Connect with us

Oregon

Nation should take inspiration from Oregon’s reformed Medicaid system, former Gov. John Kitzhaber says

Published

on

Nation should take inspiration from Oregon’s reformed Medicaid system, former Gov. John Kitzhaber says


Former Democratic Gov. John Kitzhaber, who oversaw the creation of the Oregon Health Plan and the state’s Coordinated Care model, is among those Rep. Cliff Bentz is getting advice from as Republicans consider massive cuts to Medicaid and other programs. Kitzhaber is pictured on March 14, 2025 at OPB, before his appearance on “Think Out Loud.”

Allison Frost / OPB

In the late 1980s, former Governor John Kitzhaber was a chief architect of the Oregon Health Plan, the state’s reformulation of Medicaid. In 2012, he was the driving force behind another huge transformation: the creation of coordinated care organizations or CCOs, which became the way low-income Oregonians get their healthcare.

Kitzhaber has been out of office for 10 years now, but he has been paying a lot of attention in recent weeks to Congress, where Republicans are looking to trim upwards of $800 billion from Medicaid over the next ten years.

Advertisement

Kitzhaber spoke with OPB’s “Think Out Loud” about what Medicaid cuts or reform could look like for Oregon and the nation. Excerpts, edited for length and clarity, are below.

What an ideal healthcare system should look like

“The objective of the health care system ought to be health, right? And I think that, primarily, we view it as something to fund and deliver medical care, right? I think most of us would probably agree that we want a healthcare system that’s affordable, accessible and that actually improves health outcomes when people need it.

“You need to align the fiscal incentives with the outcomes that you want. So fee-for-service medicine, which is what most hospitals operate on, rewards you for doing more regardless of whether what you’re doing actually is connected to a health outcome. If you operate under a global budget that is a fixed amount of money that grows at a predictable rate each year, then you have an incentive to actually invest in, let’s say, childhood obesity, because you want to reduce the very costly consequences of diabetes downstream.”

How Oregon sets an example

“The Coordinated Care Organizations are essentially local organizations that operate on a global budget that can grow at about 3.4% per member, per year and are required to maintain enrollment and benefits and meet metrics around quality and outcomes. The idea originally was to prove that up in Medicaid and then move it into the private insurance market in the individual market and small group market, which I still think is a really important step because both Medicaid and Medicare and our employment-based system are simply unsustainable. They’re getting unaffordable for employers, for government and for individuals.

“We signed an agreement with the federal government that we would reduce the cost trend two percentage points from medical inflation by the second year of the waiver, but we had a period to phase that in and the feds gave us a $1.9 billion dollar one-time loan and that money went down over the five years as the cost savings came in.

Advertisement

“The classic block grant is they give you a fixed amount of money. And if the number of people in your Medicaid system goes up, then you’ve got to either drop some of them off or you have to cut benefits. The three classic ways to manage cost in any health care program is to reduce benefits, reduce enrollment or reduce what you pay providers. What we’re trying to do in Oregon is the fourth path, which is reduce the total cost of care itself, while maintaining access, while maintaining benefits, while maintaining quality.”

Former Democratic Gov. John Kitzhaber, who oversaw the creation of the Oregon Health Plan and the state's Coordinated Care model, is among those Rep. Cliff Bentz is getting advice from as Republicans consider massive cuts to Medicaid and other programs. Kitzhaber is pictured in the

Former Democratic Gov. John Kitzhaber, who oversaw the creation of the Oregon Health Plan and the state’s Coordinated Care model, is among those Rep. Cliff Bentz is getting advice from as Republicans consider massive cuts to Medicaid and other programs. Kitzhaber is pictured in the “Think Out Loud” studio on March 14, 2025 at OPB, just before his interview with host Dave Miller.

Allison Frost / OPB

What cuts to Medicaid at the federal level could look like

“I think the Democratic response has been very loud and focused: ‘No cuts to Medicaid. Period.’ I think that’s not only the wrong response, but I think it misses a huge opportunity that’s presented at this moment in time.

“What I’ve been proposing and discussing with [Congressman Cliff Bentz] is using Oregon’s CCO model as a way to transform the Medicaid system nationally. We’ve saved the federal government almost $4 billion over the last ten years. Give other states the opportunity if they want to move down that path to adopt the key principles of our plan: a global budget that’s growing at a rate below medical inflation. Secondly, requirements: You can’t cut enrollment, you can’t cut benefits and you have to meet metrics around quality and outcomes.

“You can look at the $4 billion we saved as cutting Medicaid, or you could look at it as I do; as making the program more efficient and more responsive to the needs of people who depend on it. And actually ECOnorthwest did a study in 2018 on what would happen if the nation adopted a very similar program and received cost savings of the same magnitude as Oregon, and the 10-year budget reduction was about $700 billion.”

Advertisement

The potential political hurdles to get there

“One of them is on the Democratic side of the aisle. I think this attitude that [there should be] no cuts to Medicaid is politically not very smart. The last three election cycles, the Democrats have insisted that all our public institutions are working just fine, which doesn’t match up with the reality of millions of Americans who are working hard and can’t make ends meet, right? This is an opportunity for us to say, ‘Let’s defend the need for our public institutions – in this case, a healthcare program for vulnerable Americans – but let’s make it work. Let’s make it efficient. Let’s not continue to spend dollars on things that don’t produce health and simply line the pockets of big corporate interests.’

“On the Republican side, I question the motives of at least the president’s desire to cut these things. I don’t think there’s a lot of compassion there or understanding of the fact that these are hardworking people who are working one or two jobs and just can’t get by. And that healthcare to me, particularly in rural Oregon, is a key ladder to economic self-sufficiency. It’s part of the infrastructure of upward mobility. I’m not sure they understand that.

“I’ve been working closely with Congressman Bentz who has introduced this notion to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Obviously, I don’t know what’s going to happen. But the question on the Republican side is whether they’re interested in just slashing and burning and cutting a program that is incredibly important to 80 million people, most of them kids in this country, or whether they’re actually interested in getting legitimate efficiencies without damaging this incredible infrastructure that’s so important to health.

“It doesn’t have to be an ugly partisan battle. We all need health care, no matter who we are, no matter where we live. Let’s work together to make it affordable and to make it effective.”

Former Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber spoke with “Think Out Loud” host Dave Miller. Click play to listen to the full conversation:

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Oregon

PeaceHealth says Oregon CEO Jim McGovern out, Heather Wall to continue as interim leader

Published

on

PeaceHealth says Oregon CEO Jim McGovern out, Heather Wall to continue as interim leader


PeaceHealth announced Thursday that Dr. Jim McGovern is no longer serving as chief executive for the organization’s Oregon region, effective immediately.

Following a period of administrative leave, we determined that a leadership change was in the best interest of the organization,” said Sarah Ness, PeaceHealth president and CEO.

Heather Wall will continue in her established interim leadership role to ensure continuity, stability and uninterrupted operations across the Oregon region while PeaceHealth recruits for the chief executive role in Oregon.

Comment with Bubbles

BE THE FIRST TO COMMENT

Advertisement

“Together, as we shape our future, PeaceHealth leaders are entrusted to consistently bring our Mission and Values to life by creating environments where caregivers and partners feel seen, heard, supported and inspired to do their best work,” Ness said. “We remain focused on delivering high-quality, compassionate care and supporting our caregivers as we move forward together.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Oregon

Who’s running for a seat in the Oregon House of Representatives?

Published

on

Who’s running for a seat in the Oregon House of Representatives?


In Oregon, state representatives serve two-year terms. Like state senators, state representatives represent a specific district based on population. Currently, Democrats hold a 37-23 majority in the state House. Over 100 candidates have filed for the 60 seats up for election. Of the 60 districts, approximately 20 are in the Portland Metropolitan Area (Multnomah, Clackamas and Washington counties). 

State-level representatives address local and regional issues such as education policy, health care, transportation, public safety and taxes. Because state representatives serve smaller districts than state senators, their policymaking tends to be more localized and focused on their respective geographic regions.

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.

District 27 Democratic Primary

Currently, Rep. Ken Helm (D) represents District 27, which includes Beaverton, Cedar Hills and nearby communities. No Republicans have filed campaigns for District 27, which is a historically blue district.

Advertisement

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? 

Advertisement

Subsidizing private development to address affordable housing has been an effective tool in helping meet our affordable housing needs, but I don’t think it’s the only solution we should consider. In Beaverton, we have built over 600 affordable units using Metro Affordable Housing bond dollars, and that is a huge accomplishment; however, it doesn’t come close to meeting the need. I think public housing is a really interesting option, and has worked very well in other countries. I believe we should find innovative and creative ways to build more housing to ensure people at all income levels have safe and affordable housing.

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?

Eviction prevention is critical to ensuring families remain housed and avoid the trauma of the shelter system. While emergency shelters are necessary, investing in prevention is a guaranteed strategy to reduce their demand. However, “Housing First” alone is insufficient; we must also restore funding for supportive services to provide the resources necessary for individuals to thrive long-term.

I am committed to pushing my colleagues to prioritize and restore funding for these vital programs. My plan includes making prevention a budget priority, advancing reinvestment legislation, and collaborating with community partners to ensure effective fund distribution. If we are serious about our Democratic values, we must invest in preventing homelessness at its source, rather than simply responding after our neighbors have already lost their homes.

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?

Advertisement

I strongly oppose any effort to repeal the “objectively reasonable” standard and further criminalize homelessness. We need to fully stop treating homelessness as a crime. Penalizing people for sleeping outside or having nowhere else to go does nothing to solve the crisis and pushes people further into instability, making it hard for folks to access housing and services. I think we have failed as a society that so many folks have to sleep outside. We should be focusing on real solutions: increasing affordable housing, expanding supportive services, and investing in eviction prevention so fewer people end up homeless in the first place. And if someone finds themselves homeless, there needs to be resources to help them get back to stable housing.

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? 

Advertisement

The public-private partnership paradigm that has long been at the center of our approach to housing is not working. We are not getting enough affordable, family housing from the for-profit system. I believe the government needs to invest in social housing. We should be building dense, transit-accessible housing that is permanently affordable and owned cooperatively by the tenants or by the government. We should follow the lead of the City of Portland, and begin the process of social housing in Beaverton. Government dollars should be spent on publicly owned, high-quality, permanently affordable, environmentally and socially sustainable housing that is insulated from speculation and private equity that drives up the cost of housing in the private market. 

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?

Preventing homelessness is the most effective way to reduce homelessness. I will work with my colleagues in Salem to help working families by restoring programs that prevent evictions, like emergency rent assistance and relocation funding. More importantly, I will introduce a renters’ bill of rights that will protect tenants from profit-driven landlords who charge excessive fees, unfairly increase rents, or don’t maintain habitability standards. While we are working to prevent evictions, we must also be working to get folks who have been experiencing long-term homelessness into permanent housing and supportive services to finally end the cycle of homelessness in our state. 

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?

It is simply inhumane that we have criminalized poverty. This is not a new phenomenon, but the public visibility of the current crisis is leading many elected leaders to attempt to sweep the problem under the rug rather than fundamentally change our approach to housing. Our current affordability crisis makes it almost impossible for folks to even get back on their feet without some kind of help. I believe that we must repeal this law and make significant investments in directly helping folks experiencing homelessness through each step of the rehousing process. 

Advertisement

District 38 Democratic Primary

District 38 includes South Waterfront, Lake Oswego and portions of Southwest Portland. Incumbent Rep. Daniel Nguyen, currently serving his second term, is up against John Wasielewski, who has no prior political experience.

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? 

Advertisement

“Yes, and” is the answer.

Every Oregonian deserves a safe, affordable place to live, regardless of income and government should help support and create the conditions to make that happen.

My “yes” is because we need to build more housing and for that, private developers are best positioned.  That’s why I supported one of the largest-ever investments in housing in Oregon’s history, which prioritized middle-income, temporary housing, and first-time home ownership.

And we need to focus on and ensure housing production in the 0-80 MFI range. We have learned the hard way in Portland that building, managing, and maintaining public housing is difficult. Private developers partnered with funding and strong long-term agreements with local governments and communities may be our best path.

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?

Advertisement

Funding eviction prevention is the most humane and cost-effective tool we have to prevent homelessness. It was very disappointing to see a reduction. Our next economic forecast comes out May 20th and I’ll be watching to see if there is an opportunity to commit additional dollars to eviction prevention. And if it’s a no in May, I’m going to try again in September.

Likewise, supportive housing is a proven pathway out of homelessness, reduces reliance on emergency systems–pairing housing with access to mental health care, addiction treatment or case management has significant public health benefits as well.

I appreciate Street Roots’ consistent coverage of the shortcomings of our funding levels and system failures. Keep the pressure on us to do better.

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?

Oregon’s “objectively reasonable” standard is a vital safeguard—it prevents punishing people for having nowhere to go. As a former city councilor, I understand the pressure local governments face. But moving people without real alternatives like shelter or housing is cruel, counterproductive and costly.

Advertisement

The fight to overturn this common-sense standard is a distraction that keeps us from holding the federal government accountable for its inaction on the housing crisis. We haven’t seen homelessness at this scale since the Great Depression, when Roosevelt responded with large-scale federal housing efforts. Oregon and the Portland metro regional taxpayers have invested millions, but we need federal leadership to match the scale of this crisis and deliver real, lasting solutions.

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? 

Advertisement

Subsidizing private development is one tool available to address housing affordability and market shortages, but it cannot be the only one. Just as we wouldn’t build an entire house with a

single tool, we must utilize a diverse set of strategies to effectively solve the housing crisis. We need to explore innovative alternatives to meet our community’s needs, as market-rate housing remains inaccessible to many, especially those in the greatest need. It is essential that we consider and experiment with options like social housing and rental assistance to provide opportunities for mitigating this crisis in our city.

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?

As a middle school student support specialist, I work within a data-informed pipeline designed to deliver targeted interventions. This system only succeeds when every stage is adequately resourced. Divesting from one area to consolidate funding into a single solution, like shelters, would, at best, create an expensive holding cell with no clear off-ramps for those seeking to exit homelessness. We cannot prioritize one fix over another; eviction prevention and supportive housing are not secondary. They are co-equal components of an effective, integrated strategy. Just as in education, a gap in any part of the system causes the entire pipeline to fail. We must commit to a comprehensive approach that includes eviction protection and supportive housing funding. (Suggested: I would also join my colleagues in passing a moratorium on the ban of rent control measures to keep rents from being raised so exorbitantly.)

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?

Advertisement

I do not support repealing this law; the standard for moving individuals should remain “objectively reasonable.” However, I do support providing greater statutory clarification on what “objectively reasonable” means so that the courts are not the sole determinants of that definition. Homelessness is not an individual economic choice; it is a systemic economic failure. While criminalizing homelessness might make it easier for our current system to “address” the issue by hiding it, it does not solve the underlying problem. Criminalization merely hides homelessness. To truly solve it, we must ensure there are dedicated resources effectively coordinated within a holistic pipeline that addresses the crisis at its roots

District 40 Democratic Primary 

District 40 includes Gladstone, Oregon City, Johnson City, Jennings Lodge, Oatfield and parts of unincorporated north Clackamas County. Democratic incumbent Rep. Annessa Hartman announced in September that she will not seek reelection. Neither of the Republican candidates, Adam Baker and Sue Leslie, provided answers.

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 be part of the solution, but it cannot be the backbone of our housing strategy. In high-cost markets like ours, subsidies alone often produce too few truly affordable units, too slowly, and at too high a per-unit cost. We need a more balanced approach: significantly expand non-market housing (public, nonprofit, and community land trusts), streamline approvals for deeply affordable projects, and align subsidies with long-term affordability requirements. I also support using public land more aggressively and tying incentives to outcomes—units affordable to people at the lowest incomes. It’s time we thought of smaller cottages that become owned and create intergenerational wealth and community.

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—I would push to restore and stabilize funding for eviction prevention and supportive housing. The evidence is clear: it is far less expensive—and far more humane—to keep people housed than to rehouse them after displacement. It should also not just shift the burden onto people renting out homes to absorb the expense. Overreliance on shelters is costly and doesn’t solve homelessness over time. A smart approach prioritizes upstream interventions: rental assistance and services that stabilize people with complex needs. Shelters have a role, especially in emergencies, but they  can not displace proven strategies that prevent homelessness in the first place. 1:1 support. We need a housing continuum that works, and right now we are underinvesting in the parts that deliver the best outcomes.

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?

Advertisement

I would oppose repealing the “objectively reasonable” standard. It exists to ensure that local policies balance community concerns with basic constitutional protections and human dignity. Criminalizing homelessness without adequate shelter or housing options is not only ineffective—it exposes cities to legal risk and pushes people further from stability. We should focus on solutions that reduce homelessness, not policies that simply move it around or make it less visible. That means expanding access to shelter and housing, investing in behavioral health services, and supporting local governments with clear, lawful frameworks. Accountability matters, but it must be paired with realistic options for people to comply. Otherwise, we are legislating failure rather than solving the problem.

It should be very clear what that means too. 

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? 

We should continue to subsidize private development, but we can go further by supporting Main Street Grants that don’t just help restore historic building facades, but also subsidize renovation of aged or historic office space to expand housing. Over the long term, we can also invest in social housing similar to the Austrian model that actually helps families stabilize permanently in mixed-income communities instead of temporarily and precariously in poverty-dense areas as current affordable housing models sometimes do.

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?

All of these are important: eviction prevention, supportive housing and shelters. I would push my colleagues to find balance there, and also to improve on the supportive housing models: frequently, these models are so time-limited or income restricted that they push people out right as they are starting to stabilize, reigniting housing instability for them. We need supportive housing that allows people to have stability over a long period of time, which can also create income diversity within these areas.

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?

Advertisement

I do not support criminalizing homelessness. I do support programs that address both the housing crisis and the public health crisis inherent to homelessness. That’s everything from Oxford houses and non-profits like Father’s Heart & Love One to helping Clackamas County & regional cities start a crisis response program like Lane County’s Cahoots. In the end, we should protect and support the most vulnerable members of our communities (the unhoused) and compassionately ensure street camping becomes a relic of the past by getting people the support, services, and housing options they need. 

District 41 Democratic Primary 

Incumbent Rep. Mark Gamba (D) is running for reelection in House District 41, which represents Milwaukie, Oak Grove, Northern Clackamas County, and the Sellwood, Eastmoreland and Woodstock neighborhoods.

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, I don’t think that “the market” can solve all of our problems. If it could, we wouldn’t have a problem in the first place. I have been running a workgroup for almost a year now to try and stand up a social housing program that would mass produce 10,000 – 1,000 square foot units a year. We are aiming at a sale price of $250,000 each. This would give a couple, both making close to minimum wage, the opportunity for home ownership which would stabilize them.  Currently most people are stuck in a skyrocketing rental market which their pay can’t keep up with.

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, but our real problem is our very broken revenue system, and the cuts coming from the federal government all of which affect the same population. It is far cheaper to keep folks housed, but as I said above, rents increase faster than anyone’s paycheck, leading to a downward spiral with only one outcome. It’s financially unsustainable currently for the state to keep up with that and it’s only going to get worse. For someone to be able to afford the average one-bedroom apartment in the Portland metro region, they need to be making around $34/hour. Huge companies, making astronomic profits, are paying half of that. As a state we can’t continue to subsidize their profits by keeping their employees housed with our limited tax dollars.

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?

Advertisement

I would oppose it. Criminalizing poverty is not going to solve anything for the houseless, just hide it from the people it makes uncomfortable. Maybe if they become uncomfortable enough they will be willing to push elected leaders to actually solve it with things like a “housable minimum wage,” better behavioral health care, housing first solutions etc.

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? 

Advertisement

I don’t think that subsidizing private developers is the best way to address affordability. At best it subsidizes the first sale cost. At worst, it inflates developer margins. I favor also trying models like the Home Trust or Community Land Trust models that allow for organizations to sustain affordability through generations.

Recent legislation, like HB 4082, is a good case in point. It must be new housing, to expand the urban growth boundary, for seniors only, and built with defined amenities together in a community. The developers are happy with that subsidy. We need to build systems that build on themselves, not just try to find a short-term band-aid. It is not just a supply and demand problem. People deserve options.

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?

When you try to protect the most vulnerable, you must protect those that are in danger of becoming vulnerable as well. In healthcare, you don’t wait for a heart blockage to give cholesterol medicine. Eviction protection, safety housing and grants are all ways to help people smooth out the bumps in their life.

For eviction protection specifically, there is an imbalance between renters and landlords. This only brings balance, without favoring one side or another. While cities have their own laws, the benefit of state-mandated baselines is to keep all Oregonians on an even playing field.

Advertisement

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?

Time has shown that there is not a law in the land that fixes the core issues leading to the multiple causes of houselessness. And without that multilayered approach to attempting the core fix, we would be selling ourselves short by allowing for the symptom to be criminalized.

In the story of houselessness, we are facing the same ideas of human dignity and opportunity that is being faced elsewhere in our state. Yes, it is harder to work through all the layers of the issue. But that is the right path for our state. Again, cities have some opportunities here, but the need for a state approach (at baseline) is one that Oregonians deserve.

District 43 Democratic Primary 

District 43, which includes North and Northeast Portland, is currently held by incumbent Rep. Tawna Sanchez (D), who is running for reelection. Rep. Sanchez chose not to respond to Street Roots’ candidate questionnaire because she said she could not adequately address the questions with a limited word count.

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? 

Having lived in public housing, I know firsthand how systems impact families. Oregon’s hybrid model is cost-effective, but for real stability and better quality of life, we should invest more in state-owned housing. This would cut through bureaucracy that slows families from getting into homes — a problem too many Oregonians face today.

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?

Advertisement

I will absolutely push to restore funding for eviction prevention and supportive housing. It’s far more cost-effective and humane to help families stay in their homes than to start from scratch. Supportive housing provides long-term stability, essential services, and safety, while shelters are temporary and cannot replace a home. Everyone deserves a foundation to build their life, and without housing, that’s impossible.

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 strongly oppose any effort to repeal this law. Criminalizing homelessness is cruel and comes from ignorance about the struggles people face. Housing is a basic need, and punishing someone for losing theirs is ineffective and unjust. At the same time, I recognize the frustrations of neighbors who deal with property damage, trash, or safety concerns. Our approach must balance compassion for those experiencing homelessness with respect for the public. The state should work with cities to implement policies that protect both residents and those without homes, ensuring safety, stability, and dignity.

Shared responsibility and thoughtful policy — not criminalization — are the only solutions that truly work.

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading

Oregon

Former Oregon guard Holly Winterburn signs developmental contract with Portland Fire

Published

on

Former Oregon guard Holly Winterburn signs developmental contract with Portland Fire


PORTLAND, Ore. (KPTV) – Guard and former Oregon Ducks player Holly Winterburn has been signed to a developmental contract with the Portland Fire, the team announced Wednesday.

Winterburn played at the University of Oregon during the 2019-20 season. The native of Northampton, England, then went back to Europe where she last played for Athinaikos in the Greek Women’s Basketball League.

Winterburn, who went undrafted in the 2026 WNBA draft, was signed by the Atlanta Dream before being waived on prior to the season.

The Fire won their first game of the season on Tuesday, beating the New York Liberty 98-96.

Advertisement

The Fire face the Liberty again at 7 p.m. on Thursday at the Moda Center. Get tickets to the game here.

Copyright 2026 KPTV-KPDX. All rights reserved.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending