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.

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 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?

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.

Name: Tammy Carpenter

City: Beaverton, OR

Current occupation: Retired. Former anesthesiologist and engineer.

Prior political office held: Beaverton School Board Director (2023-present)

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 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. 

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.

Name: Daniel Loc Nguyen

City: Lake Oswego

Current occupation: Representative serving House District 38 and Founder of Bambuza Hospitality Group

Prior political office held: Lake Oswego city council (2019 – 2022)

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? 

“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?

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.

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.

Name: John Wasielewski

City: Lake Oswego

Current occupation: Middle school teacher at Lake Oswego Middle School, cross-country and track coach

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? 

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?

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.

Name: Charles Gallia

City: Oregon City

Current occupation: Retired

Prior political office held: None. 

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? 

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?

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. 

Name: Michael Sugar

City: Oregon City

Current occupation: High school social studies teacher.

Prior political office held: None 

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? 

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?

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.

Name: Rep. Mark Gamba

City: Milwaukie

Current occupation: Representative serving Oregon’s 41st district.

Prior political office held: Milwaukie City Councilor, Mayor of Milwaukie, State Representative

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? 

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?

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.

Name: Priyesh Krishnan

City: Portland

Current occupation: Principal data scientist

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? 

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.

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.

Name: Cye Sterling

City: Portland

Advertisement

Current occupation: Self-published author, volunteer with 7 Cups and active with Indivisible Oregon

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? 

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?

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.

This article appears in May 13, 2026.

Related