Committee adopts substitute to Senate Bill 88; witnesses cite farmland loss and foreign ownership concerns

The Senate General Government Committee adopted a substitute version of Senate Bill 88 before proponent testimony at a second hearing, and witnesses urged senators to address foreign ownership of agricultural land as part of broader farmland‑protection efforts.

Chair Rogner moved to adopt a substitute bill (identified in the record as substitute Bill 0484‑2); the committee adopted the substitute without objection. The change adds a disclosure and prohibits specified foreign adversaries from acquiring “protected property” when the secretary of state deems a country to present a threat to agricultural production, critical infrastructure, security or military defense. The substitute also makes clear that brokers are not required to determine whether a purchaser is subject to the prohibition.

The Ohio Farm Bureau Federation and State Armor Action offered proponent testimony. Evan Coates of the Ohio Farm Bureau told senators Ohio had “lost nearly 300,000 acres of farmland in the last five years,” testimony that framed farmland loss as a multi‑factor problem driven by development, housing and energy projects. Coates said the organization supports efforts to strengthen reporting of foreign ownership and referenced federal legislation (the AFIDA Improvements Act of 2024) that would expand data collection and enforcement on foreign land holdings.

Harrison Siders of State Armor Action testified that states should “reduce the surface area of our state that is owned by adversaries,” saying recent purchases by China‑linked entities have raised national‑security concerns and citing instances where land was purchased near sensitive military sites in other states. Siders said the federal government cannot shoulder the entire response and urged state action.

Committee members asked witnesses for more precise data. When asked how many of the roughly 300,000 acres were sold to foreign nationals, the Farm Bureau witness said the organization did not have an exact breakdown but offered to follow up with numbers for the committee.

The hearing concluded after the proponent statements; no final vote on the underlying policy was recorded at this session beyond the substitute adoption noted earlier.

Ending: The committee adopted the substitute language and advanced the bill’s record with proponent testimony; staff and proponents indicated follow up on data requests and further drafting may follow as the bill moves through the process.