them to let anyone stay inside without paying. I'm not sure what will replace it. Probably nothing. People will just go back to meeting at restaurants, bars or each other's homes. Long alcohol.
They are going the McDonald's route and trying to be a community hub. I.e. when everything else is gone, they (and McDonald's) will be the only place left to go.
Starbucks restrooms were always essentially public; anybody was able to go in and use them. The real issue is the restrooms are now apparently open for homeless people to use drugs and sleep in. That is bad for business.
Everyone involved would have been better off if Starbucks just started a charity to help homeless people. Political correctness and feelings (vs logic and foresight) just cause more problems.
> This decline cannot be calculated from Starbucks’ public disclosures, which lack the comparison group of other coffee shops.<p>What about SecondMeasure and other credit card tools used for market share?
The problem here is calculating in dollars and cents doesn't take into account what costs are externalized by businesses and borne by the population.
For those who don't know the backstory:<p>Two black men in Philadelphia were arrested in a Starbucks. They were waiting to meet a white guy and showed up first. One of them asked to use the bathroom and someone who worked at Starbucks called the cops.<p>The white person they were waiting to meet showed up as they were being handcuffed. This individual told the cops "I'm the person they are waiting for." and the arrest proceeded forward.<p>The two men sued the city of Philadelphia and Starbucks corporate office decided to announce that anyone can use their bathrooms.<p>These two black men were not homeless. They were just victims of racist bullshit and then Starbucks made a poor choice in the aftermath concerning how to handle this.<p>Instead of firing the racist employee and admitting this was racist bullshit and apologizing for racist bullshit, they made a nice sounding policy change of "Anyone can use our bathrooms."<p>I spent nearly six years homeless. I often went to Starbucks while homeless to buy coffee, plug in and use their wifi. I never spent excess time in the bathrooms or trashed the bathrooms.<p>Starbucks did no one any good by making this policy change. This does not really help homeless people and did not really address the actual issue that led to this policy: Straight up racism.<p>In fact, it swept the racism under the carpet and tried to pretend that wasn't really a problem. The whole thing stinks to high heaven and will probably never be genuinely addressed. Instead, Starbucks will end up being hurt, not learn a fucking thing and if they go out of business, people will whine about how it's a loss to the homeless community and say nothing about "Yeah, Starbucks and its racist bullshit basically deserved to die for not taking the bull by the horns and addressing the racism in this incident."<p>Related link to make it easier to find more info on the incident if you so desire:<p><i>“The police were called because these men hadn’t ordered anything. They were waiting for a friend to show up, who did as they were taken out in handcuffs for doing nothing. All the other white ppl are wondering why it’s never happened to us when we do the same thing.”</i><p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/16/arrest-of-two-black-men-at-starbucks-for-trespassing-sparks-protests" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/16/arrest-of-tw...</a><p><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/05/02/african-american-men-arrested-at-starbucks-reach-1-settlement-with-the-city-secure-promise-for-200000-grant-program-for-young-entrepreneurs/" rel="nofollow">https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/business/wp/2018/05/02/a...</a>
hate to be that dude, but that is why I don't enter starbucks in the hood. If there's a drive thru I stop. But the people loitering inside and the bathrooms are cray cray. seen my share of police called to Starbucks more than a corner store. No thanks. (also thinking maybe I go to starbucks too much lol)
So, homelessness combined with a lack of public facilities is a burden on businesses with humanitarian policies? Is this the "invisible hand" correcting an overlooked externality?