4 ms·

This model totally ignores the fact that the people with the resources to give food live no where near the people who need food the most

by elil17 7y ago

abootstrapper 7y ago
Wrong. In medium to large cities, the homeless are everywhere. They're in our neighborhoods, they're on our way to work, they're outside our office.
- DoreenMichele 7y ago
  Homeless people mostly don't want or need items like flour and sugar. They typically lack a means to cook. They generally need hot meals and snacks that can be consumed promptly. They have little to no storage capacity and carrying things everywhere is exhausting. They do not appear to be the intended recipients of the types of goods made available in this manner.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- elil17 7y ago
  But there’s already a system in place for giving food to people who obviously need it: just giving it to them
  - abootstrapper 7y ago
    That has nothing to do with what you said or my reply. I wasn’t arguing for or against little pantry. But to your brand new point, can there not be more than one system to give to the needy? Maybe you don’t want to carry can goods with you to work, maybe you don’t want to interact with strangers, maybe you want to help people at times you’re not physically in front of them. It sounds like you have a bone to pick with this concept but you lack a compelling reason to argue against it. Here, I’ll share my reasons for not installing one at my house. The wild animals will want it, the heat here is extreme and will cook its contents, and I don’t want strangers loitering in front of my house. Still it’s an interesting concept. It might work well for some people is some areas.
hardwaresofton 7y ago
They do cover this in the FAQ: > Who is the Little Free Pantry for? The LFP is for neighbors helping neighbors. In high poverty areas, the LFP is most often for those who are not easily able to meet everyday food and personal needs. In middle class neighborhoods, the LFP might stock after-school snacks for neighborhood kids or that "cup of sugar" you never have when you need it. (In my case it's an onion.) In all places, the Little Free Pantry is for those who want and/or need to give. They also go into how it differs from a traditional food pantry which already exists: > How does the Little Free Pantry differ from other food pantries? ... All that said, I do think this is won't turn out well for a few other reasons: - wild animals - liability - the elements Food is very different from books, books have relatively low value, and are easier to protect from the elements (they don't get literally baked by excessive heat/humidity). While it's nice to see the effort (I'm glad people are trying to make things better for each other) this might be a feel-good local thing to do, but it's not the way to fix societal problems sustainably. If you want to get rid of high poverty areas pay people living wages (in my opinion this is more than enough to pay the rent), and stop funding an already over-budgeted military in favor of funding school programs.
- asark 7y ago
  Most food, especially the sort that'll keep in a little box outdoors in even SF weather, probably doesn't have much value either, so far as the second hand market goes. If someone's stealing $0.49 cans of beans to resell for $0.10 each they probably really need the money, and the ones buying the $0.10 cans from some someone off the street probably really needed the beans. But for animals and the elements, we used to keep food (especially canned) outdoors year-round all the time, as a totally normal part of life. One of my grandparents was still doing it as late as the 90s. Granted that was done underground, but still, isn't that what technology's for? What good's all this newly-cheap democratized high-tech futuristic maker junk if it can't keep racoons and heat/cold from ruining a few cans of tomatoes in a box without having to stick it under the dirt like our very-recent-ancestors did? As for liability, maybe this'll have to be reserved for freer places than us, in the end. The US (and a couple other countries) love our huge signs covered in tiny magical-liability-deflecting words, after all. They'll be a key feature in our reconstructed religion when future archeologists are trying to figure out WTF was going on with us. They're not so far removed from the long formulaic texts you find on/in Egyptian tombs, actually, and in the same ballpark so far as silliness goes.
ryanbrunner 7y ago
This really depends on the area. For example, where I live in Hamilton, Ontario, there's still a tremendous distribution of incomes. In my neighbourhood, the worst of the worst apartments in the city, halfway houses and addiction centres are less than a block away from very nice detached houses on quiet tree lined streets.

This model totally ignores the fact that the people with the resources to give food live no where near the people who need food the most

by elil17 7y ago

This model totally ignores the fact that the people with the resources to give food live no where near the people who need food the most

abootstrapper 7y ago

Wrong. In medium to large cities, the homeless are everywhere. They're in our neighborhoods, they're on our way to work, they're outside our office.

DoreenMichele 7y ago
Homeless people mostly don't want or need items like flour and sugar. They typically lack a means to cook. They generally need hot meals and snacks that can be consumed promptly. They have little to no storage capacity and carrying things everywhere is exhausting. They do not appear to be the intended recipients of the types of goods made available in this manner.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
elil17 7y ago
But there’s already a system in place for giving food to people who obviously need it: just giving it to them
- abootstrapper 7y ago
  That has nothing to do with what you said or my reply. I wasn’t arguing for or against little pantry. But to your brand new point, can there not be more than one system to give to the needy? Maybe you don’t want to carry can goods with you to work, maybe you don’t want to interact with strangers, maybe you want to help people at times you’re not physically in front of them. It sounds like you have a bone to pick with this concept but you lack a compelling reason to argue against it. Here, I’ll share my reasons for not installing one at my house. The wild animals will want it, the heat here is extreme and will cook its contents, and I don’t want strangers loitering in front of my house. Still it’s an interesting concept. It might work well for some people is some areas.

hardwaresofton 7y ago

They do cover this in the FAQ: > Who is the Little Free Pantry for? The LFP is for neighbors helping neighbors. In high poverty areas, the LFP is most often for those who are not easily able to meet everyday food and personal needs. In middle class neighborhoods, the LFP might stock after-school snacks for neighborhood kids or that "cup of sugar" you never have when you need it. (In my case it's an onion.) In all places, the Little Free Pantry is for those who want and/or need to give. They also go into how it differs from a traditional food pantry which already exists: > How does the Little Free Pantry differ from other food pantries? ... All that said, I do think this is won't turn out well for a few other reasons: - wild animals - liability - the elements Food is very different from books, books have relatively low value, and are easier to protect from the elements (they don't get literally baked by excessive heat/humidity). While it's nice to see the effort (I'm glad people are trying to make things better for each other) this might be a feel-good local thing to do, but it's not the way to fix societal problems sustainably. If you want to get rid of high poverty areas pay people living wages (in my opinion this is more than enough to pay the rent), and stop funding an already over-budgeted military in favor of funding school programs.

asark 7y ago
Most food, especially the sort that'll keep in a little box outdoors in even SF weather, probably doesn't have much value either, so far as the second hand market goes. If someone's stealing $0.49 cans of beans to resell for $0.10 each they probably really need the money, and the ones buying the $0.10 cans from some someone off the street probably really needed the beans. But for animals and the elements, we used to keep food (especially canned) outdoors year-round all the time, as a totally normal part of life. One of my grandparents was still doing it as late as the 90s. Granted that was done underground, but still, isn't that what technology's for? What good's all this newly-cheap democratized high-tech futuristic maker junk if it can't keep racoons and heat/cold from ruining a few cans of tomatoes in a box without having to stick it under the dirt like our very-recent-ancestors did? As for liability, maybe this'll have to be reserved for freer places than us, in the end. The US (and a couple other countries) love our huge signs covered in tiny magical-liability-deflecting words, after all. They'll be a key feature in our reconstructed religion when future archeologists are trying to figure out WTF was going on with us. They're not so far removed from the long formulaic texts you find on/in Egyptian tombs, actually, and in the same ballpark so far as silliness goes.

ryanbrunner 7y ago

This really depends on the area. For example, where I live in Hamilton, Ontario, there's still a tremendous distribution of incomes. In my neighbourhood, the worst of the worst apartments in the city, halfway houses and addiction centres are less than a block away from very nice detached houses on quiet tree lined streets.