Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Ownership Foreign Adversaries topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate panel adopts substitute for Ohio Property Protection Act; witnesses warn of foreign purchases of farmland
Summary
The Senate General Government Committee adopted a substitute for Senate Bill 88, the Ohio Property Protection Act, and heard proponent testimony arguing the measure is needed to prevent foreign adversaries from acquiring farmland and other protected property.
The Senate General Government Committee adopted a substitute version of Senate Bill 88, the Ohio Property Protection Act, during its committee meeting, advancing language that would bar entities linked to designated foreign adversaries from acquiring defined "protected property." Chair Rogner moved adoption of the substitute and the committee adopted it without objection.
Proponents told the committee foreign ownership of U.S. farmland and other sensitive property poses economic and security risks. Evan Callie Coates of the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation said Ohio has lost nearly 300,000 acres of farmland in the last five years and urged lawmakers to consider farmland protection as part of broader rural planning and the state operating budget. Coates told the committee she did not have a breakdown of how many of those acres were purchased by foreign nationals and offered to provide that information to lawmakers.
Harrison Siders of State Armor Action argued Ohio should enact state-level limits to reduce the "surface area" available to foreign adversaries and cited public reporting on purchases near U.S. military installations. "The CCP calls the states the soft underbelly of America," Siders said, urging state action alongside federal efforts.
The substitute bill adopted by the committee adds a disclosure that individuals, businesses, organizations and governments associated with countries designated by the secretary of state as threats to agricultural production, critical infrastructure, security or military defense would be prohibited from acquiring protected property as defined in Ohio Revised Code section 5301.256. The substitute also states a brokerage would have no duty to determine whether a purchaser or seller is subject to that prohibition.
Committee members asked proponents for more data. Senator DeMora pressed the Farm Bureau witness for a numeric breakdown of the 300,000-acre loss; Coates said the organization does not have that figure immediately available but would try to supply it to the chair. The Farm Bureau witness also described how conversion of farmland (for example, to development or large-scale solar installations) typically removes topsoil and can make land nonproductive for many years.
The committee substituted and adopted the bill language on the floor of the meeting. There was no roll-call vote recorded in the transcript; the chair stated the substitute was adopted "without objection." No further committee votes on final passage are recorded in the transcript.
Looking ahead, proponents asked lawmakers to pair land‑ownership restrictions with improved data collection and enforcement. Witnesses cited pending federal measures, including the AFIDA Improvements Act of 2024, which would expand reporting on foreign ownership at the national level, and urged complementary state steps.
The committee then moved to its next item on the agenda.
