Oregon gubernatorial candidates on housing and homelessness

The Oregon Governor is a statewide elected position serving a four-year term. As Oregon’s chief executive, the governor is responsible for executing laws, leading and coordinating the executive branch, proposing a biennial budget to the state Legislature, and recommending programs for each legislative session. The governor reviews all bills passed by the Legislature, may call special sessions and holds veto authority. Other duties include appointing executive agency heads and judicial vacancies, leading the State Land Board, coordinating with local and federal governments, and serving as commander-in-chief of the Oregon National Guard and Oregon Civil Defense Force. The governor also holds extradition authority and may grant pardons and commutations. 

Democratic incumbent Tina Kotek has served since 2023 and is currently running for a second term. Kotek did not respond to Street Roots’ request for comment. 

The following Democratic candidates did not provide answers: David Beem, Cal Kishawi. 

The following Republican candidates did not provide answers: Hope Dalrymple, Ed Diehl, Christine Drazan, Chris Dudley, Kyle Duyck, David Medina, Wen Waddell.

Each candidate received a questionnaire containing three questions. Candidates were limited to 150 words per answer. Candidates submitted written responses via email, and may be edited for clarity. Read more about Street Roots elections coverage here.

---

Democratic Primary

In recent years, the state has relied most heavily on subsidizing private development to address housing affordability and market shortages. Do you agree with this approach?

I don’t support this approach. Private developers label housing as “low income” simply because they accept Section 8 vouchers, but without those vouchers, the housing is not truly affordable. I propose a housing-first plan that prioritizes real affordability and leads to homeownership, rather than trapping people in endless rentals that are heavily controlled by the state.

The Legislature greatly reduced state funding for eviction prevention and supportive housing in favor of more shelters. Researchers say this approach increases evictions and homelessness. Will you push the Legislature to restore eviction prevention and supportive housing funding?

Shelters are already at capacity, so keeping people in their current homes is the most effective prevention strategy. I’m part of a coalition of over 120 candidates, including many running for Congress, and my plan is to work with them to establish federal housing protections that states cannot roll back.

Some lawmakers wish to repeal the state law requiring local homelessness policies to be “objectively reasonable” to more easily criminalize homelessness. Would you support or oppose the effort to repeal the law?

I absolutely oppose criminalizing homelessness — there should be no exceptions. I would refuse to sign any law that does so. I’ve experienced homelessness multiple times, and adding criminal charges and impound fees only makes it even harder for people to get back into stable housing. Being homeless is not a crime.

In recent years, the state has relied most heavily on subsidizing private development to address housing affordability and market shortages. Do you agree with this approach? 

No, this response has proven inadequate. We cannot expect the same people enriching themselves from housing as a commodity to understand housing as a human right. While subsidizing development has made it slightly easier for middle-income people to buy a starter home, it has done little to address the folks on our streets. Some studies suggest it’s made it worse, given our rate of homelessness has increased by 60% in the past few years. I support public housing with eviction protection to force landlords to compete again for rent money.

The Legislature greatly reduced state funding for eviction prevention and supportive housing in favor of more shelters. Researchers say this approach increases evictions and homelessness. Will you push the Legislature to restore eviction prevention and supportive housing funding?

I support more funding for eviction protection and supportive housing. That’s why I’m so focused on tax reform, as well. Until we get our checkbook in order, departments will be forced to cut services or jobs. Either will be bad for our economy, forcing more people into poverty and homelessness. I will also implement a statewide eviction moratorium until we establish a statewide housing first policy. We cannot continue on like this is normal, it isn’t.

Some lawmakers wish to repeal the state law requiring local homelessness policies to be “objectively reasonable” to more easily criminalize homelessness. Would you support or oppose the effort to repeal the law?

I do not support any efforts to further criminalize homelessness. As someone who has couch surfed, slept in my car more than once, and dealt with housing insecurity since the age of 17, I know what it’s like to feel abandoned by society. I also know I wouldn’t be here without community. We need someone who knows what it feels like to not have a roof over their head or where their next meal will come from to lead this change, not real estate developers and their buddies. 

In recent years, the state has relied most heavily on subsidizing private development to address housing affordability and market shortages. Do you agree with this approach? 

I don’t believe relying primarily on subsidizing private development is a complete solution. It can increase supply, but it often doesn’t solely produce housing that’s truly affordable for people who need it most. As Governor, I would request a more balanced approach that includes streamlining permitting, supporting region-specific housing strategies, and ensuring public investment leads to long-term affordability, not just short-term supply gains. My focus is on building a system that produces the right type of housing in the right place and reducing overall costs so affordability becomes sustainable.

The Legislature greatly reduced state funding for eviction prevention and supportive housing in favor of more shelters. Researchers say this approach increases evictions and homelessness. Will you push the Legislature to restore eviction prevention and supportive housing funding?

Yes, I would support restoring a stronger focus on eviction prevention and supportive housing. Preventing someone from losing housing is almost always more effective and less expensive than trying to rehouse them after the fact. At the same time, shelters still play an important role in crisis response. The goal should be balanced, stabilizing people before they fall into homelessness while maintaining emergency capacity. My broader approach is to prioritize upstream solutions that reduce long-term costs and human impact. Relying on systems that are focused on reactive solutions is, in my view, why so many fall between the cracks and into homelessness. 

Some lawmakers wish to repeal the state law requiring local homelessness policies to be “objectively reasonable” to more easily criminalize homelessness. Would you support or oppose the effort to repeal the law?

I would oppose efforts to repeal protections that prevent the criminalization of homelessness. Treating homelessness as a criminal issue does not solve the underlying causes and can make it harder for people to regain stability. Policies should focus on pathways out of homelessness, such as access to housing, mental health support, and employment opportunities. Policies that I’ve proposed throughout my campaign, such as a Second Chance Network program, can start to create a viable pathway out of homelessness and into a home. Public safety must be balanced with practical, humane solutions that actually reduce homelessness over time.

In recent years, the state has relied most heavily on subsidizing private development to address housing affordability and market shortages. Do you agree with this approach? 

The current model transfers public wealth to private profit while producing housing that loses affordability the moment covenants expire. We need a structural alternative, not just different subsidies.

Oregon should invest in community land trusts — where land is held permanently for community benefit — using patient capital from public sources, including, potentially, PERS, which needs stable long-term returns that CLTs can provide. Pair that with construction training through community colleges across the state, and you address the trades shortage while building housing at lower cost, keeping value local.

Private capital isn’t the enemy. Unstructured private capital with no permanent affordability requirement is. We can do better.

The Legislature greatly reduced state funding for eviction prevention and supportive housing in favor of more shelters. Researchers say this approach increases evictions and homelessness. Will you push the Legislature to restore eviction prevention and supportive housing funding?

Yes, unequivocally. Keeping people in their homes is the most efficient, humane policy we have. The Legislature cut eviction prevention from $130 million to $33 million, reducing households served from 27,700 to only 4,300, while pouring $205 million into shelters. That is triage over medicine. Every dollar spent preventing eviction saves multiples in emergency services, healthcare, and shelter costs. Oregon also needs to build capacity: community college pathways for trained mediators and paralegals specializing in housing law can expand access to legal defense far beyond what attorneys alone can provide. I will push to restore this funding and apply a Time and Dignity Test to all housing policy: Does this keep people housed, in community, with stability? Shelter-first-only policies fail that test. The research is clear. The numbers are clear. We know what works.

Some lawmakers wish to repeal the state law requiring local homelessness policies to be “objectively reasonable” to more easily criminalize homelessness. Would you support or oppose the effort to repeal the law?

I oppose repealing the “objectively reasonable” standard. Criminalizing homelessness doesn’t end homelessness, it consumes resources without addressing root causes, destroys the documents and connections people need to get housed, and moves suffering around without resolving it. We cannot replace smart housing policy with brute law enforcement, especially as federal policy pushes toward criminalization over care. The reasonableness standard doesn’t prevent cities from acting; Portland and Medford both clear encampments under it. It requires that they act humanely. Oregon should strengthen that floor, not eliminate it. Local communities do need better tools and state coordination, but the answer to that is clearer guidance and more resources, not removing the one standard that protects people’s basic dignity.

In recent years, the state has relied most heavily on subsidizing private development to address housing affordability and market shortages. Do you agree with this approach? 

Flagship Top Priorities include resolving the homelessness crisis on Day 1 by Executive Order, Reclaiming our Parks, our Neighborhoods, and our Downtowns of our Hometowns.

Assimilation is a failed $2B mindset. 

(See my HOMEPAGE & Homelessness pages KodelEmpire.com.)

The Legislature greatly reduced state funding for eviction prevention and supportive housing in favor of more shelters. Researchers say this approach increases evictions and homelessness. Will you push the Legislature to restore eviction prevention and supportive housing funding?

Next Executive Order is to eliminate property taxes for Seniors and the worry, stress & fear of the “lien trap.” 

Some lawmakers wish to repeal the state law requiring local homelessness policies to be “objectively reasonable” to more easily criminalize homelessness. Would you support or oppose the effort to repeal the law?

Through Resource Engineering I intend to move our state to a Giving State. I have a plan to eventually end property taxes for all homeowners, and then income taxes.

See the NUCLEAR OPTION page.

I’ve designated a high-velocity thunderous steam engine of income streams that will fund 10 Reservoirs, eliminating the need for taxes and endless levies.

I am ending the DMV licensing/tags; Fishing & Hunting Licensing FEES, DAY-USE FEES, PARKING FEES and Camping fees in our State parks.

In recent years, the state has relied most heavily on subsidizing private development to address housing affordability and market shortages. Do you agree with this approach? 

Subsidizing private development has helped increase housing supply, but it is not sufficient on its own to address the shortage of deeply affordable homes. The state should continue partnering with private developers while also expanding direct investment in social and nonprofit housing, preserving existing affordable units, and strengthening tenant protections. Housing policy should balance approaches, with a focus on long-term stability and affordability rather than short-term market returns.

The Legislature greatly reduced state funding for eviction prevention and supportive housing in favor of more shelters. Researchers say this approach increases evictions and homelessness. Will you push the Legislature to restore eviction prevention and supportive housing funding?

Yes. I would push to restore funding for eviction prevention and supportive housing because preventing homelessness is more effective and less costly than responding after displacement occurs. Rental assistance, legal defense, and supportive housing keep individuals and families stable while reducing pressure on emergency shelter systems. These investments prevent crises rather than simply managing them.

Some lawmakers wish to repeal the state law requiring local homelessness policies to be “objectively reasonable” to more easily criminalize homelessness. Would you support or oppose the effort to repeal the law?

I would oppose efforts to repeal the “objectively reasonable” standard. Criminalizing homelessness does not solve housing instability or address gaps in behavioral health services. It increases displacement and system costs without improving outcomes. A stronger approach expands housing, shelter, and supportive services that create real pathways out of homelessness and into stability.

Republican Primary

In recent years, the state has relied most heavily on subsidizing private development to address housing affordability and market shortages. Do you agree with this approach? 

No. Subsidizing developers hides the real problem and enriches contractors while failing the people who actually need relief. Oregon has made it extraordinarily difficult and expensive to build an affordable home, and that’s the problem we need to fix. Oregon also has 27% office vacancy in Portland and 500,000 units of unmet housing need. Those empty buildings already have water, sewer, power, and parking. I will remove the red tape blocking their conversion to housing, waiving system development charges, cutting environmental review for existing buildings, and creating a sweat-equity pathway so individual Oregonians, not just developers, can convert a vacant storefront into a home they own. I would also waive all permit fees for households earning under $150,000, and create a “Build What You Can” zone where owner-builders can construct what they can afford. Fix the system. Don’t fund the fallout.

The Legislature greatly reduced state funding for eviction prevention and supportive housing in favor of more shelters. Researchers say this approach increases evictions and homelessness. Will you push the Legislature to restore eviction prevention and supportive housing funding?

Yes, but with clear eyes about why we’re here. Oregon has spent billions on homelessness while the problem worsens. Shelters are necessary but they don’t solve homelessness, they manage it. Real prevention means people can actually afford where they live. I will push to restore eviction prevention and supportive housing funding. Simultaneously I will fight to fix the supply crisis driving the emergency, converting Portland’s 27% vacant office stock into housing, waiving permit fees for working families, and creating owner-builder pathways so Oregonians can build and own modest homes. My “Build What You Can” zones will also include sanctioned camping areas, legal, organized, supported spaces, so people have somewhere real to be while they stabilize. No funding level is enough if we keep making housing unaffordable at the source.

Some lawmakers wish to repeal the state law requiring local homelessness policies to be “objectively reasonable” to more easily criminalize homelessness. Would you support or oppose the effort to repeal the law?

I oppose repeal, but I also oppose the disorder that makes people want to repeal it. Criminalizing homelessness without providing a real alternative doesn’t house anyone. It just adds a criminal record to an already impossible situation, and costs taxpayers more than housing interventions do. My solution makes the debate largely moot. My “Build What You Can” zones expressly authorize sanctioned camping in designated areas with basic sanitation and support services, with required buffer zones protecting neighboring homeowners and property values. Cities get the ability to enforce reasonable public order in parks and streets, because a real legal alternative exists. You cannot arrest your way out of a housing crisis. But you can build your way out of one.

In recent years, the state has relied most heavily on subsidizing private development to address housing affordability and market shortages. Do you agree with this approach? 

This approach only works for the targeted population of the last two Governors, focusing on multi-family housing and populations living below an (area median income) of 80. These taxpayer subsidies do not help first-time home buyers with the high cost of housing, or the growing family achieving their next home. I will focus on the very challenging land use laws Oregon has, as well as the infrastructure deserts statewide. The cost on the back of a developer today to pay for roads, sewers, sidewalks, water systems, etc is extremely costly, especially with all the climate change rules applied. We need less regulation, no more. We need more choice, not less.

The Legislature greatly reduced state funding for eviction prevention and supportive housing in favor of more shelters. Researchers say this approach increases evictions and homelessness. Will you push the Legislature to restore eviction prevention and supportive housing funding?

Yes, to a degree. I am a firm believer in prevention systems, not systems of reaction. We, as taxpayers, cannot continue to afford to subsidize the same people/families year after year. We need to work with each person/family and find the root of the issue. Why can’t they afford rent? What do they need to stabilize? Job skills, mental health/addiction treatment, financial management courses. We need to serve the person, not the system. We need what I refer to as an escalator of care. A system that has the tool the person needs, when they need. That delivers on outcomes that are measurable/tracked. Not the same old hamster wheel of dumping more tax dollars into a system that doesn’t deliver.

Some lawmakers wish to repeal the state law requiring local homelessness policies to be “objectively reasonable” to more easily criminalize homelessness. Would you support or oppose the effort to repeal the law?

I don’t agree that repealing HB 3115 creates a “more easily criminalized” system. I do believe repealing it allows local control, which is necessary for communities to navigate their unique

challenges, therefore I support its repeal. We need to have a system that serves people, and not itself. I believe in community expectations, and compassionate accountability. That does not mean, at all, that jail or the criminal justice system is the appropriate tool for individuals navigating homelessness.

Oregon’s current system of care is failing, at all levels. We need a more robust mental and addiction health system, with all levels of care and stabilization. I am doing this work now, with local funds, successfully, in Marion County, albeit on a small scale, because of poor state policies and poor investments.

In recent years, the state has relied most heavily on subsidizing private development to address housing affordability and market shortages. Do you agree with this approach? 

Me being granted Oregon Governor, I’m going to get remove that policy that have been practicing in Oregon for years and rewrite a new one that does not allow subsidized housing that will prevent Oregon Residents from getting a place to stay!

The Legislature greatly reduced state funding for eviction prevention and supportive housing in favor of more shelters. Researchers say this approach increases evictions and homelessness. Will you push the Legislature to restore eviction prevention and supportive housing funding?

Laws have been practiced in the state to prevent Oregon State residents from renting and owning homes by redlining the county’s, and residents from living their best life? Especially low-income people. I’m going to stop that practice right away!!

Some lawmakers wish to repeal the state law requiring local homelessness policies to be “objectively reasonable” to more easily criminalize homelessness. Would you support or oppose the effort to repeal the law?

The laws that have been made to create more homeless in Oregon will stop per my signature!!! That practice is over!!! I hope that my answers gave you my concrete stance on anymore practicing preventive renters or home ownership by using the law to redlining anyone!!! Period!!

In recent years, the state has relied most heavily on subsidizing private development to address housing affordability and market shortages. Do you agree with this approach? 

Subsidizing private development can lead to issues as developers may just pocket the money and increase their profit margins. Government-run development can eliminate profit margins and potentially decrease prices, although it must be shrewdly done. I will be working on several solutions to decrease prices as well as increase housing. Government-owned apartments has shown to decrease rent by 30-40% by decreasing profit margins. I have several ways to increase housing production, such as cutting fake government construction, restricting demolition, decreasing house sizes, and possibly bringing in foreign labor.

The Legislature greatly reduced state funding for eviction prevention and supportive housing in favor of more shelters. Researchers say this approach increases evictions and homelessness. Will you push the Legislature to restore eviction prevention and supportive housing funding?

not certain

Some lawmakers wish to repeal the state law requiring local homelessness policies to be “objectively reasonable” to more easily criminalize homelessness. Would you support or oppose the effort to repeal the law?

not certain

In recent years, the state has relied most heavily on subsidizing private development to address housing affordability and market shortages. Do you agree with this approach? 

No. It doesn’t keep anything affordable. Property values have had an artificial inflation rate of 3% for almost 40 years without any actual value increase. That’s what needs to be fixed. End this artificial increased assessment and reset to actual market valuations. Banks don’t lend 100% of OREGON Assessor valuations. My own property is valued by Oregon at $800,000, while Zillow has it at $608,000. My property value with the state increased $120,000 without any improvement to the property. They aren’t even using local markets for these valuation formulas. I’m a project manager, not a politician trying to feather my nest. I identify the core root of the problem and work from there.

The Legislature greatly reduced state funding for eviction prevention and supportive housing in favor of more shelters. Researchers say this approach increases evictions and homelessness. Will you push the Legislature to restore eviction prevention and supportive housing funding?

Your researchers are correct but that Legislature idea won’t work. Obviously we need FAIR TREATMENT for tenants which should include residences that are to CODE. With the elimination of Property taxes rental prices will drop. With the serious reduction by 90% for building permits new homes and new rentals monthly payments will drop. We need 3-dimensional thinking to fix these problems. There’s also the issue with investment companies like Black Rock buying properties and controlling rental prices

Some lawmakers wish to repeal the state law requiring local homelessness policies to be “objectively reasonable” to more easily criminalize homelessness. Would you support or oppose the effort to repeal the law?

How about FIX the homeless issue? First, interview homeless and find out what state they came from, then send them back along with a BILL to their Governor. (Editor’s note: The claim that Oregon’s homeless population is significantly composed of people who moved here while homeless is false. The vast majority of homeless Oregonians lived in housing in Oregon prior to experiencing homelessness, according to all available data. The percentage of homeless Oregonians originally from another state closely aligns with the percentage of housed Oregonians originally from another state.) Second, adopt the Bethlehem Inn Model in Bend, OR to truly help homeless to rejoin society as a productive citizen. Third, realize, accept, and provide the needed mental institutions for those that aren’t able to rehab. Alcohol and drug addiction will start with #2 above. Stop applying bandaids to arterial wounds.

In recent years, the state has relied most heavily on subsidizing private development to address housing affordability and market shortages. Do you agree with this approach? 

Subsidizing private development has failed. That’s why I have the Statewide Housing Assistance Rental Plan rental – SHARP. Jason Boyce, who is running for HD 45, and I have an initiative that would match those who want to rent with landlords. Many people are homeless because they do not make three times the amount of rent. Or they’re an immigrant, yes lawful immigrants. They’re disabled. A veteran.

At the same time there are many landlords that claim they can’t find anybody to rent to.

The Legislature greatly reduced state funding for eviction prevention and supportive housing in favor of more shelters. Researchers say this approach increases evictions and homelessness. Will you push the Legislature to restore eviction prevention and supportive housing funding?

Yes. Many landlords keep their properties run down just enough so that they don’t qualify for section 8. But not so run down that the building would be condemned. This is one of the reasons why many people are homeless. Not enough authorized housing under the current rules. This is one of the reasons why SHARP must exist.

Some lawmakers wish to repeal the state law requiring local homelessness policies to be “objectively reasonable” to more easily criminalize homelessness. Would you support or oppose the effort to repeal the law?

Criminalizing homelessness shows a complete failure of the lawmakers to do what they are obligated to do as elected officials. This is one of the reasons why I have received death threats and have been physically assaulted. Because I actually want to solve the problem, while my opponents are hanging out at $10,000 dinners, eating high on the hog. 

What homeless people in Salem OR Portland need is going to be different than homeless people and no cities, Baker City or Jordan Valley.

In recent years, the state has relied most heavily on subsidizing private development to address housing affordability and market shortages. Do you agree with this approach? 

**Housing affordability:**

I disagree with relying solely on subsidizing private development. 

* It often leads to gentrification, pushing low-income residents out. Without offering updated career support

* We need community land trusts, public housing options, and rent control. Should be about passion and not more money.

The Legislature greatly reduced state funding for eviction prevention and supportive housing in favor of more shelters. Researchers say this approach increases evictions and homelessness. Will you push the Legislature to restore eviction prevention and supportive housing funding?

**Eviction prevention and supportive housing funding in education retraining.

Yes, I’ll push to restore funding. 

* Eviction prevention services and supportive housing are crucial for stability.

* Shelters should be scattered across the state according to the population. Shelters could be community service building wrap around services educating the homeless and our immigrant population in Oregon.

Some lawmakers wish to repeal the state law requiring local homelessness policies to be “objectively reasonable” to more easily criminalize homelessness. Would you support or oppose the effort to repeal the law?

**Homelessness criminalization law in the city core but look the homeless good or different area to get services treatment or we’re bus ticket back home wherever they may live can save some of his life

I oppose repealing the law. 

* Criminalizing homelessness only in certain metropolitan areas in Oregon are not appropriate. When you make it a criminal offense it gives the law more tools to keep the streets our neighborhood in order and safe. Crime for people sleeping on the streets, front door.

* We need compassionate, evidence-based solutions like affordable housing and services exactly what Habitat for Humanity offers partnership with education home buying solutions for low-income community members and family.

This article appears in May 6, 2026.