The King’s Food Co-op, the home of the world’s largest privately owned grocery chain, has recently been undergoing a massive redesign, and with it a lot of scrutiny from local and national policymakers.
King’s is known for its generous food assistance program, which the company has since been criticized for not adequately funding.
In the past year, the company also struggled to address issues like food insecurity and affordability, as well as a rising obesity rate in its cities and surrounding area.
A few weeks ago, the New York Times published an article titled King’s fishhouse in New York City “is not a place to live” and highlighted that it was one of the few low-cost options that had been able to provide residents with affordable housing.
But in recent months, the Times has highlighted the King’sFishHouse as a place that’s in need of serious renovation, and the article was picked up by a variety of media outlets, including Salon.com and Mother Jones.
Salon’s story was published on January 18, and it was followed up by the New Yorker on January 20, and The Washington Post on January 22.
In all of these stories, Salon’s author, David Remnick, points out that King’s had “seen a dramatic drop in food stamp usage” in New Jersey, as people in the state “weren’t able to eat the whole month’s worth of food they were allotted in order to make ends meet.”
In an interview with NPR, Remnick said the article, which also highlighted the high cost of housing, showed that King had a “problem with its housing” and that the company needed to fix it.
While many outlets have picked up on this article, many have also highlighted that the Times piece is part of a larger discussion of the problems facing King’s in New England.
The article’s author also points out the Kings Fish House is a public housing project in Massachusetts that was also recently criticized for failing to adequately fund its food assistance programs.
In fact, the project was criticized in the article for “a failure to adequately support the residents and families living in its facilities.”
In the article Remnick writes, “The King’s Housing Corporation has an incentive to turn a blind eye to housing problems for a variety the reasons you might expect.
The company provides subsidized housing for a small percentage of the families it serves.
It also provides free food, medical care, and other social services to its employees.
If the program fails to do its job, it could be accused of complicity.”
While the article focuses on the King, it doesn’t really take into account the broader context of the housing industry in New Hampshire.
As we noted in a previous post, a recent study by the Center for Public Integrity found that King has been under scrutiny for years over allegations that the housing company failed to adequately pay for housing for low-wage workers.
According to the Center, King’s has been a key driver of the state’s housing crisis, but it has also been criticized by local residents and the company for not doing enough to help them.
In recent years, the state has been struggling with an increasing number of low-paying jobs, and housing costs have been the primary reason many families have struggled to make the transition to retirement.
While it’s impossible to definitively say that Kings has the “right” to raise its prices to get its low-priced housing programs funded, the fact that it has continued to raise prices to help the company continue to fund its programs makes it hard to imagine the company would ever provide more affordable housing than it has now.
Remnick also points to a number of other issues that are not being addressed by King’s, like its housing subsidy program, and argues that the food assistance the company provides is “not a good deal for residents and is an insult to the poor who rely on it.”