The agenda in the article is the head tax currently being debated and fought in Seattle city council. This is absolutely a hit piece that sounds very much the same as what has been in the local papers.
The glaring issue not mentioned in the article is that Seattle already spends hundreds of millions of dollars a year for homeless services and the reason no one wants to give the city more money is because the homeless situation is so insanely bad given the money they have spent. Money is not going to fix the problem.
I’m also biased because I got punched in the head by a homeless person on the way to/from work and that fact alone is not enough to de-anonymize me. Right now there is a man screaming “fuck” at the top of his lungs at 8am, the same person who last week I saw punching a car trying to pull out of a parking spot.
If the city could promise a genuine solution other than just shrugging these crimes off, I promise you everyone living in Seattle city limits would support that tax. Unfortunately, the problem continues to get worse not better.
Somewhat misleading, but so is saying that the city only spends what is directly allocated for the homeless services line item to maintain the status quo that isn’t working.
Food specifically is highly problematic since even canned food go wrong (leave food cans in direct sunlight for a day or two and open them, it won’t be pleasant) these items need to be individually checked and if you need to transport them the cost of transportation alone can often be higher than the value of the goods at your destination.
On a personal note at least in the UK chartities that do pickup goods for donation are highly picky and anything that will not turn a profit will not be picked up or accepted by them as they simply cannot cover the cost of transport and disposale of goods that won’t sell or won’t be of value.
The sad truth is that often the only real thing you can and should donate is cash.
> Bizarre hit piece.
Do you really disagree with that paragraph though? It is not an opinion paragraph, it is just a series of statements of facts. Doesn't seem like a "hit piece" at all to me.
It is a selection of facts intended to present an act of philanthropy as a PR liability. Systemically, it is why most restaurant groups throw food out instead of donating it. The latter should be the default move. But if donating invites more criticism than disposing, guess which one is incentivized.
I don't understand at all how this is anything remotely like a hit piece. Have some compassion for the homeless who everyone here, Amazon and the newspaper, are trying to help.
Could Amazon do more, as the quoted paragraph suggests? Yes.
Non sequitur. Nobody is discussing legal risks. Just PR ones. If I own a restaurant, and donating produces negative press, problems I would not have had to deal with had I defaulted to not donating, I'm going to be incentivized against donating. This piece isn't designed to help, and it doesn't help.
What? This is a legal concern! You brought it up and it is a major legal concern across nearly all of America!
> This piece isn't designed to help, and it doesn't help.
You are wrong. More people are aware of problems they weren't aware of before. That is usefuuand that is helpful.
What is the legal concern I brought up?
In any case, this point is irrelevant. Businesses donating food isn't illegal in Seattle. Here we have a business donating food in Seattle. There is no legal concern. But they'll wake up to a PR itch on Tuesday. That problem would not have happened if they hadn't tried to help. The disincentivisation remains.
Curiously, I saw no specific allegations of food getting spoiled.
When you read about companies that just chuck out food instead of donating it, you can kind of see why.
> In addition to the downtown location, Mary’s Place operates six other shelters in Seattle, serving individuals and families with 680 beds each night. But Amazon didn’t deliver the food to the other Mary’s Place locations, nor did the shelter consistently set aside additional resources to distribute the donations each night, according to four sources.
Amazon is the bad guy because they only donated to 1 of the 6 shelters.
> But Amazon is the fifth-most-valuable company in the world, with one of the richest men on the planet at its helm, leaving little doubt that the company could be doing much more to ensure that its local philanthropy isn’t making life tougher for people on the front lines.
Bizarre hit piece.