Little Free Pantry(littlefreepantry.org)
littlefreepantry.org
Little Free Pantry
http://www.littlefreepantry.org/
55 comments
But how will your neighbours know that you're donating to the food bank?
By helping to advertise donations to the food banks. Of course, this means putting signs in your yard/window or actually talking to neighbors.
Access to dry goods and food to people who lack them is certainly a good thing.
I would like to suggest that it's an even better thing when it's done personally and actively. You learn who your neighbors are, for a start, and there's even a chance you'll bind yourself tighter to your community!
I would like to suggest that it's an even better thing when it's done personally and actively. You learn who your neighbors are, for a start, and there's even a chance you'll bind yourself tighter to your community!
I've been told, at least in the US, that we have more than enough food at food banks. It's much more of a distribution problem. Things like these help a bit.
It's also interesting to see that places are investigating direct shipments to homes as well. I don't have any sources but discussions with local food banks. I was told over a year ago that west coast states have started testing it.
I think both these ideas can help different groups of hungry people. Those with an address & those without.
It's also interesting to see that places are investigating direct shipments to homes as well. I don't have any sources but discussions with local food banks. I was told over a year ago that west coast states have started testing it.
I think both these ideas can help different groups of hungry people. Those with an address & those without.
The simplest, most direct assistance would be if somebody got a bike with a carrier trailer, and just rode through nearby food deserts delivering care packages to people with food insecurity. People often can't leave their homes (can't get a sitter, don't have a bike or car, are disabled/elderly, etc) and this moves the assistance out of wealthy neighborhoods and into the ones that have difficulty getting food.
They could drop leaflets in mailboxes that people could check off if they need food, and then you could go back and collect the leaflets, and know who to deliver to. Or make the leaflets prepaid postage to just return via the mail.
They could drop leaflets in mailboxes that people could check off if they need food, and then you could go back and collect the leaflets, and know who to deliver to. Or make the leaflets prepaid postage to just return via the mail.
People do that but with a truck in many areas of the country.
I'm not sure how the food delivery works in all parts of the country, but I believe you would sign up yourself or a family member to receive a collection. Note, many people won't signup themselves.
I'm not sure how the food delivery works in all parts of the country, but I believe you would sign up yourself or a family member to receive a collection. Note, many people won't signup themselves.
These might be illegal in major Florida cities, as it is illegal to feed the homeless.
That is an oversimplification. It is always legal to share with friends and visitors. What the law relates to is the chaos that can ensue. If you start feeding a lot of homeless then you will start getting a lot of homeless around. They will set up camps, leave trash and shit and needles around, and petty property crimes will increase. Because of the reliably repeatable downsides that come with philanthropy some limits are enforced. This is similar to it being illegal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater or illegal to play music at volumes that cause intense distress to those around you.
The law (which varied by municipality) was enforced against Food Not Bombs pop-up events as well as random people. It wasn't created to stop homeless encampments, trash or needles, because encampments don't just show up wherever someone gives out sandwiches. Homeless encampments happen under bridges, near railways, and other places where they can actually keep their stuff and won't get hassled by the cops.
Almost every other state in America deals with this the "traditional way", by having cops kick their ass until they move somewhere out of public view. Florida (and one or two other states) want to prevent them from coming to the state at all, so they're trying to make it harder to live there.
Almost every other state in America deals with this the "traditional way", by having cops kick their ass until they move somewhere out of public view. Florida (and one or two other states) want to prevent them from coming to the state at all, so they're trying to make it harder to live there.
What? Really?
What if they want to buy something in a shop, is that illegal? What happens if you have a homeless friend and you invite them round for dinner?
Or is it like pigeons, you just get signs in the park saying 'don't feed the homeless'
Speaking as a European, this just sounds bizarre.
What if they want to buy something in a shop, is that illegal? What happens if you have a homeless friend and you invite them round for dinner?
Or is it like pigeons, you just get signs in the park saying 'don't feed the homeless'
Speaking as a European, this just sounds bizarre.
Looks like that site blocks non-American IPs.
South African IP here. Works for me.
I cant read this either, is there a TLDR?
It's an Associated Press story, here's a mirror: https://apnews.com/ab0400475cee4777bc3a9cf7d1642a53
I mean, if it's a give-a-can-take-a-can for when a neighbor doesn't have some black beans and needs them for a recipe, but sometimes those darn homeless people just happen to "rob" it? Or is food not under lock and key illegal?
Wow, that's some pure evil going there. Do you know what the background is? Solve the homeless problem by starvation?
I mean, I doubt it - there has to be a bigger point that I'm missing. (right?)
I mean, I doubt it - there has to be a bigger point that I'm missing. (right?)
It’s simple: poor people have always been screwed by people in power. It’s been that way since forever. It’s Florida too, so there’s probably a racial component. You get to screw over poor people AND black people.
There is no larger point. People are cruel, particularly certain political parties that tend to maintain power in the American South.
There is no larger point. People are cruel, particularly certain political parties that tend to maintain power in the American South.
La majestueuse égalité des lois, qui interdit au riche comme au pauvre de coucher sous les ponts, de mendier dans les rues et de voler du pain.
Do you know what the background is?
A year later, which city do you think will have more rough sleepers?
Florida have decided they're City B.
†They'll say they're helping the rough sleepers reunite with their families, but we all know what's really going on.
Except it simply doesn't work that way in the real world, and there are tremendous number of homeless people in Florida and virtually every other brutally homeless-hostile locale. People aren't trivially mobile -- especially if their lives are insecure and moving would mean losing the one or two connections or lifelines or familiar surroundings they have. Some have physical or mental difficulties that prevent them from relocating.
They aren't perfectly mobile, but over time a city that's welcoming to the homeless will attract more homeless people than cities who are actively hostile to them, particularly when cities are willing to buy bus tickets to get homeless out. Sure, not everyone will move, but some might, and when there's a disparity in how homeless are treated for years and years that adds up.
Grew up in Florida. It's most common around touristic area and the motivation is simple, they see helping the homeless as a way of elongating their stay instead of shortening it. they put the businesses over disenfranchised people.
This is nice. In the UK some supermarkets have a food bank you can donate to as you leave. I usually donate food to those. This is a bit more personal. Although I’m lucky enough to live in a neighbourhood where it doesn’t seem like people are wanting for food. I suppose you never know when someone is having a rough few months though and this is a nice way to foster some relationships.
This is a great venture with such a simple message. When you consider how much a supermarket throws out, it would make a lot of sense to place one 'strategically' near a supermarket. Maybe an employee will take it to heart and supply it.
While I can't speak to all grocery stores in all locations, there are food recovery networks that operate at scale.
The pantries I work with collect and redistribute food from something like 30 different local businesses and organizations, including local supermarkets (mostly "day-old" bread and pastries), cafeterias (surplus prepared food), and farmers (surplus produce). We also benefit from middle-man organizations that collect at a larger scale and redistribute to smaller pantries like us -- large donations of canned and other packaged food, gleaned fruits and vegetables which are perfectly fine but didn't make the market cut (ie, ugly tomatoes), and the like.
The pantries I work with collect and redistribute food from something like 30 different local businesses and organizations, including local supermarkets (mostly "day-old" bread and pastries), cafeterias (surplus prepared food), and farmers (surplus produce). We also benefit from middle-man organizations that collect at a larger scale and redistribute to smaller pantries like us -- large donations of canned and other packaged food, gleaned fruits and vegetables which are perfectly fine but didn't make the market cut (ie, ugly tomatoes), and the like.
In an ideal world, they would be allowed to do that. As it stands, that would potentially be a quick way for them to lose their job.
When I last worked in a supermarket (just over three years ago) taking home or giving away food that was destined for the bin was treated as theft. You could be fired for it if your manager felt that way inclined.
Several months before I started, several people at another store lost their jobs for just that. Instead of throwing out the bake-goods, they'd been giving them out in small amounts to people who were struggling.
Sometimes it was a handful of bread-rolls, other times it would be croissants or muffins. There was no loss to the company because the food had been written off anyway. Still -- it was treated as theft, and they were fired. The company would prefer the food was wasted than it feed people.
When I last worked in a supermarket (just over three years ago) taking home or giving away food that was destined for the bin was treated as theft. You could be fired for it if your manager felt that way inclined.
Several months before I started, several people at another store lost their jobs for just that. Instead of throwing out the bake-goods, they'd been giving them out in small amounts to people who were struggling.
Sometimes it was a handful of bread-rolls, other times it would be croissants or muffins. There was no loss to the company because the food had been written off anyway. Still -- it was treated as theft, and they were fired. The company would prefer the food was wasted than it feed people.
While I certainly agree that it is a shame that food perfectly good food which is going to be thrown away can't go to feed those who need it, I think it's a bit of an oversimplification to say companies want food to be wasted rather than feed people. There are many other issues: liability if someone gets sick, employees intentionally preparing too much food to ensure extras leftover, etc.
I'm not saying these issues are more important than keeping people fed, but I do think addressing these sorts of things would go a long way to make policies allowing food to be given away more practical.
I'm not saying these issues are more important than keeping people fed, but I do think addressing these sorts of things would go a long way to make policies allowing food to be given away more practical.
> There are many other issues: liability if someone gets sick, employees intentionally preparing too much food to ensure extras leftover, etc.
Pretty sure the liability thing is just a convenient excuse. In the US we have the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, which protects food donors from being sued. I bet most other countries have something similar. Additionaly, nobody has ever been sued over donated food in the US.
Pretty sure the liability thing is just a convenient excuse. In the US we have the Bill Emerson Good Samaritan Food Donation Act, which protects food donors from being sued. I bet most other countries have something similar. Additionaly, nobody has ever been sued over donated food in the US.
I didn't know about the Food Donation Act! Good to know :) After some brief research, I found that my native Ontario has the "Donation of Food Act" which seems to offer similar protections. More info for fellow Canucks at the link below.
http://www.nzwc.ca/focus/food/guidelines-for-food-donations/...
http://www.nzwc.ca/focus/food/guidelines-for-food-donations/...
Interesting, I didn't know about that legislation.
In that case, I don't follow supermarkets' logic. If donations are restricted to people who can't otherwise afford the food, and the food will be discarded anyway, why not donate it? Maybe some people will substitute donated food in place of purchasing food themselves. I wonder if supermarkets have data suggesting this is a meaningful fraction of customers.
In that case, I don't follow supermarkets' logic. If donations are restricted to people who can't otherwise afford the food, and the food will be discarded anyway, why not donate it? Maybe some people will substitute donated food in place of purchasing food themselves. I wonder if supermarkets have data suggesting this is a meaningful fraction of customers.
Many supermarkets actually will and do donate food. Sometimes it's even hard to find enough qualifying organizations to take it all. Usually organizations must be documented 5031(c)(3) Tax Exempt non-profits. Donation pickups are usually run by volunteers, so can be inconsistent. Perishable items that are safe to donate usually include in-store baked bread and centrally-produced commercial bakery products. A lot of the food waste (within which I'm including near-expiration perishable foods) is simply not edible or will not be edible by the time it makes it to someone who wants/needs it, but will occasionally make it into a separate stream for reuse (for example, I've seen a wide variety of food waste make it into the hands of pig farmers).
CPG/Self-stable items (which are much safer and realistic to donate) that have aesthetic imperfections will often be sent to a centralized reclamation facility and then parceled out to organizations as seen fit.
As another poster said, no one has been sued in the US for donations, but supermarket chains are also reticent about the optics of donating food that has clearly expired. Just because you won't be sued doesn't mean you won't feel some blowback in public sentiment if you cause an outbreak of food poisoning in the food-insecure demographic of the population by improperly donating food.
As another poster said, no one has been sued in the US for donations, but supermarket chains are also reticent about the optics of donating food that has clearly expired. Just because you won't be sued doesn't mean you won't feel some blowback in public sentiment if you cause an outbreak of food poisoning in the food-insecure demographic of the population by improperly donating food.
That act was passed relatively recently in 1996, so I can see a lot of supermarkets which grew before hand having old rules against it on the books that they never updated for stupid bureaucratic reasons; luckily I think this is one of those issues that could be flipped relatively quick by just raising public awareness of the act.
We have one of these in our neighborhood and it's quite actively used. There's a Facebook group for it which does cultivate a sense of togetherness. Sometimes people take all the things but it's rare.
Even the people that take all of the things... maybe they need them, so I wouldn't judge someone harshly for it.
This is a really intriguing idea. But whoever designed that has never spent a summer with the kind of raccoons we have up here.
two questions:
1. how the pantries get cleaned?
2. how to deal with expired foods?
I assume the property owner who installs the pantry maintains it and its contents.
This is a great website and a very worthy cause. Several of the LFP's in my community I had no idea even existed...the search feature is awesome.
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
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.
> 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.
You should know your neighbours well enough to borrow a cup of sugar or an onion. Plus your actual neighbours should be actually next door, not halfway down the street.
I think the LFP adds a great deal to a community so I am not knocking the idea. Maybe the idea needs to be more than a pantry though. We all chuck stuff out that could be given a second home. Some people pay good money to drive to the tip and dump stuff that could be re-used. We also get stuff in the back of our food cupboards that are not going to be eaten. Maybe we need small-shed sized 'pantries' that enable more to go on. As well as being community they could also have the council clear the contents out on a fortnightly basis, so it is just a well ordered 'cache' of stuff to go to the tip.
I think the LFP adds a great deal to a community so I am not knocking the idea. Maybe the idea needs to be more than a pantry though. We all chuck stuff out that could be given a second home. Some people pay good money to drive to the tip and dump stuff that could be re-used. We also get stuff in the back of our food cupboards that are not going to be eaten. Maybe we need small-shed sized 'pantries' that enable more to go on. As well as being community they could also have the council clear the contents out on a fortnightly basis, so it is just a well ordered 'cache' of stuff to go to the tip.
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.
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.
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.
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.
But there’s already a system in place for giving food to people who obviously need it: just giving it to them
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.
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.
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.
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]
how do you prevent assholes vandalizing these or people taking the items and reselling them?
(in SF people get stuff from the food bank and then sell it on the sidewalks around mid-market)
(in SF people get stuff from the food bank and then sell it on the sidewalks around mid-market)
You can't, and it gets trashed. We had just such an honor system set up by well-meaning folks here in Gilroy, and it lasted for all of a few weeks before the first time everything was taken and the box trashed and smeared with feces.
The majority of the people who needed to use the box did so respectfully and properly. There is a huge need, particularly here in the bay area of California, where the number of people forced into homelessness has exploded over the past several years.
The problem with systems like this is that they have no oversight, the bad apples find them and take/destroy with glee, and it doesn't take many of those folks to ruin it for everyone else.
The majority of the people who needed to use the box did so respectfully and properly. There is a huge need, particularly here in the bay area of California, where the number of people forced into homelessness has exploded over the past several years.
The problem with systems like this is that they have no oversight, the bad apples find them and take/destroy with glee, and it doesn't take many of those folks to ruin it for everyone else.
sometimes you've gotta place your trust in the goodness of others. and when you're proven wrong, trust and trust again.
furthermore, such violations of trust are helpful indicators of the types of structural issues present in one's community.
sure. there might be places in crisis where such a system wouldn't be able to get enough traction to function. in such a place, one should turn one's attention to the big picture.
furthermore, such violations of trust are helpful indicators of the types of structural issues present in one's community.
sure. there might be places in crisis where such a system wouldn't be able to get enough traction to function. in such a place, one should turn one's attention to the big picture.
The thing about charity is that people often need money more than food. People who haven't ever been poor, or been significantly close to poor people, often don't understand the differences in cost/benefit analysis between themselves and poor people [0]. So you hear concepts like "I'd give them a $5 sandwich but not a dollar because they'll blow it on drugs." Which is basically the ethos behind food banks. So you end up with food rich, cash poor homeless folks
It's actually okay that panhandlers sell food on the street. They're exchanging a plentiful commodity for a liquid asset. They need money to live, not just food.
And dollars per hour, sadly, drugs are about the cheapest form of entertainment our society has to offer.
[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/your-br...
It's actually okay that panhandlers sell food on the street. They're exchanging a plentiful commodity for a liquid asset. They need money to live, not just food.
And dollars per hour, sadly, drugs are about the cheapest form of entertainment our society has to offer.
[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/your-br...
You prevent vandalism to these boxes the same as you prevent vandalism of anything else on the street: You really don't. Most folks won't do that sort of thing.
As far as reselling items: Prevention is simple. Make a safety net, make sure folks have housing, and make sure there is medically backed addiction help out there. It won't solve all of it, but it surely raises the bar as folks won't be so desperate to rob a bunch of tiny pantries instead of a store. Other sorts of prevention just punishes people struggling, both the one selling and the one buying.
Edit: Also, stores selling illegal goods should be prevented now. SUrely we have the tools if not the manpower.
As far as reselling items: Prevention is simple. Make a safety net, make sure folks have housing, and make sure there is medically backed addiction help out there. It won't solve all of it, but it surely raises the bar as folks won't be so desperate to rob a bunch of tiny pantries instead of a store. Other sorts of prevention just punishes people struggling, both the one selling and the one buying.
Edit: Also, stores selling illegal goods should be prevented now. SUrely we have the tools if not the manpower.
If you want to make a difference, set up a recurring donation to your local foodbank instead, or volunteer to help. People in financial need already go there, so you can help them by not making them run around town to a bunch of free little pantries, and help them avoid the shame of using that pantry in your neighbourhood being watched by all your neighbours.
This feels like one of those initiatives that benefit the provider more than the intended recipient.