[DoreenMichele]

We already have an uptick in "medieval diseases"* from unsanitary conditions among the homeless. Getting takeout is one of the ways homeless individuals who have a modicum of cash income (as opposed to just food stamps and the like) can take care of themselves to some reasonable degree. They generally aren't going to be in a position to properly wash and cleanly store their own take away containers.

Soup kitchens typically have worse food quality than fast food places, plus you typically wait in line for an hour or more next to other very poor people (often, but not always, also homeless). They frequently smell of cigarette smoke and/or marijuana smoke and are often in quite poor health, exposing you to a concentration of germs.

Soup kitchens have a tendency to be a horrifying concentration of poverty that makes it quite difficult to avoid ending up sick. It didn't take long on the the street for me to decide that I would rather not eat for short stints than to go to most soup kitchens.

It's also not uncommon for people who are handicapped, elderly or otherwise have personal challenges and personal burdens to rely heavily on take out. It's cheaper than eating in the restaurant because you can supply your own drinks, buy two meals and split it between three people in the privacy of your home and you don't necessarily have to tip. (I realize tipping is not a thing in some places, but you can get take out from places where it is a thing.)

* https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/medieval-diseases...

[mc32]

I wouldn’t be against carve outs for a relatively small proportion of the pop like the homeless. Also instead of takeout they can do cafeteria style feeding (I believe this was his if was done in the past, aka soup kitchens from the depression era).

[DoreenMichele]

I already addressed why soup kitchens are a worse alternative than fast food in my experience. I can't believe you are rebutting any of my points with "We can just have more soup kitchens!"

Some homeless people are living in their car, attending school or have a job, etc. It is not uncommon for homeless people to be actively trying to fit in and not be noticed as homeless.

Most people did not think I was homeless upon meeting me. They only figured it out by seeing me repeatedly and realizing I wore the same clothes for two weeks or more and had "homeless habits" of various sorts.

Even if you are not loathe to admit in line that you are homeless and entitled to the exception, how to you prove you are homeless?

Proving a lack of a home winds up being a real issue for homeless people seeking services. The lack of something is often inherently hard to prove.

Sometimes homeless people are told they can only access services if they are registered with one of the homeless services in town as proof of their lack of housing. This winds up being a serious barrier to accessing services.

Now I need my registered homeless card to get my take out in disposable containers? And then simply having the containers signals to everyone who sees me that I'm probably homeless because that is on a short list of exemptions that entitle you to disposable containers?

Let's just start tattooing blue lines across the foreheads of all homeless people to make sure they are branded for life. It would be vastly simpler than our current methodologies for politely painting them into a corner at every turn. (<-- sarcasm, obviously)

[mc32]

You got a point but I think there are solutions to be found.

Have a significant surcharge for disposable, then if people present their WIC/SNAP they get a waiver at checkout.

[DoreenMichele]

A lot of homeless people do not have WIC/SNAP. Plus, you just agreed that all homeless people need to be registered in some way to qualify.

That's how they currently handle the bag ban: People with SNAP can get free bags. I had lost my food stamps due to bureaucratic error by the time the ban was instituted. I tried to reapply and someone dropped the ball again. Meanwhile, the process of applying was such a hardship that I decided to not bother to try again.

I probably still qualify for food stamps and still don't have them.

There are lots of people who fall through the cracks for various reasons. I also don't qualify for disability. Simply having a genetic disorder does not automatically qualify you for disability. You have to prove you are impaired to a certain degree.

I can't prove that. I'm too good at taking care of myself, though it takes all my time and requires substantial accommodation, a thing that absolutely does not result in the world going "Awwww. She totes should get a break of some kind. Let's cut the poor girl some slack and give her an exception/do a fundraiser/ support her goddamned Patreon."

No, it's fuck me all the way down. And I'm hardly some rare exception. That seems to be par for the course for homeless people.

Anyway, the reality is that privileged people tend to get exceptions to all the rules because they are the right color, the right gender, have enough money, etc. You will notice that the bag ban in no way impedes rich people from having all the bags they want. They just need to pay 10 cents apiece, which isn't remotely a hardship for them. There is no cap on how many they can use (for example).

Similarly, during water rationing during the drought in California, I saw articles that indicated that very rich people, like Oprah Winfrey, simply trucked in however much water they wanted for their swimming pools, landscaping and what not.

It's always the poor people who are hurt the most by all such rules. Other people have myriad ways they can get around them, usually without being stigmatized, penalized, prosecuted, etc.