An Act to repeal 710.02 (2) (d) to (g) and 710.02 (3); to renumber and amend 710.02 (1) and 710.02 (9); to amend 710.01, 710.02 (title), 710.02 (2) (intro.), 710.02 (2) (a), 710.02 (2) (b), 710.02 (4) (a) 2., 710.02 (5) (a) and (b) and 710.02 (6); to create 710.02 (1g), 710.02 (1r) (d), 710.02 (2) (h), 710.02 (9) (b), 710.04 and 710.045 of the statutes; Relating to: limitations on ownership of real property in this state by foreign persons. (FE)
AB218 would substantially tighten Wisconsin’s restrictions on foreign ownership of land and real property. It narrows the existing agricultural-land ownership limit by reducing the cap from 640 acres to 50 acres and by redefining the covered property to apply only to land classified as agricultural for property-tax purposes, rather than broadly to land with exceptions. The bill also expands the categories of covered persons to include foreign governments, raises the ownership thresholds for foreign-owned entities and foreign-beneficiary trusts from 20% to 25%, and adds a specific exception for leases used exclusively for agricultural research on no more than 50 acres.
Beyond agricultural land, the bill creates new statewide prohibitions on foreign ownership near military installations and by foreign adversaries. Covered foreign persons would be barred from acquiring, owning, or holding any real property within 10 miles of a military installation, with limited exceptions for debt security interests, treaty-protected rights, railroads, pipelines, and certain inherited or debt-collected interests subject to divestiture. Separately, any foreign adversary as defined by federal regulation would be prohibited from owning any real property anywhere in Wisconsin. Violations would result in forfeiture to the state, and the attorney general would be responsible for enforcement.
The bill would amend and create several statutes in chapter 710, including revising the general rule allowing aliens to acquire land, rewriting the agricultural-land limitation section, and adding two new sections governing property near military installations and foreign adversary ownership. It also shortens the divestiture period for certain prohibited agricultural holdings from four years to three years, and sets an 18-month divestiture period for prohibited holdings near military installations. Existing interests acquired before the bill’s effective date would generally be grandfathered, while new acquisitions after the effective date would be subject to the new restrictions.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill materials is strongly protective and security-oriented, with the proposal framed as a response to concerns about foreign control of land, especially agricultural land and property near sensitive defense sites. The bill’s introduction by a large bipartisan-looking group of legislators suggests notable interest, but the available record shows no committee debate or recorded votes in the provided materials. The bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1.
The main points of contention likely center on the breadth and economic impact of the restrictions. Potential concerns include whether the 50-acre cap is too restrictive for legitimate agricultural investment, whether the 10-mile military-installation buffer is overinclusive, and whether the foreign-adversary ban and forfeiture remedies are too sweeping. Supporters would likely emphasize land security, national security, and limiting strategic foreign influence, while opponents may focus on property-rights issues, treaty and commerce implications, and the effect on investment and agricultural research.
AB218 would significantly revise Wisconsin Statutes chapter 710 by narrowing and tightening foreign-person land ownership rules, creating new prohibitions on real property near military installations, and banning real property ownership by federally designated foreign adversaries. It would reduce the agricultural-land acreage cap from 640 acres to 50 acres, change the definition of covered foreign-owned entities and trusts from 20% to 25% foreign ownership/beneficial interest, add foreign governments to the covered categories, and repeal several current exceptions tied to nonagricultural uses. It would also create forfeiture and attorney general enforcement provisions for prohibited holdings and establish new divestiture timelines for existing interests that become noncompliant.
The bill appears to have been introduced in a generally supportive, security-focused atmosphere, with a broad set of legislative cosponsors and no recorded opposition in the provided committee materials. The framing of the bill emphasizes protecting agricultural land, military installations, and state property from foreign control, suggesting favorable sentiment among its authors and likely supporters. However, because there are no transcripts or votes included, the record does not show detailed committee-level debate or a measured bipartisan consensus.
Likely points of contention include the sharp reduction in the agricultural ownership cap from 640 acres to 50 acres, the elimination of broad nonagricultural exceptions, and the expansion of restrictions to foreign governments and foreign adversaries. The 10-mile military-installation buffer may also be controversial because it could affect a wide range of properties and transactions far from the installation itself. Another likely dispute is whether the bill’s forfeiture remedies and short divestiture periods are proportionate, and whether the restrictions could interfere with investment, inheritance, treaty rights, or agricultural research leases.