To the Editor:
Leah Goodridge’s Opinion guest essay, “New Yorkers Deserve More Public Restrooms” (Dec. 30), makes the kind of good sense that all community-minded folks should be able to agree on, even in this divisive political climate.
Councilwoman Sandy Nurse’s bill that would require the installation of a free, public bathroom for every 2,000 New York City residents by 2035 and Councilwoman Rita Joseph’s bill to require public restrooms in all municipal buildings in the city make perfect sense.
Having lived in the New York metropolitan area for a good portion of our lives, we have often gone looking for a public bathroom without success. Making people rely on private businesses for restroom relief, whether or not they are customers, is not the appropriate solution.
If you live in a modern, compassionate city, town or village, a reasonably proportionate number of public restrooms is a necessity. This is a problem whose solution is obvious and long overdue.
Gerald Sternberg
Merle Sternberg
Madison, Wis.
To the Editor:
As has been noted in The Times and elsewhere, Japan is a model in providing its people with ubiquitous access to public restrooms that are spotless — and often beautifully designed.
In cities like Tokyo, many of these public bathrooms are inside the stations of the city’s vast subway and rail system. Every metro station I visited in Tokyo had at least one public restroom. This consistency of infrastructure ensures that you always know where to look when you have the urge to go.
As New York City explores requiring more municipal restrooms (and I hope it does), it should consider working with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority to expand public restrooms within its own subway infrastructure, which is both extensive and highly utilized.
There are a limited number of existing public bathrooms inside some subway stations, but they are not always open or well maintained. Given how integral the subway is to the daily routine of so many New Yorkers, having a clean public restroom inside every subway station would significantly improve the quality of life for everyone in the city.
Heath Madom
Oakland, Calif.
To the Editor:
Clean and accessible public restrooms are not luxuries; they’re essential infrastructure. That’s why the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation last year announced an over $150 million investment to build 46 new public bathrooms over the next five years and reconstruct an additional 36 — adding to the more than 700 restrooms that we already provide every day, for free, to anyone who needs them. For context: In New York City, there are more public park bathrooms than Starbucks locations.
Unfortunately, Leah Goodridge referred to a misleading City Council report on the cleanliness and availability of restrooms. The report cherry-picked 7 percent of park restrooms to paint a picture of neglect. Those restrooms were chosen because of constituent complaints received by Council members and low ratings from the Parks Inspection Program.
Even there, we were gratified to see that the majority were found to be clean and free of litter. In fact, on any given day more than 90 percent of our facilities are open, clean and safe, as measured by our internal audits.
We’re making a major investment in our public restrooms, and we are grateful to the hundreds of park employees who work tirelessly every day to make sure they are cleaned, stocked and well maintained.
Sue Donoghue
New York
The writer is the commissioner of New York City’s Department of Parks and Recreation.
A Soldier’s Moral Trauma
To the Editor:
Re “Signs of C.T.E. Vexed Soldier in Vegas Blast” (front page, Jan. 6):
This article about the final epoch in the life of Matthew Livelsberger, the former Army Special Forces Group master sergeant who took his life and blew up his Tesla Cybertruck outside the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas, ends with a quote that calls into question the entire premise of the article.
Mr. Livelsberger is depicted as a kind and loving man who likely suffered from a progressive brain injury incurred from many explosions in his military training and combat experience. It is implied that his final action was a manifestation of a severe flare-up of his neurological condition.
Yet the article ends by quoting Mr. Livelsberger, who in a note explains his suicide as an attempt to “cleanse my mind of the brothers I’ve lost and relieve myself of the burden of the lives I took.”
These appear to be the words of a soldier whose service was a shock not only to his brain but also to his conscience. And that is something that no amount of blast protection or medical treatment can ever mitigate. If only the article helped us to understand the moral trauma that Matthew Livelsberger also suffered for serving his country.
Samuel Pensler
Los Angeles
Doctors Need to Weigh Patients
To the Editor:
Re “Some Doctors’ Offices De-emphasize the Scale” (front page, Dec. 29):
The idea that physicians should stop weighing patients is patently absurd. Physicians don’t ask patients if they want their blood pressure or pulse rate checked. It is a physician’s duty to evaluate each patient in the best and most complete manner possible, and these quantitative measurements, in addition to eliciting a complete history and performing a physical exam, are mandatory.
Any physician who shames a patient about weight or any physical attribute is professionally derelict and should be admonished. Since obesity has been shown to be clearly detrimental to an individual’s health, a physician should address it in a nonjudgmental manner, offering the patient several options to address the problem.
Many people, even physicians, avoid measures that are highly recommended by medical societies, such as smoking cessation or cancer screening. That is extremely unfortunate, but it is every individual’s right. However, to dismiss a vital and simple measurement because some patients might avoid physician visits is illogical, and is a disservice to all patients who value their health.
David Guttman
Scarsdale, N.Y.
The writer has practiced medicine for more than 40 years and is board certified in internal medicine and gastroenterology.
Access to Environmental Data
To the Editor:
Re “This New Year, Resolve to Green Up Your News Feed” (Opinion guest essay, nytimes.com, Dec. 30):
I greatly appreciated Margaret Renkl’s essay offering a number of excellent sources of information on environmental issues. With an incoming administration that is once again likely to attempt to eradicate any mention of climate change from government websites, it is more important than ever to ensure the public’s access to objective, evidence-based sources of information on the environment.
As carbon emissions and global temperatures reach all-time highs, it is imperative that we all have access to reliable data to inform our decisions at the ballot box and in our daily lives.
Chad Edwards
Altadena, Calif.
