In a local election where land use, housing, and public funding decisions carry real consequences for Josephine County residents, one candidate’s silence is beginning to speak louder than any campaign message.
Chad Hansen, who is seeking the Position 2 seat on the Josephine County Board of Commissioners, has declined to respond to multiple rounds of questions from this publication, including a standard 11-question candidate questionnaire sent to all candidates in the race. While others participated and provided answers for public review, Hansen did not respond.
In an effort to provide Hansen with an additional opportunity to engage, a second, more detailed set of questions was sent, focused on specific areas where public records place him at the intersection of development activity, public funding, and county-level authority. Those questions also remain unanswered.
The line of inquiry was not abstract. It centered on documented events and transactions, including Hansen’s own public statements during a September 21, 2023 Josephine County Administration Workshop, where he expressed an intent to pursue a treatment facility using opioid settlement funds. The questions sought to clarify what specific project he was referencing and whether that concept was ever formally developed or presented beyond that setting.
Additional questions addressed Hansen’s relationship with Simon Hare, who was present during that same meeting and is later associated with Hansen through Patriot Solutions LLC. That connection became particularly relevant following a December 3, 2025 funding request in which Patriot Solutions LLC sought $125,000 in public funds. Available records tied to that request do not clearly outline the scope of work or deliverables, prompting questions about what, specifically, taxpayers were being asked to fund.
The inquiry also extended into housing development and the use of federal dollars. Public records indicate that Community Development Block Grant funds were used for infrastructure improvements connected to a 22-lot low-income housing project developed by Home Bridging, an organization linked to Hansen. Questions were raised about how those funds were allocated and who approved their use for that specific project.
A separate line of questioning focused on how control of a project initially associated with Habitat for Humanity transitioned to Home Bridging. Records show that Habitat was unable to proceed due to development costs, after which Home Bridging acquired the land and continued the project. Whether that transition involved a competitive or publicly reviewed process remains unanswered.
Property records further reveal a chain of transactions involving Home Bridging, an individual identified as Austin Hansen, and a subsequent transfer into Eden View LLC. The properties were later sold at significantly higher values, raising questions about ownership, financial benefit, and the overall structure of those transactions.
Compounding these issues is Hansen’s documented role acting on behalf of Josephine County in land-use matters. Records dated February 6, 2024 indicate that Home Bridging GP, through Hansen, was authorized to act as an agent for the county in areas including rezoning and subdivision. That dual presence, both as a developer and as a county-authorized representative, formed the basis for questions about how those roles were separated in practice.
Taken together, these are not minor or procedural questions. They touch on the use of public funds, the movement of property, and the boundaries between private business interests and public authority. They are the type of questions that, in most election cycles, candidates address directly in order to establish credibility and build trust with voters.
As of now, Hansen has chosen not to engage.
That absence leaves voters in a difficult position. Without direct answers, the public is left to interpret a series of documented connections and transactions without the benefit of explanation from the candidate himself. In a race where transparency and accountability are central to the role, a lack of response can become part of the story.
These questions remain open. They are grounded in records, tied to identifiable decisions and actions, and relevant to the responsibilities of the office Hansen is seeking. Whether they will be answered before voters are asked to make their decision remains uncertain.
In the meantime, the record stands on its own, and so does the silence.
The following email was submitted to County Commissioner candidate Chad Hansen in the interest of transparency and public accountability. These are matters of importance to voters, and meaningful answers would help the community better understand his positions, priorities, and intentions. In the absence of his past and current response, we encourage members of the public to seek clarification directly and engage with Mr. Hansen on the issues that matter most to Josephine County. Should Mr. Hansen choose to provide written responses to the Grants Pass Tribune, we will publish them in full for the benefit of our readers.
Dear Mr. Hansen,
I hope this message finds you well.
As part of our ongoing coverage of the Josephine County Commissioner race for Position 2, we are reaching out to provide you with an opportunity to respond to a series of questions related to your public statements, professional affiliations, and involvement in development and funding matters within Josephine County.
To date, we have not received responses to prior outreach or questionnaires. In the interest of fairness, transparency, and providing voters with a complete and accurate understanding of each candidate, we are once again offering you the opportunity to address the following questions directly.
We want to be clear that these questions will be reported on with or without your response. However, if you are committed to transparency and accountability to the public, we encourage you to provide clear and thorough answers.
For clarity and accuracy, the following questions are presented in full, along with their respective context and supporting facts. We ask that you respond to each question directly.
These questions are based on publicly available records and documented timelines. We are presenting them clearly and directly so that you have the opportunity to address each matter in your own words.
If you are committed to transparency and accountability to the voters of Josephine County, we encourage you to respond.
Please understand that this information will be reported with or without your response. If no reply is received, we will note that you were given the opportunity to answer these questions and declined to do so.
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
Candidate: Chad Hansen
Subject: Development, Public Funding, and Governance Overlap
Question 1 — Opioid Settlement Funds
Context:
On September 21, 2023, during a Josephine County Administration Workshop, you addressed the Board and stated your intent to create a treatment facility using opioid settlement funds.
Question:
What specific project or proposal were you referring to when you made that statement?
Supporting Facts:
Date: September 21, 2023
Meeting: Josephine County Administration Workshop
You addressed the Board directly
Statement recorded: intention to create a treatment facility using opioid settlement funds
Simon Hare was present and seated next to you
Question 2 — Relationship with Simon Hare
Context:
You and Simon Hare were both present at the September 21, 2023 meeting and later appear connected through a private entity.
Question:
At the time of that meeting, what was your working relationship with Simon Hare?
Supporting Facts:
Both listed as attendees on September 21, 2023
Present during the same Board discussion
Later associated with Patriot Solutions LLC
Question 3 — Patriot Solutions Funding Request
Context:
A private entity connected to you later requested public funding.
Question:
What specific work justified the $125,000 funding request by Patriot Solutions LLC?
Supporting Facts:
Date: December 3, 2025
Agenda item: Patriot Solutions LLC
Amount requested: $125,000
No clearly documented public scope of work or deliverables in the same record set
Question 4 — Use of Public Funds for Development
Context:
Public funds were used for infrastructure improvements tied to a housing project developed by your organization.
Question:
Why were federal housing funds used to support infrastructure for a project developed by Home Bridging?
Supporting Facts:
2022 Annual Action Plan:
22-lot low-income housing subdivision
Developer listed as Home Bridging GP
CDBG funds used for public improvements
2023 Annual Action Plan:
Public improvements completed prior to construction
Question 5 — Transfer of Development Control
Context:
A project originally associated with Habitat for Humanity was later developed by Home Bridging.
Question:
What process determined that Home Bridging would take over the development?
Supporting Facts:
Habitat for Humanity originally held the land
Records indicate Habitat could not proceed due to development costs
Home Bridging purchased the land
Development continued under Home Bridging
Question 6 — Property Transfer Chain
Context:
Deed records show property transfers from Home Bridging to an individual with your last name and then into an LLC.
Question:
Why did the property transfer from Home Bridging to Austin Hansen and then into Eden View LLC?
Supporting Facts:
2023:
Transfer from Home Bridging to Austin Hansen (~$262,000)
Loan assumption (~$248,000)
2025:
Transfer to Eden View LLC
Recorded as “$0 or other consideration”
Subsequent home sales ranged from $300,000 to $369,000
Question 7 — Financial or Ownership Benefit
Context:
Your involvement appears to span development, land transfers, and projects supported by public funding.
Question:
Did you, your family members, or any affiliated entities receive financial or ownership benefits from these projects?
Supporting Facts:
Development by Home Bridging
Transfer to Austin Hansen
Transfer into Eden View LLC
Public funds used in project-related infrastructure
Question 8 — County Authority (Power of Attorney)
Context:
You were granted authority to act on behalf of Josephine County in certain land-use matters.
Question:
How did you separate your role as a county agent from your involvement in development activities?
Supporting Facts:
Date: February 6, 2024
Home Bridging GP, by and through Chad Hansen, authorized as agent for Josephine County
Scope included land use, rezoning, and subdivision
Question 9 — Public Trust and Independence
Context:
Your name appears across development, public funding, land transfers, county authority, and private business activity.
Question:
Why should voters trust that your decisions as commissioner will remain independent despite these overlapping roles and connections?
Supporting Facts:
Home Bridging development (22-lot subdivision)
Public funding involvement (CDBG infrastructure and programs)
Property transfer chain (Home Bridging → Hansen → LLC)
County authority (Power of Attorney, February 2024)
Private entity funding request (Patriot Solutions LLC, December 2025)
I look forward to your response.
One more quick question that would save me time: Do you currently hold a valid Oregon Driver’s License?
John Oliver Riccio
Editor
The Grants Pass Tribune