> Supporters of the program said it could help people struggling to make ends meet and claimed it is one of the most accessible in the country, with a $5 annual

> Supporters of the program said it could help people struggling to make ends meet and claimed it is one of the most accessible in the country, with a $5 annual membership for low-income people and options to sign up without a credit or debit card. This is the most enraging part of the article. The people who administer this program spent time and money to make it more accessible to the poor, and they're still vilified as gentrifiers. Will they bother to do that next time? Isn't the lesson here, "don't bother to sit down and listen to the activists and incorporate their feedback, it won't help"?