House Bill 1 would bar certain foreign-adversary land purchases near bases, critical infrastructure; members ask about scope and economic effects

Representatives Angie King and Ray Klopfenstein introduced House Bill 1, the Ohio Property Protection Act, at a first hearing of the House Public Safety Committee. Sponsors said the bill would prohibit land purchases by persons or entities tied to designated foreign adversary countries within 25 miles of military installations and specified critical infrastructure and would require a conveyance form with an attestation from the buyer.

Representative King framed the bill as a national- and state-security measure intended to prevent hostile foreign governments and state-owned companies from acquiring sensitive parcels near bases, energy facilities, water systems and transportation hubs. King cited recent national examples and federal warnings about foreign investment in proximity to military facilities and critical infrastructure.

Representative Klopfenstein said the bill would capture suspected attempts by adversaries to use layered LLCs to hide ultimate ownership. The proposal would give county sheriffs authority to investigate suspicious conveyances and refer cases to county prosecutors, sponsors said, and would require a buyer affirmation on the conveyance form about whether the buyer is prohibited from purchase under the bill’s provisions.

Members raised questions about scope and unintended consequences. Representative Willis, Representative Brewer and others asked whether the list of protected critical-infrastructure categories would effectively cover large swaths of Ohio and whether the 25-mile radius could be narrowed; sponsors said some states use smaller radii (Indiana was cited as having a 10-mile rule) and that they are open to adjustments. Representatives also asked how the bill would treat lawful residents who are foreign-born but are U.S. citizens, legal permanent residents or dual citizens; sponsors said U.S. citizens and dual citizens would not be affected.

Committee members also asked whether existing owners or businesses would be required to divest; sponsors said the bill does not require divestiture and would grandfather current lawful owners. Members asked whether federal determinations would define which countries are considered adversaries; sponsors said they expect to rely on federal lists and interagency guidance rather than create a state list.

Members requested further discussion with stakeholders including Farm Bureau, economic-development offices and county officials about economic impacts, enforcement burdens for sheriffs and how deceptive ownership structures would be detected. No committee vote was taken at the hearing.