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.
SB88, titled the Ohio Property Protection Act, would expand and revise Ohio’s restrictions on who may buy or otherwise acquire certain real property. The bill broadens the existing prohibition to cover not only agricultural land, but also other “protected property,” defined to include agricultural land and real estate within 25 miles of military installations or critical infrastructure facilities. It bars specified foreign-linked persons and entities—such as foreign adversary governments, citizens of foreign adversary countries, businesses headquartered in those countries, and entities owned or controlled by them—from acquiring protected property in Ohio, while preserving limited exceptions for inheritance, debt enforcement, and certain bona fide personal acquisitions.
The bill also creates a new state registry of foreign adversaries and other persons deemed a threat to agricultural production, critical infrastructure, security, or military defense. The secretary of state would compile and update that registry at least every six months using federal lists, and county auditors would use the registry when reviewing property conveyances. If a prohibited acquisition is suspected, the bill directs county sheriffs to investigate and county prosecutors to bring enforcement actions that can result in a court order declaring the property escheated to the state and sold, with proceeds distributed first to costs and lienholders and then to the prior owner up to their purchase cost, with any remainder going to county general funds.
In addition to the ownership restrictions, SB88 amends county conveyance paperwork requirements. It requires grantees and grantors to make new affirmations on transfer documents about whether the property is protected property and whether either party is prohibited from acquiring it under the new law. County auditors would be prohibited from endorsing a conveyance of protected property unless the required affirmations are included, and they would have to refer suspected violations for investigation. The bill also makes conforming changes to the residential rental property filing statute, section 5323.02, to cross-reference the updated conveyance process.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill text is strongly protective and security-oriented, with the stated purpose of safeguarding Ohio’s agricultural production, critical infrastructure, security, and military defense. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from lawmakers in the available materials. The structure and findings language suggest the bill is intended to be framed as a public-safety and national-security measure rather than a general property regulation.
The main points of contention likely center on the breadth of the restrictions and the enforcement mechanism. The bill reaches beyond agricultural land to property near military and infrastructure sites, uses a registry tied to federal terrorism and national-security lists, and authorizes divestment and escheat remedies that could be viewed as severe. Potential concerns include due process, the scope of who qualifies as a prohibited person, the practical burden on county officials and property buyers, and whether the law could affect lawful foreign investment or property ownership by people with mixed citizenship or business ties.
SB88 would substantially amend Ohio’s real-property transfer and foreign-ownership restrictions by replacing the current agricultural-land-focused framework with a broader protected-property regime. It would change sections 319.202, 5301.256, and 5323.02 of the Revised Code, add new disclosure and affirmation requirements for conveyances, and create a state registry used to identify prohibited purchasers. It would also authorize county-level investigation and prosecution of violations and allow courts to order protected property sold after escheat to the state. The bill would affect county auditors, sheriffs, prosecutors, the secretary of state, property sellers and buyers, and foreign-linked individuals and entities seeking to acquire Ohio real estate.
The bill’s stated purpose and structure indicate a generally favorable, security-focused posture toward restricting foreign-linked ownership of sensitive Ohio property. With no committee testimony or vote record available, there is no documented legislative split in the provided materials. The available text suggests the measure is being advanced as a protective response to concerns about agriculture, military installations, and critical infrastructure, rather than as a routine property-law update.
The most likely areas of dispute are the scope and enforcement of the prohibition. Critics may question the inclusion of property within 25 miles of military or critical infrastructure sites, the reliance on federal watchlists to define prohibited persons, and the severe remedy of escheat and forced sale. There may also be concern about ambiguity in terms like “foreign adversary,” the treatment of dual citizens and entities with foreign ownership, and the administrative burden placed on county auditors and law enforcement. Supporters, by contrast, would likely emphasize the state’s interest in protecting farmland, infrastructure, and defense-related assets from foreign control.