Newsroom

You are here: / / January

Vanessa Nordyke and the Challenger’s Test

/by

This is the third of a three-part series on the 2026 Salem mayoral race. It analyzes City Councilor Vanessa Nordyke’s potential path to victory. The first article looked at the Salem Chamber of Commerce Candidate Forum, sponsored by The Political Center. The second article examined Mayor Julie Hoy’s incumbency campaign.

—

Just one year after taking office, Salem Mayor Julie Hoy is already facing another election. This time her key opposition is also a sitting member of the city’s governing body: Councilor Vanessa Nordyke. It sets up an interesting political dynamic of both past setbacks as well as shared ownership of recent successes.

Challengers often benefit from the outsider advantage of being able to criticize an incumbent’s failures without having to defend their own actions. It is often referred to as the ‘Throw the Bums Out’ strategy, where the challenger owns the ball and plays only offense while the incumbent is having to constantly defend their own goal line. The playbook consists of assigning blame, promising disruption, and positioning themselves as outsiders to decisions voters may be dissatisfied without having to explain how they would have governed differently at the time those decisions were made.

Councilor Vanessa Nordyke does not get that luxury in this election.

Elected to the Salem City Council years before Mayor Julie Hoy took office, Nordyke is part of the governing body that presided over both the city’s fiscal crisis and its subsequent stabilization during the past year. That reality forecloses the outsider posture and presents a more delicate strategic course — arguing for a change in leadership when the city’s trajectory appears to be improving since the incumbent mayor took office. Pushing that envelope too far would also discount the ability to share credit for those improvements as a member of the city council.

This constraint defines the central challenge Nordyke must overcome: how to persuade voters that new leadership is needed without repudiating outcomes she herself helped deliver.

Claiming Credit Without Owning the Office

In the first debate, Nordyke made a strategic choice to emphasize alignment rather than opposition on core policy questions with the incumbent mayor. She highlighted shared opposition to new payroll taxes, support for an 18-month moratorium on new business fees, skepticism of the proposed Cherriots wage tax, and her role in stabilizing the city’s finances.

The approach is calculated. By aligning herself with broadly popular outcomes, Nordyke positions herself to share in the credit for the city’s improved fiscal footing rather than ceding it entirely to the incumbent. It also helps define the terms of engagement, hoping to dissuade conversations about policy decisions in her previous five years on the council.

It is a difficult balancing act between alignment and disassociation. Nordyke must therefore answer a harder question: If the current trajectory is largely right, what specifically warrants a change at the top?

Reframing the Debate: Process Over Progress

Rather than asking voters to dismiss the results of the past year, she has encouraged them to scrutinize the process rather than outcomes.

Nordyke has regularly referenced a recent Oregon Government Ethics Commission finding involving Mayor Hoy vote on a land use decision that was requested of the council by a developer who was also a contributor to Hoy’s campaign. Hoy did not receive any personal financial gain by supporting the proposal, but the optics raised complaints that she should have recused herself from the vote. Nordyke’s argument may be harder to land given her own support for the measure which passed the full council with a strong vote.

The strategy is further complicated for Nordyke to make given her own previous letter of education from the Oregon Government Ethics Commission. These letters are a gentle critique rather than hefty fines and are common for many in Oregon who serve in uncompensated positions such as city councilors or school board members, suggesting an awareness of the arguably confusing ethics laws that catch many unseasoned politicos off guard.

In strategic terms, Nordyke is asking voters to prioritize process over progress. A defensible argument, but perhaps low impact for high risk of potential backlash from  voters’ response to making it.

A Broader Vision of City Leadership

Where Nordyke’s candidacy diverges most clearly from Hoy’s is not on fiscal policy, but on the scope of what she believes city leadership should encompass.

Nordyke has articulated a vision of the mayor’s office as a more visible ambassador for the values of the city, particularly when national policy decisions directly affect Salem residents. She has supported local actions intended to respond to the impacts of federal immigration enforcement, framing those efforts as a necessary expression of the city’s values rather than a departure from municipal responsibility.

Housing as Opportunity—and Constraint

Housing represents both an opening and a limitation for Nordyke’s campaign.

She can credibly point to a record of supporting housing development and increased supply—an issue of central importance to Salem voters. Yet many of those initiatives unfolded under a mayoral administration that shared those priorities and championed fulfillment of those goals.

That dynamic complicates any effort to claim singular ownership. Nordyke’s challenge is not to demonstrate commitment to housing policy, but to explain how her leadership would produce materially different results from those already in motion.

In practice, this requires persuading voters that leadership style, public engagement, and the symbolic use of the mayor’s office — not policy direction alone — are where change is most needed.

The Risk–Reward Equation

Nordyke’s path to victory relies on executing a dual strategy: preventing the incumbent from monopolizing credit for improved conditions while offering a compelling alternative vision of what the mayor’s office should represent. It carries both risks and rewards.

The strategy may not only determine the outcome of the race, but how Salem voters ultimately define the role of their mayor into the future.

Discontent Over the Disconnect

/by

When it comes to politics, there is often a disconnect. One person’s solution is another person’s headache.

Public employee unions, the source of mother’s milk for Democratic campaigns, have been funding attack ads (or ‘educational messages’) on television and social media screens in some Democratic districts, hoping to pressure those members to vote to disconnect Oregon’s tax code from recently passed federal legislation.

Known as the ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ by some, and the ‘Obscene Billionaire Bailout Bill’ by others, the legislation has a significant negative impact on Oregon’s state budget. Public employee unions are among those demanding legislators disconnect from the tax provisions of the federal legislation when it comes to assessing state income taxes on Oregonians. Doing so will help decrease the deficit now facing legislators as they try and save key programs and services from further reductions.

The ad strategy, however, is ill-advised and likely to backfire. Legislators may disconnect all right, just not the way some advocates had planned.

Those attacked will either recall why they were born with a middle finger or simply climb off the fence to the other side so as not to be labeled as bought and owned by political donors.

Political funders helped push Democrats into the quicksand on the transportation bill. Some of those legislators are not likely to be shoved into it again, hoping for a different result.

That leaves Democratic leaders stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place, and Republicans showing no signs of grabbing a crowbar to pry them loose.

Voters’ Wallets Drive the Debate

Yes, there are significant giveaways for the billionaire class. But Oregon only has three of them (billionaires, that is) and together they have given hundreds of millions away to various charities, so it is not a motivating message. Voters are more concerned about their own bank balance than worried about the checkbook of someone else. Yesterday, the Conference Board announced that consumer confidence dropped to its lowest level in 12 years as consumers fret over their income, expenses and the economy.

So, what are the tax breaks costing Oregon hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue the legislature might consider peeling back? How about taking back the tax exemption for tips earned by struggling restaurant servers or clawing back the tax exemption for overtime pay by farm workers? Roll back the expanded tax credit for a working mother’s childcare or how about the additional tax credits for seniors living on social security? What voter could possibly be upset about losing those?

Are Democratic leaders, already stung by the self-inflicted implosion of their transportation tax plan, prepared to play chess this time or unwittingly face checkmate by Republicans who are already plotting two moves ahead.

What if Republicans demand any disconnect bill be referred to the voters? Would Democrats vote that amendment down and press ahead anyway only to be buried in press coverage like: “Democrats have learned nothing from their transportation tax bill and are once again refusing to let voters decide on issues impacting their own family budgets.”

Where is the proposal? Like the transportation bill of 2025, will this bill be sprung with little time for the public (and legislators) to evaluate or amend? This is a sharp two-edged sword. If they reserve for plenty of public input in both chambers for the short five-week session, will they even have time to pass it? Will Republicans just walk out in each chamber a few days throughout the process and run out the clock on the session?

Who is the Democratic chess master for the session strategy?

Federal Cuts Require Federal Solution

The biggest hit, and it’s a huge one, to the state’s budget is not the tax cuts (most are temporary anyway), but in spending decisions by Congress forcing reductions in funding to states for food stamps for low-income families and in cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, which risks the loss of health care coverage for tens of thousands of Oregonians.

These are real and devastating. A change in Congress, however, is the only likely solution to solving those issues and Democrats are hard at work. Democrats are winning nationally on that front according to almost every recent poll. But again, it is because the issue of affordability resonates.

On the things Oregon can change, there may be elements of the tax code where the state can disconnect without impacting some of the more popular provisions. The analysis then must be: Are those savings enough to make a meaningful difference in budget reconciliation when weighed against a messaging war on affordability that to date, local Republicans appear to be winning.

One thing is clear: Attacking your own troops is not a way to win that battle.

Julie Hoy and the Power of Incumbency

/by

This is the second of a three-part series on the 2026 Salem mayoral race. It analyzes incumbent Julie Hoy’s path to retaining the seat. The first article looked at the Salem Chamber of Commerce Candidate Forum, sponsored by The Political Center. The third article analyzes Vanessa Nordyke’s potential path to victory.

—

Politics can be rough. As Harry Truman is credited with saying, “If you want a friend, get yourself a dog.”

Salem Mayor Julie Hoy is up for election and is being challenged not by an outsider, but by a fellow colleague: City Councilor Vanessa Nordyke.

The setup for the May primary election cannot be framed as the usual outsider-versus-establishment contest. For Mayor Hoy, the race comes down to whether the electorate feels her leadership has been a positive or negative influence on the direction of the city.

Voter Perception on the “State of the City”

Ronald Reagan defeated incumbent President Jimmy Carter in 1980 with a campaign built around a single question: “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?” That question remains central to electoral battles today.

Although Hoy has only been in office for one year, her path to victory will be defined by how Salem residents feel about the city’s trajectory since her election. It will also be up to her to define that trajectory for voters, rather than ceding that narrative to her challenger.

One year ago, Salem faced a budget deficit nearing $20 million. Public trust in government was low. City officials had passed a tax on wages without a vote of the people — an issue voters referred to the ballot and soundly defeated.

That vote was a repudiation of operational mismanagement, runaway spending, lack of accountability, and insensitivity to the economic hardship many residents were facing.

Hoy fought vigorously against the tax and the then-incumbent mayor. Since her election, the city has carved away at the budget deficit, earned voter support for a measure funding parks and libraries, and initiated efforts to refund local businesses for money collected from a parking tax.

Nordyke will rightfully point to her many votes in support of those same initiatives.

Hoy needs to remind voters that these successes came under her watch and tie them directly to her leadership.

Continuity as a Re-election Argument

Hoy must position herself as a key driver behind the city’s fiscal turnaround. She also needs to remind voters that the work is far from finished and will require continuity of leadership. Subtly, she wants voters to conclude that this is the wrong time to change captains when the person at the helm has successfully piloted the ship into calmer waters.

“Look what we have done in just one year” should be her overarching theme. “Imagine what we can do together in the years ahead.”

Hoy does not need to claim sole credit for all of the city’s positive changes. Rather, she should emphasize that her leadership brought people together out of chaos and produced tangible results.

Housing and homelessness are issues where Hoy and Nordyke align on the urgency of action. Hoy can distinguish herself by articulating the collaborations she is building to find creative solutions to challenges faced by every Oregon city. As a longtime small business owner in Salem, she can demonstrate empathy for business owners struggling with these impacts while also recognizing the real human needs of those experiencing homelessness.

Compare and Contrast

Challenger Nordyke will highlight her qualifications by pointing to her work as the director of a nonprofit that advocates for abused and neglected children. She will cite her voting record in support of housing and other livability issues as evidence of her alignment with community values. She presents a strong résumé and is a skilled speaker.

Hoy’s challenge is to promote her own leadership on these issues without diminishing the good work of her colleague.

The Bottom Line

Julie Hoy’s viable path to re-election depends on her ability to convince voters that she has demonstrated effective leadership and advanced the city in ways that align with their values. Voters may feel good about her opponent but see no compelling reason to change direction.

In short, Hoy must persuade voters that the city is better off than it was a year ago—and that the best way to maintain that trajectory is to stay the course.

What Organizational Days Revealed, and What They Didn’t

/by

Legislative Organizational Days are often misunderstood. They’re not about passing bills or settling debates. They’re about something quieter, and often more revealing — deciding what deserves attention first.

Over three days at the Capitol in mid-January, 42 of the Legislature’s 55 committees and subcommittees met to preview legislative concepts, receive agency briefings, and frame the issues lawmakers hope will advance during the 35-day February session, which begins Feb. 2. These meetings are less about neutral updates than they are about signaling which topics committee leaders choose to elevate and begin building momentum around.

Just as important are the issues they choose not to surface. Those omissions send a different signal, but an equally meaningful one.

Taken together, Organizational Days offered a revealing snapshot of how legislative leadership is preparing to govern in a moment defined by fiscal uncertainty, federal cost shifting, and administrative complexity. Several patterns stood out.

Managing Complexity, Not Constraint

Across committees, a consistent posture emerged: downward budget pressure is real but is being treated as something to be managed rather than used to constrain existing programs or commitments.

While program costs are increasing and the details of federal cost shifts to the state are complex, those pressures are being approached as administrative challenges to be absorbed through additional oversight, staffing, and management, rather than as a trigger to reconsider or narrow program commitments.

This posture appeared most clearly in discussions involving large, ongoing state systems, where rising costs and federal uncertainty were framed as problems of implementation and compliance, rather than structure. The emphasis was on administering increasingly complex systems, not simplifying them, even as the funding environment becomes less predictable.

Revenue Signals: Decisions Made and Deferred

If there is one area where committee activity sent unmistakable signals, it was revenue — not because lawmakers resolved Oregon’s structural funding challenges, but because of how they chose to approach them.

On one end of the spectrum, lawmakers appear willing to make politically difficult, highly specific choices when it comes to Oregon’s connection to the federal tax code. Bills advancing in the revenue committees would selectively disconnect Oregon from portions of federal tax law changes, preventing certain federal tax cuts from flowing automatically through the state code.

These are affirmative political decisions and will determine which provisions remain aligned, which do not, and which industries or activities are affected. Lawmakers appear prepared to own them directly.

Alongside that sits a far more consequential and precarious proposal: the introduction of a retail sales tax framework. The bill does not specify a tax rate, define the scope of taxable goods and services, or resolve core questions about exemptions or distribution. Instead, those defining decisions would be delegated to unelected bureaucrats after passage.

That structural choice matters. It allows the Legislature to advance a fundamentally transformative revenue policy while deferring the most politically sensitive decisions until later. This approach reduces political accountability at a time when accountability matters most. Whether the ultimate objective is long-term tax stability or the pursuit of new revenue, this is left unresolved in statute and leaves agencies to determine outcomes through rulemaking rather than open legislative debate.

Lessons From Tolling Backlash

Oregonians have seen this governing model before. In 2017, the Legislature authorized tolling through HB 2017, delegating core decisions like where tolls would be placed, how rates would be set, when pricing would vary, and who would be exempt to the Oregon Transportation Commission and ODOT. What followed were years of internal planning, environmental review, and administrative rulemaking, largely outside public view.

When the details finally surfaced, they did not arrive gradually. They landed with an incredible shockwave, and the sweeping proposal stunned voters who did not even realize such a program was being actively developed. The plans included nearly three dozen tolling points across the Portland metro area along with variable, time-of-day pricing that charged commuters more during peak hours, regardless of whether they had any realistic alternative.

The backlash was swift and overwhelming. A revenue structure of enormous consequence appeared fully formed, without having passed through a visible, accountable legislative discussion. Only then did the outrage reach elected officials in force, culminating first in a gubernatorial pause and ultimately in Gov. Tina Kotek’s decision to abandon the tolling effort entirely.

The parallel is difficult to ignore. Delegating taxing authority may simplify legislative politics in the short-term, but it risks recreating the same cycle of delayed transparency, public backlash, and eventual policy reversal.

Transportation by Omission: The Conversation They Didn’t Have

Since the Legislature last met, the transportation landscape has shifted dramatically. The transportation package passed in the emergency session has formally qualified for a ballot referendum. Gov. Kotek has publicly called for its repeal in advance of that vote, while Republican lawmakers — including those who supported referring the package to the ballot — are now crying foul, arguing the Legislature should not repeal a law voters are poised to consider.

At the same time, reporting has revealed that the estimated cost of the I-5 bridge project has nearly doubled, further intensifying scrutiny around transportation funding and governance.

Against that backdrop, one would reasonably expect transportation committees to spend significant time grappling with those issues: sorting through the ballot referral, the governor’s repeal call, the escalating cost of the I-5 bridge, and the political fallout surrounding all three. Instead, committee discussions focused on comparatively mundane topics such as passenger rail service and long-range planning concepts, while neither of the two 800-pound gorillas in the room was addressed.

In a moment when transportation may be among the most volatile policy arenas in Oregon politics, the decision to sidestep those debates was itself a signal. Not one of resolution or momentum, but of caution, deferral, and unresolved conflict. And the hardest questions are still waiting offstage.

Image from Gov. Tina Kotek’s Facebook page.

Did the Governor’s Prosperity Roadmap Show Up?

One of the most closely watched questions heading into Organizational Days was whether Governor Kotek’s newly announced Prosperity Roadmap would meaningfully surface or remain largely rhetorical.

It did show up, but in a measured, early-stage form.

Committees received an informational briefing outlining the Roadmap’s diagnosis: slowing population growth, elevated unemployment, and business outmigration. The proposed response centers on retaining and growing businesses, accelerating job creation, and modernizing economic development tools.

The legislative concepts introduced were tangible but targeted: fast-track permitting for large projects, permit audits to streamline timelines, investments in industrial site readiness, and updates to enterprise zones aimed particularly at rural and smaller communities.

What is notable is not what’s included, but what isn’t. There is no sweeping funding package, no immediate structural overhaul, and no near-term reset of Oregon’s cost structure. Instead, the Roadmap appears positioned as scaffolding: organizing government, identifying barriers, and laying groundwork rather than delivering immediate transformation.

For supporters, this reflects pragmatism. For skeptics and those within the business community, it reinforces the central question: how real, how durable, and how operational this initiative will ultimately become.

The Signal Beneath the Surface

Legislative leaders are signaling a willingness to manage complexity rather than unwind it, to study and position rather than fully resolve, and in some cases, to delegate decisions that carry significant political consequence.

Whether that strategy produces stability or volatility will depend not on intent, but on execution and on how long accountability can remain deferred before the public demands it back.

Peter Wong Honored with Naming of New Capitol Press Room

/by

Bridging 40-plus years of Oregon state politics, journalists young and old gathered at the State Capitol on Jan. 14 to celebrate one of their own.

Peter Wong, who began his Oregon journalism career in 1979 at the Roseburg News-Review and later gravitated to cover state politics in Salem, was honored for his more than four decades as the public’s watchful eye, with the announcement that the new press room at the Capitol is being named in his honor.

Wong, who filed an estimated 11,000 stories in his career, was given the recognition by Senate President Rob Wagner (D-Lake Oswego) and House Speaker Julie Fahey (D-Eugene).

“I never thought that it would be named after me,” Wong said. “I was overwhelmed.”

Dozens of Wong’s former colleagues came to the dedication ceremony. Later, attendees gathered for a reception in downtown Salem that was generously sponsored by the Society of Professional Journalists, KOIN-TV, The Oregonian, Asian American Journalists Association, The Oregon State Capitol Foundation, and the Samuel S. Johnson Foundation. Three Oregon governors came to pay their respects as well — Gov. Tina Kotek and former governors John Kitzhaber and Ted Kulongoski.

The new press room was included in the massive remodel of the Capitol which has taken over half a decade and is now nearly complete. Connor Radnovich, a former journalist and now communications director for Wagner, worked hours with the Oregon Capitol Foundation researching archived photos of former press corps members at work in the Capitol and framing them for display on the walls of the new press room.

Wong was clearly touched by the recognition and noted how he had covered more than 16 House speakers, 10 Senate presidents, and seven governors.

“Technology has changed so much over the years,” Wong said.  “I remember sending stories up to the newspaper by Greyhound.”

He noted that the principles of good journalism, however, have not changed, a point emphasized by former reporter and state Sen. Ginny Burdick.

“A good journalist must write with rigorous accuracy, integrity and a commitment to the truth and accountability,” Burdick said, and then added, “You can boil all the qualities down to just two words: Peter Wong.”

Former journalism colleagues Steve Law and Dana Haynes each reflected on Wong’s near-photographic memory for times and events. Law worked with Wong at the Salem Statesman-Journal while Haynes work alongside him later at the Portland Tribune.

Wong drew laughter from the crowd when he noted that most things are named for people who are deceased.

“Does this mean I am going to die now,” he chuckled.

Wong, who is a former president of the Asian American Journalists chapter of Portland, also took a moment to recognize the impediments Asian citizens faced for many years.

“There were laws both federal and state at one time that discriminated against Asian Americans. We have made a lot of progress since our early days, but we must remember we have a lot more to do,” Wong said.

Wong will work on a new project in his retirement. He is going to chronicle the history of women and people of color in the Oregon Legislature. Expect it to be thorough and accurate. Peter Wong doesn’t know any other way.

When It Comes to the Republican Primary for Governor, the Ds Have It

/by

There may be 26 letters in the alphabet, but when it comes to the Republican primary for governor, the Ds have it.

Christine Drazan, the Republican nominee in 2022, has been considered the front-runner for a cage-match rematch with incumbent Governor Tina Kotek, but a couple of other D’s may soon be added to the card — specifically, Diehl and Dudley.

Rep. Ed Diehl, who has gained an enhanced public presence since he helped spearhead the referendum to repeal the legislature’s gas tax bill, is about to announce a challenge to Drazan in the Republican primary, according to sources at The Political Center.

Chris Dudley, the former Trail Blazer and the party’s nominee in 2010, is still on the edge of jumping in, and our sources say he will likely announce his plans in the next few days.

That would add a little excitement to the Republican primary, with Drazan, Dudley, Diehl, and (Danielle) Bethell all fighting for pole position in a four-way race.

Christine Drazan, Ed Diehl, Chris Dudley and Danielle Bethell

Diehl, Dudley, and Bethell are set to appear together at the Western Liberty Conference next week on Jantzen Beach. Drazan appears to have made a strategic decision not to appear, much as she did during the Republican Dorchester Conference in 2022.

While Diehl’s name recognition doesn’t rival that of Drazan, the organizational skills he demonstrated — defying all odds to collect 200,000 referendum signatures using almost entirely volunteers — suggest he could build a formidable organization very quickly.

Dudley may not have that in his toolbox, but indications from those he has met with suggest that he would have access to plenty of campaign cash if he decides to take the leap. Dudley narrowly lost to John Kitzhaber in 2010 and came closer than any Republican to winning the governor’s race in nearly 40 years.

Danielle Bethell, currently a Marion County commissioner, learned from Diehl of his upcoming candidacy and admitted she was a bit surprised.

“Ed and I are friends. He never mentioned before that he was contemplating doing this. But then again, Christine told me a long time ago she wasn’t planning to run. It goes to show that in politics, you never know,” she said.

Drazan captured the Republican nomination in 2022 with only 22% of the vote in a crowded primary race. But none of her opponents were as formidable as the slate she may face in May.

The next few weeks will find the candidates calculating how the newly crowded field impacts their ability to secure a winning plurality in the primary. Core values won’t separate them. Convincing Republican voters that they are the best candidate who can win in November will provide the winning edge.

Salem Mayoral Debate Highlights Shared Opposition to New Business and Transit Taxes

/by

Editor’s note: This article is the first in a multi-part series examining the 2026 Salem mayoral race, focusing on the January 12 debate and areas of agreement between the candidates. Future pieces will examine how Mayor Julie Hoy and Councilor Vanessa Nordyke are each making their case to voters.

The Salem Area Chamber of Commerce mayoral forum offered voters an unusually clear look at where the city’s two mayoral candidates agree — particularly on issues affecting employers, fiscal policy, and the city’s near-term economic direction.

Mayor Julie Hoy and City Councilor Vanessa Nordyke appeared together for a wide-ranging discussion that touched on city finances, transportation funding, downtown conditions, homelessness, and the role of city leadership. While the candidates differed in emphasis and tone, the most notable takeaway from the forum was the amount of common ground they shared on core business-related issues.

Both candidates stated that they do not support new payroll or wage taxes and committed to not pursuing any new taxes or fees on Salem businesses for at least the next 18 months. Both also voiced opposition to the proposed employer-paid payroll tax being considered by Cherriots, the regional transit district.

That alignment stood out in a city where wage-tax proposals have played a decisive role in recent elections. Just one year ago, Salem voters rejected a city-proposed employee-paid payroll tax by a margin of more than 80%, a result that reshaped the city’s political landscape and fiscal approach.

Improved Finances and a Stabilized Budget

The candidates also agreed that Salem’s financial position has improved significantly over the past year. The city, which previously faced a large structural deficit, is now operating in surplus. City leaders are discussing refunding certain downtown parking assessments, reflecting what both candidates described as markedly improved budget conditions.

While they framed the turnaround differently, neither candidate disputed the shift in the city’s fiscal outlook. Both emphasized the importance of maintaining stability and avoiding sudden changes that could negatively impact employers, residents, or city services.

Proposed Cherriots Payroll Tax

The proposed Cherriots payroll tax emerged as one of the clearest points of agreement during the forum. Both Hoy and Nordyke said they oppose the measure, citing concerns about additional cost burdens on employers and workers.

Their shared opposition suggests that resistance to payroll-based taxation remains a bipartisan position in the mayoral race, even as broader conversations continue about how to fund transit service and regional mobility.

Downtown and Homelessness Challenges

On downtown conditions and homelessness, both candidates acknowledged that challenges remain. Hoy pointed to ongoing efforts to improve safety, cleanliness, and economic activity, while Nordyke emphasized the need for coordination, public engagement, and long-term solutions.

Hoy noted her role as chief petitioner on a proposed ballot measure intended to give the city additional tools to address homelessness and encampments. Nordyke expressed support for addressing homelessness through a combination of services, policy coordination, and community involvement.

Despite differences in emphasis, both candidates framed homelessness and downtown recovery as priorities requiring sustained attention rather than quick fixes.

Leadership from the Mayor’s Office

The debate also highlighted differing views on how visible and active the mayor’s office should be. Nordyke spoke about the importance of using the office to elevate issues and engage the public, while Hoy emphasized continuity, collaboration, and a focus on operational governance.

Both candidates described partnership and cooperation as central to effective leadership, though they articulated those ideas in different ways.

Debate Establishes Baseline for Campaigns Moving Forward

For an audience accustomed to sharp partisan divides, the forum was notable for how much agreement emerged. On taxes, fees, and near-term fiscal policy — issues of particular interest to the business community — the candidates’ positions closely aligned.

As the mayoral race moves forward, the debate established a clear baseline: regardless of who is elected, Salem’s next mayor will take office in a city no longer facing an immediate fiscal crisis, with both candidates pledging restraint on new business and transit taxes.

Future installments in this series will examine how each candidate is building on that shared foundation — including Mayor Hoy’s case for continuity and Councilor Nordyke’s case for a different approach to leadership, governance, and the role of city government.

Up, Up and Away

/by

Bridging the political divide in Oregon has become increasingly challenging in recent years. The task isn’t going to get any easier when the cost of the I-5 bridge balloons into the ozone.

Twenty-two years ago, before the iPhone was invented and Elon Musk had yet to build a single Tesla, Oregon began the planning process to construct a new interstate bridge across the Columbia River.

Fast forward to today: There are almost 8 billion smartphones in the world, 8 million Teslas on the road, but not a single shovel of dirt has been spaded to begin the bridge-building project.

Now, new revelations of soaring cost estimates — pried free from the secret vault of bridge officials — indicate a project that has spiraled out of fiscal reality.

Pegged at a cost of between $2-$3 billion in 2005, which was revised to $6-$7 billion in the last publicly released estimate in 2022, the current projected cost is now $13.6 billion — double the last projection.

Estimates were updated for both a fixed-span bridge and a movable-span bridge. “Worst case” scenarios indicate it could approach nearly $18 billion.

WOW, spelled backwards, is WOW!

Source: IBR Project Estimate Document August 15, 2025

This revelation comes on the heels of a highly controversial transportation funding package, rammed through the legislature along partisan lines in an Emergency Session and now doomed by referendum. While legislators worked the bill, the new cost estimates were sealed in secrecy.

This only serves to further fracture the relationship between ODOT and the Legislature that funds it. Ironically, it may be the issue that brings Republicans and Democrats together.

Rep. Thuy Tran (D-Portland), a member of the Bi-State Interstate Bridge Replacement (IBR) Committee, is furious. She told Willamette Week, which first broke the story, “They lied to me, to the committee, and by extension to the public.”

Tran was referring to the response she received during a committee meeting of Oregon and Washington legislators on Dec. 15. Tran drilled interim IBR project director Carley Francis why she was not providing an updated estimate range of the project cost as had been promised. Francis replied: “We will give you time frames when we have them.”

To her credit, Tran was the only Oregon legislator to press the agency on the delay in providing estimated costs and question whether someone was indeed hiding the ball.

“A nakedly political process to avoid delivering bad news.”

— Chris Smith, Just Crossing Alliance

Who knew about the spiraling cost estimates and when did they know about them? Who made the decision to keep the information from the legislature and the public?

Another disturbing issue is that the information was only obtained through a public records request by City Observatory economist Joe Cortright. AND IT DID NOT COME FROM ODOT. Instead it was the Washington Department of Transportation that fulfilled the public records request because, Cortright said, their state agencies are more responsive than Oregon’s.

It is also interesting to note that while IBR officials point to increased costs of materials like concrete and steel, the revised estimates show that the biggest percentage inflator has been for all the consultants. While construction costs are estimated to increase by 68%, the costs for consultants and staff are estimated to increase by 406%. You might call it the “consultant industrial complex.”

Cortright says this result comes from misaligned incentives.

“Misaligned incentives means that consultants have different incentives than the state agency hiring them. Consultants make more when the project is larger, takes longer, and is more expensive — all things that drive up costs. This is the classic ‘principal agent’ problem, and by delegating nearly the entire process to profit-motivated consultants, and failing to diligently and expertly supervise them, it is little surprise that the costs of this project has exploded.”

Looming on the horizon is a $2 billion grant from the federal government for the project. It is set to expire by September if construction has not begun. If it evaporates, Oregon and Washington would have to add that additional cost burden to their worksheets.

For ODOT, an agency saddled with over $4 billion in debt and current operating revenues insufficient to meet expenditures, the prospect of adding billions more to their share of the IBR project will require more than pixie dust.

Oregonians must face the prospect that the project won’t get built or will have to be scaled back significantly. That would make all those consultants very unhappy.

© Copyright - The Political Center