A View From the Sears Tower's Ledge
Illinois Is Getting Fatter
Mayor Blames Violent Holiday Weekend On Booze, Heat
Kuma's Pats Itself On Back With Block Party
Chicagoan Involved In Mount Rushmore Ruckus
The Chicago Coalition for the Homeless estimates that 166,000 people experience homelessness in Chicago. We aren't going to try to imagine how difficult it must be to be without a place to come home to, and we certainly don't know what it is like to be so hungry you would dig through garbage for a bite to eat. We've led a pretty charmed life, so far, and so we try to give back where we can.
Replate is an organization (or possibly just a website) that endeavors to make the lives of urban homeless a little easier. Its aim is to encourage diners to "replate" their leftovers, leaving them on the top of a trashcan, so a hungry person doesn't need to look for them inside the trashcan. As they explain it, you may already be doing this very thing; all they want is for people to spread the word. Serious Eats isn't buying into it, writing "While raising awareness is better than doing nothing at all, I just wonder how helpful repurposed half-eaten burritos are to the hungry."
On one hand, this movement reminds us of the (PRODUCT)RED stuff: conspicuous consumption somehow having a greater good. On the other hand, we go out to eat pretty frequently, and often-times do give the leftovers away to someone on the street who needs them more. It somehow seems more humane — or more human — to look someone in the eye than to anonymously leave your leftovers on the top of the trashcan. At the end of the day, food is food, and there are thousands of hungry people in Chicago. What do you think?
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
Leaving food on the tops of trashcans would attract rats and pigeons. Donate to a food pantry instead.
Leave it clean and bagged on top of a trash bin, bring it to a food bank, personally hand it to a person in need...just don't throw good food away.
"and often-times do give the leftovers away to someone on the street who needs them more"
Oh, please. Aren't we just such a good person. Is your head done inflating yet? Take the leftovers home and have them the next day for lunch. There are plenty of places the homeless can go to get free meals. Did you ever stop and think how this person must feel when you're walking by and decide "geez, I'm completely stuffed, oh look there, a homeless person, here sir take my food". Maybe they don't want your shitty thai food? Just a thought
This whole idea is degrading and disgusting. I remember a story my former boss told to some operating room nurses who discard any wrapped medical devices that have dropped on the floor as being unsafe for their patients. They take these discards and ship them off to third-world countries. He said, "Oh so these aren't good enough for your patients, but they're fine to use on some poor folks in Africa!" Same principle.
Unfortunately, lots of pantries or soup kitchens won't accept leftovers. I think it must be a safety/sanitation issue. I work at a university that has functions catered, and we usually have a ton of leftover food platters, some not even open. But since it's not factory sealed, they won't take it. So one of the faculty members takes it home and gives it directly to some homeless people in his neighborhood.
I see nothing wrong with giving food to a homeless person. If they don't want it, they can always say no. There is a way to give handouts without being condescending, and it usually just takes asking a question. "Hey, are you hungry? Do you want some food?" Of course, they would need to be wary of accepting food from strangers, but the idea at work here is that if they would go through the trash anyway, this is just easier.
If you know that odds are your leftovers will go bad before you have a chance to eat them (maybe you're going out of town or maybe you have a lunch date, any of several reasons), don't just throw it away. Ferdy, it's not really the same principle at all. It would be the same if, say, I decided not to eat my food because it was moldy and rancid, or if someone spit in it, so I decided to give it to a homeless person.
Givemeabreak, I think it is repulsive that you would degrade the act of being charitable. If you think there are better ways of going about it, fine, but don't assume that everyone who tries to give back is doing it out of ego. Why in the hell would you try to make MORE people LESS willing to help those in need? Do you think the world is overrun with so much goodwill that it needs to be curbed by your attempts to make any giving at all suspect? Of course some people have a savior complex, but why discourage the honestly generous to get rid of those few?
Haha, I totally forgot to address the actual article. I do think there is a better way to go about this project. If these people are serious, then it would be better to, say, open a storefront where people can drop off their leftovers where homeless or otherwise hungry people can go get some food. That would prevent the rat/pigeon problem. What it would not solve, though, is the inherent problem of getting leftovers that are old, spoiled, or otherwise unhealthy.
It IS similar to sending possibly contaminated items to third-world countries to leave leftovers on a garbage can cover where they very likely WILL be contaminated before anyone eats them. It's ok for them to get sick, right, because at least they won't be starving that night. Not ok with me. Mo has a better idea there.
Oops, you ARE Mo. I endorse that last idea about a cafeteria.
Ferdy, you have a good point there, but my point was more about intention than results (not that that is ok). People who are doing this with food are not knowingly trying to get homeless people sick, whereas your scenario has a degree of reckless endangerment; they knew the instruments were contaminated but sent them anyway. But yes, you are right, leftovers might make them sick, just as garbage from the bottom of the bin might as well.
It IS similar to sending possibly contaminated items to third-world countries to leave leftovers on a garbage can cover where they very likely WILL be contaminated before anyone eats them.
So your argument it that it's better for a hungry person to root food out of the inside of a garbage can than to pick it up off the top?
Also I think when you're picking food up off the street the risk for contamination is sort of a given either way. I think the issue is more like does the homeless person have to dig through the garbage to get their possibly contaminated food or do they get it more easily on up top.
Hello, hungry, unfortunate person. I know you'd rather dumpster-dive than go to a shelter and get treated like a human being when you eat. You're too lazy, stupid, or fucked up to do that. So please eat my leftovers, which I have already contaminated by sticking my saliva-coated chopsticks in them because then you won't go hungry and I can feel like I'm doing something about homelessness even though I'm not.
A group that I think is doing something handy (and has been for a looooong time)is Food Not Bombs (foodnotbombs dot net). They recycle food into vegetarian delights and give it out to the homeless at actions/protests/whenever they can. Because there is no central organization (simply advice and menus), each city's group is different, and able to best address that city's needs. There IS a Chicago chapter, but I've only lived here a year and don't know much about them.
Having lived a homeless existence for months and years on end and stolen food off of doorsteps, dumpster-dove, and conned food off my fellow streetpersons, I can guarantee that if you wanted to help me, you should have taken me out to dinner and shoved your leftovers up your ass to digest.
Hello, hungry, unfortunate person. I know you'd rather dumpster-dive than go to a shelter and get treated like a human being when you eat. You're too lazy, stupid, or fucked up to do that.
Yeah Ferdy, that's what everyone's saying...yup..
As somebody pointed out places won't take open food so looks like it's going in the trash either way unless of course you're sticking it up your ass.
Listen, lets not get too worked up about this.
Once the city gets the Olympic bid, Daley will "pull an Atlanta" and ship the homeless out of town anyway, so the problem will be solved.
if you think you are feeding the hungry by leaving the food you don't want out on top of a fucking trashcan [geez, can you think of a gesture that better tells someone they're beneath the rest of the residents of the city and not quite human than leaving food for them on top of a garbage can?], and if you think you're really charitable, why don't you, when you see someone who's hungry, or asking for cash for food, take them to a mcdonald's or white hen for a sandwich and coffee, or give them something that hasn't already been sitting on your plate, collecting your spit and sneezes or has been partially chewed, as well?
These people who think they are being charitable when they leave food outside for 'the homeless' are wither idiots, blinded by yuppie guilt or just full of themselves, no matter what their motives.
By giving (money, food, or otherwise) directly to the homeless, you are enabling them to continue a homeless life. I know it is tough for many of us to see a person in need, but leaving leftovers on a trash can, in addition to being a potential health hazard, teaches these folks the wrong type of survival skills. We should be focusing on getting the homeless into shelters, rehabilitation programs, and generally off the streets into more supportive environments whose sole focus is to teach self-sufficiency and reduce the homeless population.
If you really want to support the homeless and work to give them a better life, give money to organizations like the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless.
Navin - You don't get it. Leftovers belong in the trash, not on top of a garbage can or in a homeless shelter. Don't try to donate them unless they are uneaten, wrapped leftovers from a banquet--which are donated to "soup" kitchens regularly, not pantries, which store food for distribution.
I don't get it? You can't even string together an argument without addressing points or suggestions I never even gave. My point was that food on top of a can was no worse than food inside it contrary to what you said, I never suggested that this was the best or only way to help the homeless. Clearly as you say donating to organizations or shelters is better. Has anybody suggessted different? This is all 'either/or' for you.
Don't play so innocent, Navin. You raise a question of whether it's better for a homeless person to dumpster-dive than get food off the top of a garbage can. To say that your question was innocent completely begs the question of whether you think we should consider this a legitimate option. Not to condemn the entire proposition outright is obtuse and callous in my book.