Senate committee adopts substitute to bar certain ‘foreign adversaries’ from buying protected Ohio property

The Senate General Government Committee on March 18 adopted a substitute to Senate Bill 88, the Ohio Property Protection Act, adding a prohibition and a disclosure about purchases of certain "protected property" by persons or organizations tied to countries the secretary of state deems a threat to agricultural production, critical infrastructure, security or the military defense of Ohio or the United States.

The substitute, moved and adopted without objection, would also state that a brokerage has no duty to determine whether a purchaser or seller is subject to that prohibition. Committee members then heard proponent testimony focused on protecting Ohio farmland from foreign ownership.

Proponents told the committee foreign ownership is an emerging concern for Ohio agriculture. Evan Coates of the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation said Ohio has lost nearly 300,000 acres of farmland in the past five years and that land taken out of production is unlikely to return to productive cropland after development. “Without real time data it is impossible to understand the true threat,” Coates said, and he urged the General Assembly to consider rural planning and stronger federal reporting on foreign ownership.

Harrison Siders of State Armor Action also testified in favor of the bill, describing it as a state-level countermeasure to what his organization characterized as an expanding national security and food-security risk from certain foreign-linked purchasers. Siders referred to public reporting about land purchases near military installations and cited the 2017 Chinese national intelligence law in arguing that some Chinese commercial actors could be compelled to act at Beijing’s direction.

Committee members asked for additional data during questioning. Senator DeMora asked Coates how much of the recent farmland loss was due to foreign nationals; Coates said he did not have a precise breakdown but offered to provide numbers to the chair. Coates and other witnesses repeatedly cited the 2018 U.S. Department of Agriculture ag census and federal reporting as relevant context.

No opponent testimony was received in person at this hearing. The committee concluded the second hearing of SB 88 after the in-person testimony, having adopted the substitute earlier in the session.

What’s next: The committee took no final vote on the underlying bill beyond adopting the substitute; proponents said they would provide additional data requested by senators. The committee did not announce a floor date or reported vote on the underlying measure at the close of the hearing.