While affordable housing advocates across the state have been cheering on Washington's rent stabilization bill in Olympia, so have organizations fighting hunger in the state.

Claire Lane, director of the Anti-Hunger and Nutrition Coalition, stands behind the bill, which would limit yearly rent increases to 7%. Lane said her coalition partners with housing advocates because if someone is housing insecure, they are also likely to be food insecure.

"Really, the most important thing to take away from that is, we're not going to be able to solve hunger in Washington until we can ensure that people have more stable, more affordable housing," she explained.

Washington's rent stabilization bill has passed the House and is now in the Senate. Votes for the bill have largely been along party lines, with Republicans arguing it will result in less housing and higher rents.

Along with capping increases, the rent stabilization bill would require landlords to give tenants six months' notice for significant rent increases. Lane explained that having more time is key to supporting people having enough food, and added if a family only has two months to move because of a rent hike, they will prioritize paying for housing over food.

"And that's where you start cutting back on your groceries. That's where you start skipping dinner or you start skipping breakfast," she continued.

Lane pointed to new data from the University of Washington focused on lower income households, showing more than half of participants experience food insecurity, and said the data show food insecurity in the state is widespread, especially in communities of color.

"Seventy percent of Hispanic respondents, compared to 54% of non-Hispanic respondents, experience food insecurity. Those are huge numbers no matter how you look at it, but the disparity is obvious," she contended.

Democrats are confident the rent stabilization bill will pass this year, with some tweaks in the wording.


get more stories like this via email

As Colorado lawmakers grapple with $1.2 billion in budget cuts, child nutrition advocates are turning to voters to protect funding for the state's Healthy School Meals for All program.

Dr. Sandra Hoyt Stenmark, clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Colorado, said when a child has inadequate nutrition, they are more susceptible to acute and chronic illness, and more likely to miss school and fall behind academically and socially.

"We know that malnourishment and stress impair a child's immune function, and worsens chronic diseases such as asthma," Hoyt Stenmark explained.

Healthy School Meals for All serves more than 600,000 meals every school day, regardless of a student's ability to pay. Funding was meant to come from capping tax deductions on people earning $300,000 or more per year but the program's popularity has driven up projected costs. House Bill 1274 would put two measures on November's ballot asking voters to maintain existing funding and ensure long-term stability.

Thai Nguyen, executive director of Kaizen Food Rescue in Denver, said investing in students now will help them be better prepared to land jobs that pay enough to be financially independent as adults. She pointed out for many Colorado kids, the only real meal they get all day is at school.

"It improves students' academics performance," Nguyen emphasized. "Once they have full stomachs, they tend to focus better, score higher on assessments and have fewer behavioral problems."

The ballot measures would also expand the Local Food Purchasing Program, which allows schools to purchase fresh foods directly from Colorado farmers and ranchers.

Roberto Meza, a first generation farmer and CEO of the food distributor Hearty Provisions, believes the program is critical to maintain the viability of independent food producers.

"They have a reliable market for their product," Meza stressed. "That just eases so much stress and uncertainty on the farmer's part. And to know that it's going to feed kids, is just that extra layer of purpose and meaning."


get more stories like this via email

North Dakota's governor this week signed a bill maintaining state funding for rural communities in dire need of thriving grocery stores.

The state launched a specialized grant program in 2023, setting aside $1 million for smaller communities to share if their local grocery store was in danger of closing its doors, a problem seen in many rural counties.

For example, one small community used its share to match funds for the purchase and reopening of a local convenience store, which added groceries and a restaurant.

Ellen Huber, rural development director for the North Dakota Association of Rural Electric Cooperatives, spoke in support of the new bill extending the grant opportunities.

"Without action, our rural communities are becoming increasingly reliant on distant markets for basic needs and are paying the transportation and fuel costs," Huber pointed out.

Huber told lawmakers since 2014, North Dakota has lost 47 rural grocery stores, leaving only 90 operating around the state. Like the initial funding cycle, the grant program receives $1 million to cover the next two budget years. The bill received overwhelming support in the Legislature but there were some "no" votes as competing rural investment plans surfaced this year.

Just like water, emergency services and health care, Huber argued grocery stores are essential to small-town survival.

"To attract people to live in communities, (those residents) need ready access to healthy, affordable food," Huber emphasized.

Huber and policy experts said shifts in federal law have given bigger chains an edge in buying products in bulk at cheaper prices. It has inspired efforts in parts of North Dakota to establish local grocery store co-ops, where a handful of smaller shops buy items in bulk together.


get more stories like this via email

Two leading Colorado nonprofits working to end hunger are collecting hand-written letters from a wide range of people who would be directly impacted if Congress cuts funding for SNAP, formerly known as food stamps. The letters will be delivered to Colorado's congressional delegation on May 6th.

Carmen Mooradian, senior public policy manager with Hunger Free Colorado, said lawmakers need to see that these cuts are not just about abstract budgets and datapoints.

"We're talking about the real-life effect of cuts on real people. And so we want to hear from Coloradans what impacts SNAP cuts would have on them, and how SNAP has shaped their life," she said.

Letters can be uploaded at 'endhungerco.org' until next Tuesday. Republicans have charged the Agriculture Committee that oversees SNAP to cut $230 billion to pay for priorities such as mass deportations and extending tax breaks. The committee's chairman says SNAP won't see cuts because savings can come from reducing fraud. But some Republicans say the scale of the cuts would require changes to SNAP.

President Donald Trump is currently facing the worst economic approval rating of his political career, according to a new CNBC survey, and cutting SNAP may not improve economic outlooks.

Dayana Leyva, policy manager with Colorado Blueprint to End Hunger, said state and local economies would take a big hit.

"It's an economic engine. For every dollar that is invested into the SNAP program we can expect between $1.50 to $1.80 in local economic activity," she explained. "Currently in Colorado, there are 3,100 authorized SNAP retailers."

Some 600,000 Coloradans currently depend on SNAP to put food on the table. Mooradian said cuts would put even more pressure on the state's already overstressed food pantries. She adds that SNAP cuts would also impact public health.

"SNAP participation is linked to better overall health, especially among children and older adults and people with chronic health conditions. And food insecurity, on the other hand, is tied with higher rates of illness, including asthma in children and more frequent emergency room visits," she continued.