The following article was originally published in the Ohio Capital Journal and published on News5Cleveland.com under a content-sharing agreement.
Late last week, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost determined organizers aiming to abolish property taxes had provided a “fair and truthful” summary of their proposed constitutional amendment. The next step is for the state ballot board to determine whether the proposal includes a single constitutional amendment or multiple amendments. The board has ten days to make that determination.
In Ohio, property taxes fund basic services including schools, emergency services, parks, libraries and local governments. But hostility toward property taxes has been growing — particularly among conservatives.
The proposal and its supporters
The group Citizens for Property Tax Reform has advanced the proposal and its text is remarkably simple. It creates a new section in the state constitution stating, “no real property shall be taxed, and no law shall impose any taxes on real property.” It goes on to define “real property” as land, crops, buildings and other permanent improvements.
The amendment’s summary is longer than the actual text that would be added to the state constitution.
The Ohio Capital Journal reached out to Citizens for Property Tax Reform, but the group did not immediately respond. In a recent Facebook post, the group downplayed criticisms.
It acknowledged some believe the proposal is “extreme” but “We feel its extreme to tax a homeowner unrealized gains.” Citizens for Property Tax Reform argued the real problem is “out of control spending at all levels in government” and it’s “flat out wrong and disgusting” for a homeowner to wind up getting taxed out of their home.
With Yost’s approval, the only hurdle standing in the way of supporters collecting signatures is the Ohio Ballot Board’s green light. Once they begin circulating petitions, organizers will need to gather about 413,000 signatures (10% of turnout in the most recent governor’s race), and they’ll have to clear at least 5% of gubernatorial turnout in 44 of Ohio’s 88 counties.
Conservative enthusiasm
In a speech announcing his candidacy for governor, Vivek Ramaswamy argued for eliminating income taxes before adding, “we need to bring down property taxes in this state immediately — eventually down to zero.”
Both arguments are a recurring feature in Ramaswamy’s stump speech, but he’s walked the property tax argument back somewhat. He still insists that homeowners paying as much in taxes as they do in principal and interest is “unjust,” “un-American” and little more than “a lease from the government,” but now he promises a statewide cap on the percentage of property that can be assessed for taxes.
Notably, Ohio already does that. Property taxes only apply to 35% of a property’s appraised value. Ohio Capital Journal asked Ramaswamy’s campaign to elaborate on his approach and what he makes of the constitutional amendment. The campaign did not respond.
Ramaswamy appears to be tapping into a rhetorical current that’s having a bit of a moment. In Florida, Gov. Ron DeSantis offered a different version of Ramaswamy’s lease argument.
“To say that someone that’s been in their house for 35 years just has to keep ponying up money,” DeSantis argued, “You don’t own your home, if that’s the case.”
“If I go to Best Buy and buy a flat screen TV and put it on the wall,” he added, “I’ve got to pay a sales tax on it, right? I don’t keep paying tax on it every year.”
Florida lawmakers want to put a property tax repeal amendment on the ballot in 2026. DeSantis has voiced support for the idea. In Pennsylvania, too, a lawmaker has proposed a constitutional amendment abolishing property taxes. Those changes wouldn’t take effect until 2030.
Is that a good idea?
Closer to home, Ohio House lawmakers have advanced a budget rider capping the funding school districts can carry over year to year in a bid to provide immediate property tax cuts. And several interest groups are insisting now is the moment for property tax reductions.
Many Ohioans have a lot less slack in their budgets following a historic spike of inflation. Meanwhile home values have kept climbing. A calculator from the Federal Housing Finance Agency indicates a $100,000 home purchased in Ohio five years ago would’ve gained an estimated 62% in value. As auditors reappraise properties, increasing tax bills are pushing some homeowners to the brink.
Still, even those calling for changes worry eliminating property taxes outright would cause more problems than it would solve.
Greg Lawson from the conservative-leaning Buckeye Institute explained “reform is absolutely essential,” but warned there’s no quick fix. Too many bills lawmakers are discussing nibble around the edges instead of making structural changes, he said.
As an example, Lawson argued too many entities can put levies on the ballot, creating a “pancaking effect” over time. He agrees with the amendment’s supporters that local governments need to be more efficient, but outside of property tax, the only options on the table are sales and income taxes.
“Even if you cut back on some of the local spending to make it more efficient, which is, in long run, a good thing to do,” Lawson said, “it would still mean you’re going to have exorbitantly high sales or income taxes. Either that or you don’t get the service — it’s really that simple.”
The Ohio Taxpayer Protection Coalition, backed by the Ohio Chamber of Commerce, realtors and county auditors, wants lawmakers to come up with a new version of a tax fix from the 1970s. That approach reduced tax rates as home values rose, but home values have risen so high that some counties can’t reduce rates further. Coalition Chairman Tom Zaino did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the proposed amendment.
Left-leaning Policy Matters Ohio doesn’t often see eye to eye with the Buckeye Institute — particularly when it comes to taxes. But Bailey Williams agreed that Ohioans need property tax relief, and the proposed amendment is counterproductive. He called the idea “fiscally irresponsible” and said it “would devastate local public goods and services across Ohio.”
A particular challenge, he argued, is that reductions in state income taxes means there’s less money to share with local governments. In response, local leaders lean heavily on property taxes to fund vital services. Williams added tax other reductions for business machinery and equipment put locals “between a rock and a hard place.”
“Further hamstringing local governments by abolishing their main revenue stream is not the answer to property tax relief,” he argued. “The state needs to step up and do more.”
He suggested more school funding would make levies less common and a so-called “circuit breaker” limiting property tax based on income would reduce the burden on those who need it most. But paying for those ideas isn’t likely to gain traction in the General Assembly. The best source for funding? Williams said lawmakers should raise income taxes on higher earning Ohioans.
