To amend sections 319.202, 5301.256, and 5323.02 of the Revised Code to modify the law that prohibits certain governments, businesses, and individuals from acquiring certain real property and to name this act the Ohio Property Protection Act.
HB1, titled the Ohio Property Protection Act, expands and revises Ohio’s restrictions on who may acquire certain real property. The bill would prohibit specified foreign adversaries, foreign governments, certain foreign citizens, and businesses owned or controlled by them from directly or indirectly purchasing or otherwise acquiring “protected property,” which includes agricultural land and real property located within 25 miles of military installations or critical infrastructure facilities. It also creates rules for continued ownership of property already held before the effective date, limited exceptions for inheritance and certain debt-related transfers, and divestiture requirements in some cases.
The bill also amends county conveyance procedures so that property transfer filings must include affirmations about whether the parties are subject to the new restrictions. County auditors would be required to refuse to endorse a conveyance if the required affirmations are missing, and to refer suspected violations involving protected property to county sheriffs for investigation. The secretary of state would be directed to maintain and publish a registry of foreign adversaries and other persons deemed threats to agricultural production, critical infrastructure, security, or military defense, based on specified federal lists.
HB1 would substantially amend sections 319.202, 5301.256, and 5323.02 of the Revised Code. It would broaden Ohio’s existing foreign-ownership restrictions from agricultural land to a wider category of “protected property,” add new disclosure and enforcement duties for county auditors, sheriffs, prosecutors, and the secretary of state, and create a process for investigation, court action, escheat, and sale of property acquired in violation of the law. The bill also updates residential rental property filing rules by tying them to the conveyance process and requiring ownership information to be maintained and updated with county auditors.
Based on the bill’s text and sponsorship, the measure appears to have strong support among its House sponsors and cosponsors and is framed as a security and property-protection measure. No committee transcript or vote history is available, so there is no recorded debate to indicate broader legislative sentiment. The bill’s stated purpose emphasizes protecting agricultural production, critical infrastructure, security, and military defense, suggesting a generally protective and national-security-oriented rationale.
The main points of contention are likely to be the breadth of the restrictions and the scope of the property covered. The bill extends beyond farmland to property near military installations and critical infrastructure, which could raise concerns about overbreadth, property rights, and the practical burden on buyers, sellers, and county officials. Another likely issue is the creation of a state registry based on federal lists and the enforcement mechanism involving sheriffs, prosecutors, and possible escheat of property, which may be viewed as aggressive or difficult to administer. The bill also appears to place some compliance obligations on transfer parties and county auditors, which could be contested as administratively complex.