New Yorkers Bear the Burden of Public Bathroom Misuse
The sounds of “public” toilet locks clicking shut can be heard across the city. The Great Loo Lockdown is gathering momentum as businesses reinforce their restrooms to shield them and their clientele from the chaotic antics of those who leave these facilities in a state of disarray.
Starbucks is the latest chain to declare its bathrooms off-limits to loiterers, drug users, panhandlers, and those who vandalize restroom facilities.
This restriction on formerly accessible toilets is typically justified in the name of enhancing service for paying customers.
Ultimately, the primary aim is simple: to deter unwanted behavior. While New York City has always had its share of street eccentricities, the current wave appears increasingly prone to violence and is likely to commandeer public restrooms for drug-related activities and other disruptive behaviors.
This recent policy change impacts approximately 170 Starbucks locations in New York City, a part of a larger network of over 15,000 across the United States.
The coffee chain has clearly had enough of the extensive damages resulting from its previously unrestrictive approach, especially in cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle, where it faced ongoing incidents of theft and violence.
The concept of allowing restroom access without a purchase originated from Starbucks founder Howard Schultz, who once briefly entertained the equally misguided idea of requiring baristas to engage customers in discussions about race relations.
Seven years ago, I expressed concern that Starbucks’ open restroom policy was not being upheld at many Manhattan locations.
It was common for managers to claim restrooms were closed due to plumbing issues or construction work.
But now, in 2025, I can’t help but wonder: what took them so long to realize that restrooms, seating, and waiting areas should be reserved for paying customers?
This “lock-it-up” trend is also evident in various hotels, stores, and restaurants throughout New York City.
The restrooms that were once accessible at The Pierre, Omni Berkshire, and Sheraton New York are now restricted; only hotel guests can access them using a code or room-card swipe.
The Canal Street Food Hall has implemented a similar policy, requiring restroom users to enter a code found on their receipts. The same goes for Barnes & Noble stores—once my go-to spots when nature called—and several fast-casual dining places.
Anyone who frequents the streets can certainly share similar harrowing experiences.
Those desperate enough to seek out an unlocked public restroom often find that the few available are monopolized by individuals who take excessively long to vacate.
The MTA continues to provide restroom access at 122 stations. I bravely use them when necessary, but I’ve abruptly left facilities at Fulton Center, Broadway Junction in Brooklyn, and Stillwell Avenue in Coney Island due to the unsettling presence of individuals inside.
As long as our elected officials and misguided advocates for the homeless refuse to take decisive action against disruptive individuals on the streets, businesses will continue to limit restroom access due to safety concerns.
In the meantime, “experts” wrongly attribute the lack of public restrooms in parks and on streets to high construction costs and red tape.
New Yorkers have long voiced their frustration about the scarcity of public toilets, especially when compared to other global cities such as London and Paris.
Our elected officials offer empty rhetoric concerning this scarcity.
For instance, Manhattan Borough President Mark Levine highlights that there are only 1,100 public restrooms for over eight million residents—one for every 6,000 residents, placing us 93rd out of 100 U.S. cities for per capita public toilets.
However, most politicians shy away from advocating for substantial solutions—such as the removal of disruptive individuals from public spaces—despite Controller Brad Lander’s recent softening stance on the issue. Mayor Eric Adams, in contrast, is bold enough to openly call for involuntary commitment.
Governor Hochul has publicly backed this initiative—at least in principle—but it remains uncertain whether her proposal to amend the state’s Mental Hygiene Law to “address gaps in the standards for involuntary commitment” will gain traction.
Given the current political climate, where the state Legislature seems primarily focused on complicating life for law-abiding residents, this effort may be met with resistance.
So, brace yourself for an increasing number of “public” bathrooms becoming off-limits. Prepare to either hold it or endure the unpleasant experience.
