Metro promised voters affordable housing. Instead, its 2018 housing bond has produced some of the least affordable subsidized units in Oregon history.

Why? Metro insisted on funding almost exclusively three to six story buildings—projects that require elevators, oversized common areas, and far more concrete and steel than low rise construction. Those choices alone drove costs up by 50 percent per livable square foot. One project in Hollywood, an 11-story tower, cost nearly double that.

Metro also limited development to nonprofit builders. That sounds frugal, but it isn’t. Nonprofits typically take about 12 percent in developer fees, then they hire the same for profit contractors who build market rate housing. Studies show that nonprofit led projects cost about 20 percent more per square foot than for profit ones.

The result? Metro’s subsidized units average $490,000 per apartment—for just 700 square feet. That’s roughly $700 per square foot, two to three times the cost of building a single-family home.

And the damage doesn’t stop there. These projects pull scarce construction labor away from market housing, driving prices up for everyone else. Meanwhile, property taxes used to repay the bond make homeownership even harder for working families.

Metro says it’s solving an affordability crisis. In reality, its density first policies helped create it—and its housing program is making it worse. We can’t afford Metro’s affordable housing.

Read the report at cascadepolicy.org. I’m Naomi Inman.

Hunting, fishing, farming, and ranching have been a way of life in Oregon for thousands of years — from Native American stewardship to the 35,000 farms and ranches operating here today. But a small group of initiative petitioners is now gathering signatures for IP28, a measure that would criminalize that way of life — and the economic activity it supports — solely in Oregon.

Hunting is legal in all 50 states. IP28 would make Oregon the first state in the nation to outlaw hunting, fishing, and ranching by redefining these long-standing practices as “animal cruelty.” Under their so called “PEACE Act,” even removing invasive species would be banned. The impact on four million Oregonians — their livelihoods, traditions, and economic stability — seems irrelevant to this coalition.

Consider the economic fallout. Oregon’s 34 million acres of public land open to hunting and fishing would no longer generate revenue. Add up licensing dollars, recreation spending, related jobs, commercial fishing profits, and livestock exports, and the loss exceeds $4 billion a year. That’s not just a rural problem — those shockwaves would hit every corner of the state.

At its core, IP28 is driven by a moral rights philosophy that claims killing animals is inherently wrong — that human and animal life are morally equivalent. Its petitioners call themselves “species egalitarians.”

But in the real world, human beings are of inestimable worth. And farming, ranching, fishing, and animal husbandry are the bedrock of civilizations, economies, and ecosystems. These are the liberties that sustain a free and flourishing society — and like all important freedoms, they must be fought for and defended.

Tell your friends the truth about IP28.

For Cascade Policy Institute, I’m Naomi Inman.

PPS briefly revisited its Racial Educational Equity Policy — and once again, the contradictions are hard to ignore.

As Cascade president John Charles noted in his letter to the board, the District’s Equity Funding Policy has been in place for more than ten years, yet PPS has never shown whether it improves student achievement.

Despite that, the Board continues to insist on “equal outcomes” for all students — a goal no school district can deliver because the premise itself is flawed.

Parents know this. Teachers know this. You can offer equal opportunities, but you cannot guarantee identical results. PPS controls instruction, not the untold variables that shape achievement.

Declaring achievement gaps “unacceptable” simply guarantees that staff will always be branded as failures for an impossible metric.

Even more troubling, the policy treats unequal outcomes as proof of discrimination — without providing evidence. When asked for documentation of systemic bias, PPS produced nothing beyond generic national reports from activist groups. Meanwhile, the District faces a federal civil rights lawsuit and still hasn’t evaluated its own equity programs.

And the policy goes further, claiming adults — not students — are responsible for all disparities. That erases student agency and ignores factors like family structure, effort, strong teaching, and disciplined classrooms.

When a policy can’t be implemented, measured, or defended, it should be repealed or rewritten.

For Cascade Policy Institute, I'm Naomi Inman.

www.cascadepolicy.org