Questions and Answers

1. Question: With the economy in the tank for young families with no stock portfolio just trying to buy food and fuel, as a state senator what tools of government would you apply to help them? Cam Patterson, Ashland

Jim’s answer:

If you work and pay taxes but still are falling behind because of the rising costs of groceries, rent, childcare, utilities, and fuel, the State can—and should—help by letting you keep more of the money you earned.

To accomplish that I’d dedicate $125 million annually to provide about a $1,000 Oregon income tax credit for lower-income working taxpayers.

With such a credit we could help people who work and pay Oregon income taxes—but are still squeezed by rising costs—keep more of what they earned.

I believe that such targeted relief would make a real difference for families who are doing everything right but still struggle to get ahead.

Hopefully this answers your question but, if it doesn't, please let me know.

Finally, if you have other ideas on how to help struggling young Oregonians I would love to hear them.

2. Question: Why in the world would you have a website that does not contain your email address, and why would the question be restricted to 255 characters? Come on, Jim. You are sabotaging your own campaign. I wanted to send you an advance copy of a blog post. Peter Sage, Medford

Jim’s Answer:

Regarding my email address I was relying on the “Ask Jim a Question” tab, but I agree it should have also been on the “Contact” tab so I have added it there. FYI it’s: [email protected]

255 characters is the limit set by RUN (the website designer). I think 255 characters are sufficient to ask most questions, but I am also checking to see if the website will permit me to increase the number. In addition, I call every questioner before I answer their question so, if they want to add some context to their question they can do so then.

Thanks for the feedback.

Jim

3. Question: I am a 77 y.o. low-income senior citizen living on Social Security. I pay no federal income tax but every year I have to pay Oregon income tax. Why is that? Jim Meissner, Ashland.

Jim’s Answer:

I don’t know your exact income, so I’ll answer generally. The short answer is that this is a policy decision.

The federal government has chosen not tax Social Security for many lower-income seniors. Oregon, however, uses different rules. Oregon’s taxable income thresholds are lower, and its exemptions for seniors are more limited. As a result, income that is not taxed federally (e.g. yours) may still be taxed by Oregon. So even though your income is low enough to owe nothing federally, it may still be high enough for Oregon to treat part of it as taxable.

I hope this answers your question. If not—or if you have others—please let me know.

Jim
Cell: 541-531-2912

4. Question: How will the theoretical $100M be appropriated to ODOT to ensure O&M is prioritized? In reading the ODOT 2026 Transportation Funding Update, it appears 130 jobs will be left vacant with $78.2M reductions to the State Highway Fund. Thank you. Baker McDonald, Ashland.

Jim’s Answer:

As you point out, the current ODOT funding plan cuts $78 million, leaves over 130 positions vacant, and shifts money from other programs. That’s not a winning long-term strategy—it’s a short-term “limp along” strategy.

If we’re going to dedicate $100 million to ODOT to maintain and fix our roads and bridges, then that money must actually be used for that purpose. In plain terms: if we say it’s for road repair, it must only be used for road repair—period.

That’s why the $100 million must be protected by statutory guardrails. To do that, I would create a legally restricted subaccount requiring that the $100 million:

• Be used only for “fix-it” maintenance—roads, bridges, and backlog reduction. No new projects and no administrative overhead.

• Cannot replace existing funding, it must add to current maintenance spending, not backfill cuts.

• Be equitably distributed statewide, including rural highways (like Highway 66), so it isn’t all absorbed by the I-5 and I-84 corridors.

• Dedicate at least 25% to frontline staffing, with priority hiring for:

  • Maintenance crews

  • Snow and ice response drivers

  • Bridge and pavement teams

Because the reality is simple: You can appropriate all the money you want—but if you don’t have the people to do the work, the roads and bridges won’t get fixed.

If we do this right, $100 million won’t just keep the system from slipping further, it will start rebuilding it.

I hope this answers your question. If not—or if you have others—please let me know.

Jim
Cell: 541-531-2912

5. Question: We have made progress on wildfire mitigation in Jackson County Oregon. The exception is building codes and zoning. The County seems to be sitting on its hands. Is State legislation the right carrot/stick to drag Jackson County into the 21st century? Rich Fairbanks, Jacksonville

Jim’s Answer:

The short answer is: Yes—but only if it’s done wisely.

Oregon already controls the statewide building code, so the state has the power to set minimum standards for wildfire resilience. However, the State learned a hard lesson from its heavy-handed roll-out of SB 762. When SB 762 was rolled out, many property owners feared it would lower property values and make insurance harder to obtain. The backlash from those property owners was swift and strong enough that the Legislature:

• Repealed the wildfire hazard map and related mandates;

• Shifted to voluntary model codes; and

• Gave counties the option to adopt—or ignore—key standards.

I think that that experience, and the fact that there is no real penalty for maintaining the status quo, explains why the Jackson County commissioners have not acted.

The State should take a targeted carrot-and-stick approach by:

1. Tying funding to action. Counties respond much quicker to money than mandates.
So, State grants for wildfire mitigation, infrastructure, or insurance stabilization should be explicitly tied to a county’s adoption of basic standards for:

• Fire-resistant construction materials

• Ember-resistant vents

• Secondary access/egress

• Adequate on-site water supply

2. Setting a statewide floor—not a ceiling
Require minimum 100’ of defensible space around structures and ignition-resistant construction statewide, while allowing local governments to go further if they desire.

3. Use insurance as the pressure point
The real driver here is insurance. If the state:

• Required insurers to recognize mitigation-compliant homes, and

• Offered a backstop only in counties that adopt basic standards

That would create an immediate, bottom-up, positive pressure from homeowners.

4. Keeping zoning changes narrow and focused (This is where SB 762 went too far)
Retroactive rules on existing homes will not work for many reasons (Cost being the primary one) so focus zoning changes only on new development in high-risk wildfire areas. That approach is far more defensible politically and far more effective in the long term.

Bottom line: California takes a top-down approach—setting mandatory statewide standards that local jurisdictions can add to but cannot weaken. That model is effective, but politically much harder to implement.

I would start with the carrots of financial incentives and clear minimum standards. If counties still refuse to act, then a California stick approach would be justified.

I hope this answers your question. If not—or if you have others—please let me know.

Jim
Cell: 541-531-2912

6.        Question: Hi Jim! As I'm sure you know, right now is a particularly tense time in America for LGBTQ+ people. OR is also estimated to have one of the biggest LGBTQ+ population. How do you plan to handle LGBTQ+ issues on both national and statewide levels? Joseph Sahr, Jacksonville

Jim’s Answer:

My approach is simple: Everyone should be treated equally under the law and left alone to live their lives without government interference unless there’s a compelling reason to do otherwise.

Oregon has strong nondiscrimination laws in housing, employment, healthcare, and public accommodations. I would strongly oppose any effort to roll those protections back. I would also make sure those laws are enforced when violations occur—because rights without enforcement are meaningless. If there are disconnects between what the law promises and what people experience, that’s where I’d focus my attention and efforts.

At the national level, this issue has become increasingly polarized. Regardless of what happens federally, Oregon should remain a place where people are treated fairly, protected under the law, and not used as political pawns.

I hope this answers your question. If not—or if you have others—please let me know.

Jim
Cell: 541-531-2912