The Oregon State Senate consists of 30 elected members who serve four-year terms, working out of the Oregon State Capitol building in Salem. State senators represent specific districts in the Legislature, overseeing state laws, budgets and agencies. For example, in the most recent legislative session, senators chose to slash eviction prevention funding and agencies. Half of the 30 seats are up for election in 2026. Right now, Democrats hold an 18-12 majority in the Oregon State Senate.
District 17, which makes up West Portland, Cathedral Park, Forest Park, north Beaverton, east Hillsboro and much of unincorporated Washington County, is currently held by Senator Lisa Reynolds (D), who is running for reelection. Autumn Sharp (D), who has no prior governmental experience, is running against Senator Reynolds.
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.
Name: Lisa Reynolds
City: Portland
Current occupation: State senator representing the district where she is currently seeking reelection
Prior political office held:
- Citizen Budget Advisory Committee, Multnomah County
- State representative
- State senator
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 certainly like public/private partnerships in our approaches to solve many problems in our communities. However, these partnerships must be constantly re-evaluated. What is the goal of this scheme?
In this case, it’s to build more housing that is affordable for working-class Oregonians. And it is also to build housing for low-income Oregonians, including those with disabilities and including those with HUD vouchers. Certainly, it appears that this structure of “subsidizing private development” is not meeting these goals. If the actual analysis bears that out – that our approach is not helping us meet our goals- we must correct the course. We must delve and determine what is working and what is not, and build more housing for working families and those in poverty.
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 your colleagues to restore eviction prevention and supportive housing funding?
It is much harder to re-house someone who has been evicted (and is now homeless) than to prevent eviction in the first place. I am a huge fan of eviction prevention. And, I’ve worked to strengthen eviction protections for families with babies. I will always fight for more funding!
Regarding supportive housing – we continue to not provide enough wraparound services for our most vulnerable Oregonians – those struggling with addiction and mental illness. Many cannot just be given a room. They must receive therapy, treatment, medications, basic needs, etc. Failure to provide these supports leads to cycling in and out of housing and shelters without any sort of rehabilitation. So, yes, I will press for supportive housing, which, when done right, saves lives (and money).
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 the effort to repeal these “objectively reasonable” approaches to local homelessness policies.
Homelessness is not a crime. It is a failure of so many aspects of our social contract with each other and a failure of our government to provide a strong safety net for our vulnerable neighbors. I do believe we have to do all we can to encourage our neighbors to leave the sidewalks and find warm, dry, safe places to sleep and to spend their lives. We need housing, welcoming and safe shelters, and wraparound services. We cannot (and should not) arrest our way out of this – we need a comprehensive infrastructure to re-integrate our homeless neighbors into housed communities.
Name: Autumn Sharp
City: Portland
Current occupation: Communications & Program Leader at Ecotrust
Prior political office held: None
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?
Oregon won’t solve its housing crisis without building more housing. We’re short tens of thousands of units, and when supply falls short, costs rise. Private development must be part of the solution, but with clear accountability for long-term affordability. The state should reduce barriers, streamline permitting, and tie incentives to results. At the same time, we need targeted support for those with the greatest needs and protections to prevent displacement. I focus on what works: increasing supply, aligning incentives, and ensuring public dollars deliver real outcomes, not just intentions.
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 your colleagues to restore eviction prevention and supportive housing funding?
Yes, restoring funding for eviction prevention and supportive housing is essential. Preventing eviction is more cost-effective and far less disruptive than helping someone after they’ve lost housing. It keeps families stable and reduces long-term system costs. We should invest in rent assistance, mediation, and legal support that stop displacement early. Supportive housing is also critical for people who need services to stay housed. Shelters play a role, but shifting resources away from prevention leads to more instability. I will focus on outcomes: keeping people housed and ensuring programs are coordinated, effective, and accountable.
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 solve it, and it often makes it harder for people to access services and move toward stability. At the same time, communities deserve safe, usable public spaces. We have to do both. That means setting clear expectations while ensuring there are real alternatives, like shelter that people actually want to use, access to treatment, and housing pathways. I’ve seen that when systems are aligned and focused on outcomes, we get better results. The goal should be solutions that help people move forward while prioritizing both individual and community safety—not policies that deepen the crisis.
This article appears in May 6, 2026.