On Other Blogs
Times Columnist: Eating Outdoors OK For Those With Money, Not for Homeless
Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat has an insightful column
today following up on a story PubliCola broke last week about a proposal from the city's Human Services Department to shut down the city's outdoor meal site. Westneat points out the hypocrisy of a city that promotes outdoor dining and street food claiming simultaneously that it's "undignified" for homeless people to be served outside.
"According to [Operation: Sack Lunch director Beverly] Graham," who issued a call to action about the proposal this week, "they said this is not only to help the homeless, but because lining them up outside like cattle at a feedlot doesn't treat them with proper respect.
"'So it's OK for hipsters with money but not for these guys?' Graham said Tuesday when I joined her under the interstate at lunchtime."
Beyond the silly notion that "hipsters with money" are the only people who buy food outdoors (as a non-hipster without money, I recommend Japon Dog at Second and Pike and the Tacos al Asadero bus at Rainier and Walden), Westneat's point is solid: If the city is OK with people buying food outdoors, there's no valid reason for them to oppose people getting food outdoors for free. Nor is there anything "undignified" about free outdoor meals, as opposed to free meals served indoors.
Service providers say they can provide more meals at a lower cost outdoors, where they don't have to pay rent. The proposal, they fear, will force existing indoor meal providers to serve thousands more meals a year (an estimated 150,000) without additional resources. If the cost of supposed "dignity" is that people don't go hungry, it seems a small price to pay.
"According to [Operation: Sack Lunch director Beverly] Graham," who issued a call to action about the proposal this week, "they said this is not only to help the homeless, but because lining them up outside like cattle at a feedlot doesn't treat them with proper respect.
"'So it's OK for hipsters with money but not for these guys?' Graham said Tuesday when I joined her under the interstate at lunchtime."
Beyond the silly notion that "hipsters with money" are the only people who buy food outdoors (as a non-hipster without money, I recommend Japon Dog at Second and Pike and the Tacos al Asadero bus at Rainier and Walden), Westneat's point is solid: If the city is OK with people buying food outdoors, there's no valid reason for them to oppose people getting food outdoors for free. Nor is there anything "undignified" about free outdoor meals, as opposed to free meals served indoors.
Service providers say they can provide more meals at a lower cost outdoors, where they don't have to pay rent. The proposal, they fear, will force existing indoor meal providers to serve thousands more meals a year (an estimated 150,000) without additional resources. If the cost of supposed "dignity" is that people don't go hungry, it seems a small price to pay.
Filed under
Share
Show Comments
