District 3 Supervisor Danny Sauter talked trash on Thursday morning; San Francisco’s lack of trash cans, that is.
The city’s bins, Sauter said at a public hearing in City Hall, are elusive. They randomly disappear overnight. They don’t follow a standard policy. Instead, their “placement and removal is simply the result of who makes the most noise.”
Despite the long line of public commenters asking for more cans in their neighborhoods and the admonition from Sauter, who has promised 1,500 new receptacles in District 3 — the city has some 3,000 cans, total — the city has no immediate plans to go on a trash-can splurge.
“I don’t know that there’s a massive increase that’s necessary,” said Ian Schneider, government affairs manager for the Department of Public Works.
The vast majority of city trash cans are managed by the Department of Public Works, which procures, places, and oversees the servicing of the bins. The city currently has about one can for every 250 residents, a greater number per capita than in other cities, said Schneider.
Other cities, however, have more bins per square mile. According to the New York City Sanitation Department of Sanitation, there were 24,681 trash cans across the five boroughs in April 2024; about 81 cans per square mile, or one for every 335 residents. San Francisco has 63 cans per square mile.
Take a walk in Manhattan, and there are often four trash cans at every intersection. Take a walk in San Francisco, and you’ll have to keep going to find a bin.
There was a time when San Francisco had 4,500 trash cans, but then-Mayor Gavin Newsom decided in 2007 to remove 1,000 of them. San Francisco now has about 4,100 trash cans; 2,800 cans managed by Public Works, and another 1,300 managed by the parks department.
Since 2018, San Francisco has been on a quest to design and manufacture a unique trash can to replace the existing models.
Public Works has a $15 million budget to replace its approximately 3,000 existing cans with sleeker models that will be easier to clean and less vulnerable to attack. That “slim silhouette” model was piloted in 2022, but widely criticized at the time for its $18,800 price tag; after the outcry, the price came down to between $2,000 and $3,000.
The city will issue a formal proposal for the new cans, sleek metal tubes with two circular holes in the side, this month.
“Our goal is to put the garbage cans where they’re needed,” Schneider said. If that need is greater than 3,000, the city will need to seek additional funding or change its current plan.
Back in 2021, Public Works was more open to adding trash cans, with the department saying that supervisors just had to ask. That no longer seems to be the case.
Sauter was unsatisfied. Why are some cans overflowing? he asked. Are they not adequately serviced by the city’s private refuse hauler, Recology? Are they rummaged through? Are they targets for illegal dumping?
Schneider, who started his presentation by saying he was “talking trash,” drawing mild, obligatory titters from two dozen attendees, tried to clarify the city’s rubbish process.
Bins, he said, are placed in transit areas, along high-traffic pedestrian corridors, and next to public facilities, like schools or hospitals. They are removed by request of members of the public if they have a history of vandalism and litter spilling onto the sidewalk.
“We are not randomly removing cans at our discretion,” Schneider said. “We respond to what the community asks of us.”
“It is often counterintuitive to folks that removing a trash can actually reduces the amount of litter on the street,” Schneider added. “But that is, surprisingly, frequently the case.”
He cited the failure of San Francisco’s 2017 “Yes We Can” campaign, which placed a can on every corner of Mission Street. But, Schneider says, it did not ultimately make a significant impact on the amount of errant street debris.
Currently, the city has two types of cans, which cost between $2,000 and $3,000 apiece: Cement cans and green metal “Renaissance” cans. The latter design was, one member of the public said, a “failure of design in every possible way” for its vulnerability to being knocked over.
“There is no perfect trash can,” acknowledged Schneider. “However, we can do better.”
Schneider also described efforts to hire a Department of Public Works trash can manager, add more sensors that will alert employees when a bin has been tipped over, and roll out more cigarette receptacles. He agreed to discuss the possibility raised by Sauter of using video surveillance to monitor illegal dumping.
For the time being, though, Schneider said he thinks the garbage can coverage is pretty good. Many of Sauter’s constituents disagreed.
“There’s a dearth,” said District 3 resident David Thompson. “We need clean streets and, in my opinion, we could do a heck of a lot better together.”
Clearly, Ian Schnider doesn’t walk the city when he says there is no need for additional trash cans, this statement is completely tone deaf. Anyone who actually spends time on our streets knows that fewer trash cans do not mean less trash, quite the opposite. It is basic common sense in our society.
Take Larkin and Post for example, right in Supervisor Sauter’s district. The city removed a trash can there, and now it is constantly overflowing with garbage. If this issue is that it was overflowing or tampered with then come up with a different solution because removing it isn’t the right one. This is not just an isolated case. Walk around any neighborhood where bins have been taken away and you will see the same result, piles of trash on sidewalks, in doorways, and spilling onto the streets.
Schnider points to a 2017 experiment where more trash cans were added and claims it failed. But one example from seven years ago does not prove that more bins do not work. There could have been other factors at play, and just because something does not work perfectly the first time does not mean you give up altogether. If that were the case, we would never improve anything in this city.
If we had enough enforcement to crack down on littering, that would be ideal. But we do not. Instead of waiting for a perfect solution that does not exist, we should take a logical first step—adding more trash cans. The city does not need fancy overpriced bins, it needs more bins, period. If we actually want cleaner streets, we should start with the simplest, most effective solution available. Supervisor Sauter understands that, and it is frustrating to see city officials argue against common sense.
David,
You don’t understand the depth and breadth of thieving that goes on in this City through our Contracts.
Willie used to say:
“Don’t bring me maintenance jobs, bring me new contracts.”
He could get a piece of the cash from contracts to go to his people who were reminded if they forgot to remember where the approval originated.
This trash can thing seems to follow perfectly.
Doesn’t matter if there are better and cheaper solutions.
Contracts go to whomever the Mayor says they go to.
I’m doubting Mayor Lurie shares that view and I hope he reads this.
Stay with the heavy concrete units we have now cause they are cheapest and easiest to maintain and best by far for volunteer pickers standing there with a big orange bag full of trash that won’t fit through the hole of the Schneider dictated ‘Slims’.
Use part of the 15 million you’ll save (not counting lock maintenance cause 8,000 scavengers will soon defeat or destroy them) to try out my Million Dollar Trash Lottery idea.
You’ll get thousands of people picking up trash cause they want to.
It will become a habit as I know because as a Behaviour Teacher I teach habit and routine inculcation.
go Niners !!
h.
David,
You don’t understand the depth and breadth of thieving that goes on in this City through our Contracts.
Willie used to say:
“Don’t bring me maintenance jobs, bring me new contracts.”
He could get a piece of the cash from contracts to go to his people who were reminded if they forgot to remember where the approval originated.
This trash can thing seems to follow perfectly.
Doesn’t matter if there are better and cheaper solutions.
Contracts go to whomever the Mayor says they go to.
I’m doubting Mayor Lurie shares that view and I hope he reads this.
Stay with the heavy concrete units we have now cause they are cheapest and easiest to maintain and best by far for volunteer pickers standing there with a big orange bag full of trash that won’t fit through the hole of the Schneider dictated ‘Slims’.
Use part of the 15 million you’ll save (not counting lock maintenance cause 8,000 scavengers will soon defeat or destroy them) to try out my Mission Dollar Trash Lottery idea.
You’ll get thousands of people picking up trash cause they want to.
It will become a habit as I know because as a Behaviour Teacher I teach habit and routine inculcation.
go Niners !!
h.
Why can’t we just be like every normal city and put out some simple trashcans that cost $200 or less?
Curt,
Because we are a major, ‘Pay to Play’ City.
h.
It’s incorrect to suggest the price of the new trash bins came down “after an outcry”. Per the linked article, $18,800 was the cost of that one-off prototype; $2,000-3,000 is the cost for volume production. That was always the case.
I am nonplussed by journalism standards seemingly employed here. It is difficult to tell what is reporting proper and what is editorializing.
For example, is this quote a reporting of facts?
“Take a walk in Manhattan, and there are often four trash cans at every intersection. Take a walk in San Francisco, and you’ll have to keep going to find a bin.”
For one, it does not seem possible for something to be present “often” at “every” intersection. For two, keep going… where exactly? Is this a hyperbolic claim that there are *no* trashcans here?
There’s another instance of questionable editorializing:
“”Schneider, who started his presentation by saying he was “talking trash,” drawing mild, obligatory titters from two dozen attendees, tried to clarify the city’s rubbish process. ”
It is bizarre for a nominal journalist to add a subjective observation about “obligatory” titters to what is presumably supposed to be an attempt at objective reporting. It is further bizarre to seemingly mock a joke that the reporter herself used at the beginning of her own article!
I also object to the imprecise quoting engaged in here:
“For the time being, though, Schneider said he thinks the garbage can coverage is pretty good. Many of Sauter’s constituents disagreed.”
This is a plain misquote as is evident from the recording of the proceedings. Mr. Schneider said “the department believes,” not “I think.” Getting quotes correct by reporting them verbatim and not distorting them via paraphrasing would seem to be a basic tenet of ethical journalism.
I am generally surprised by the lack of professionalism on display in this article. It stands in stark contrast to the professional interaction of District Supervisor Sauter and Mr. Schneider, who’s cordial interaction was quite refreshing in contrast to the general vitriol with which civic discourse is being engaged in our national politics.
Thanks for the lecture, “Beaf Ho.”
JE
So that’s where the ‘Beef’ went,
If your current DA wants respect she should behave better.
I’m an expert in my own mind about quality journalism and I can recall my old man reading me Walter Lippman and he was a Cub Reporter for Lincoln Steffens who was born and raised in Eskenazi and Lydia’s Mission District and worked with Teddy Roosevelt to clean it up (see his Autobiography).
Point is I’m a know-it-all connoisseur of good journalism tho I’ve never practiced it myself which is why my own masthead (‘Often wrong but never silent’) …
Joe’s been the best political writer in San Francisco with Tim Redmond and Samson Wong at his heels for the last 25 years.
He and Lydia are presently running the best SF Political Newsroom in town large or small or flown in from the Big Apple.
These are honorable people and you are condemning them for not crossing their i’s and dotting their t’s and kissing the ass of our lying and thieving DA.
go Niners !!
h.
Funny, I’m currently vacationing in Japan and you can’t find a garbage can to save your life. And guess what, no garbage anywhere.
Is this a mob thing ?
Coincidentally, I was at City Hall also this morning talking trash.
Before the DPW Commission where I came to plead the return two days ago of the only trash can on 14th Street for over a quarter mile from Guerrero to Mission.
I know because my dog, Skippy and I pick up trash along that entire route on both sides of streets for entire distance plus 379 feet along Julian 14th Street South alongside the rear of the Armory which has been a special project of mine (clearing the sidewalks and keeping them clean – and, working with Trump to make it into an Ohlone Casino) …
Wore my 12 pocket orange vest and also asked for a 100 yard move from in front of Friends school in the old Levis building.
That can is a magnet for vagrant trash because the same easy access to drop your kids off makes it easier to pull over and leave a variety of crap which , frankly, looks bad in front of one of the City’s Premier Grammer schools.
While 100 yards down street (you’ll pass trash all the way) is where the receptacle should be next to Freddy’s Liquor Store.
I requested that the can be moved.
You know, dude, I’m wondering if the workers listen to the DPW brass on some services.
Does anyone but me remember that one of the things the last permanent Director of DPW went to prison for was making an illegal deal that gave Recology tens of millions overcharge ?
And, in the midst of the scandal a Recology VP killed himself ?
Sounds all Hollywood.
Also, Newsom was as surprised as the BOS when DPW removed those thousand cans in 2007.
So, do we get a reduction in charges from Recology cause they now have fewer cans to service and our streets are dirtier ?
Nope, they want a big raise for doing less work.
Just like the cops.
My suggestion to now Mayor Lurie has always been to sponsor (maybe Public/Private) 2 Million Dollar SF Trash Lottery with 1st place being tax free million and 2nd place being 100 winners of Ten grand each tax free.
I see the little kids from the Friends school with their orange vests and trash pickers and they should get a lottery ticket for an hour’s work same as all.
And, the tickets have Public Service notices like Morse Code and Phonetic alphabet on them or, hell, sell adverstising.
go Niners !!
h.
You go to any sporting event, people leave their food boxes, beer cup, half eaten nachos under the seats. It’s ok, someone will pick them up when, when you walk up the steps to the concourse, there are trash bins right there. Anyone who attends a sporting event has disposable income (which is getting less and less.). Litter is a cultural thing of being American and being lazy.
Just put the plastic things on the street. We all know how to use them. They are easy to pick up and some people even recycle properly. Or if you can’t get the trash cans on the street, how about some cardboard boxes? Just pick it up and take it off the street if you want the street to be clean. The public is not to blame for not using trash cans that do not exist.
Talk to Ian Schneider,
He’s intent on spending more for less.
What we have is a concrete tank thing open atop from 4 sides.
You can easily squeeze in a full orange trash bag full of stuff while with the new Slim models volunteers would have to leave their bags alongside to be rummaged through by scavengers.
Reassign Mr. Schneider to picking up trash with my dog, Skippy and I for one week.
I double dare you.
lol
go Niners !!
h.
Not only does this city need trash cans, but also street sweepers. Why is it that we have to organize a community clean up for the streets to be clean for a few days? That’s how cities used to operate.
It’s true, I visited Japan and they don’t have any public trashcans. The streets are very clean as people either keep the trash on them or throw them out in restaurants or their homes.
We need more garbages in district 3! I hold my dogs filled poop bag for blocks until I see a garbage can! Then the garbage is always overflowing. For example I pick up the poop on Larkin & Green on my way to Trader Joes I won’t find a can till I hit Larkin and Jackson if that’s filled then Clay. It’s ridiculous. Ian Schneider get real, people wouldn’t be advocating for more trash bins if we didn’t need them.
It’s a shame that Jackie Fielder won’t speak up on this issue. It’s a constant problem in the Mission. I understand you have to pick your battles. Or maybe she, like many, doesn’t want to ruffle feathers at Recology. Speaking up on this issue would help counter that impression.
Great article, Abigail! I’d love to read an investigative piece from ML on what happened with ‘yes we can’, and the evidence for its supposed failure. Seems very counterintuitive with cans on my block constantly overflowing, but maybe there’s more evidence there.
perhaps, rather than cans, we might simply employ a few local people to pick up litter? Maybe even give a resident the option to sign up to maintain their block – or a couple blocks. Just for $50/week or something. Have a drive-by occasionally to make sure they’re doing their job. Invest in SF, not in outside companies.
How about looking around and see how other cities handle this ?
Spending 12k per bin that will be vandalized , and ruined is stupid .
The city is unable to even keep the ones that we have maintained and empty them.
Barcelona has a great garbage plan .
No toters .
Everyone must bring their own garbage to big centralized bins and recycle .
Located throughout the city .
The city cleans them and removes the trash everyday .
Also increase the penalty for the idiots who throw trash all over .
Washington Square Park is in Sauter’s district. It is frequently littered with piles of pizza boxes from Tony’s and Golden Boy. Both those places have apparently decided they have no responsibility for the garbage their customers leave all over the park and sidewalks, nor for the massive waste they are unleashing into the urban environment.
You have to wonder if Golden Boy is even operating within their permit, as they have not provided any seating since the pandemic. Basically, they’ve privatized the sidewalk, next-door businesses be damned.
San Francisco’s penchant for gimmicky ad hoc solutions to its problems seldom accomplish what they set out to do– unless their real purpose is to buy cheap publicity, make someone money, or fill out a resume to get a promotion.
Welcome to Behlen Country where a plethora of livestock watering tubs intended as planters more often do double duty as trash containers.
Lee Kuan Yew, who served as Singapore’s first prime minister, once remarked that he was astonished that Americans would sue if they stepped into a hole in the sidewalk. “Why don’t they simply look where they are going?” he quipped.
Being approximately six times the size of San Francisco, the city-state of Singapore, renowned for its cleanliness, has an unspectacular 10,000 trash bins according to a cursory AI-assisted Google search.
Littering, however, is a serious offense with a first offense being S$2,000 or about $1,500 in US currency. What is there for a fascist like our President Trump not to love?
Singapore is not exactly a democracy. Nor are we.
I do think there is possibly a dynamic relation between how highly a place values its people and how high a value people have for keeping it clean. I am more disturbed by the sight of people San Francisco appears to “throw away” than by its filth.
If only common sense and civic pride were enough!
I fondly recall how rough school children in a small town in Arkansas many years ago would deride anyone they spotted tossing litter on the ground by asking: “Ain’t ya got no home laaarnin’?!”
I tried that once here in San Francisco and got a broken nose!
Great story,
Ah, Arkansas.
My family came outta the Ozark hills to work in the munitions plants and we an ashpit in the backyard to burn everything that didn’t go to the junkman who came down the alley in his slow moving horse-drawn rig moaning, …
“Rags, clothes, bottles … rags clothes … bottles”
The commentors here are getting better and better.
Probably cause it’s neigh on the last Progressive leaning outfit.
go Niners !!
h.
Rec and Park has the opinion that with fewer trash cans, people will cart their trash away with them. Having been picking up litter at Twin Peaks for years, I believe this theory needs more testing. That being said, the addition of secondary grey plastic trash bins next to the standard trash bins at the Christmas Point parking lot (top of Twin Peaks) has made a difference. More trash cans means more opportunities for folks to pick up litter and deposit it in them!
There used to be a lot more. Gavin Newsom got rid of a bunch in a sloppy follow up to Willie Brown’s elimination of benches.
More of the blue green and gray jobs and more frequent pickups would be fine. no more experimental anything until SF handles its budget crisis. Stick to what works.
I very much enjoyed Mr. Schneider’s presentation. His opening comment regarding “talking trash” was quite humorous – I for one gave it a barely suppressed snicker – as usually that phrase means to insult an opponent whereas in this instance he was literally talking about trash. Funny stuff; such Ianian wit!
I actually think this is right – we don’t need more garbage cans, which are mostly smelly messes that people pull trash out of and graffiti