Ohio House Local Government Committee - 6-8-2026

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Will the clerk please call the roll?

Here.

Ranking Member Sims?

Representative Brennan? Here.

Representative Fowler-Arthur? Here.

Representative Lawson-Rome? Here.

Representative Schmidt is excused.

Representative Thomas? Here.

and I'd like to recognize Vice Chair Kishman for a motion. Chair, I motion to amend substitute House Bill 361 with AM underscore 136 underscore 2576.

This amendment comes from the bill sponsor to remove all zoning-related changes from the bill, including requirements for comprehensive plans and changes to timelines.

Well, good afternoon.

Thank you. Chairwoman King, Vice Chairman Kishman, Ranking Member Sims, and members of the House Local Government Committee. I'm Sharon Montgomery, a 25-year traffic safety activist. I have a number of comments. To save time, I will basically just list them rather than incorporate them into a more traditional narrative style testimony. On camera enforcement, there is ample evidence that camera enforcement increases road safety, so any measure that might reduce their use can be assumed to also reduce road safety. There is also support for them from high-level experts. The basic advantage of these cameras is that peace officers can't be everywhere. Drivers who choose to run red lights or speed know this. They know the odds of their getting away with these dangerous and illegal behaviors are in their favor. Is that really the way that we want the odds to be stacked? Cameras don't use racial profiling and don't subject officers to the growing dangers of violence by stopped drivers. And with the decrease in crashes they provide, they improve traffic flow. Impatience with traffic congestion and crash sheen impediments are likely some of the reasons drivers speed where possible and run red lights and weave between lanes. On letting the voters make safety decisions. We're all road users, so we're all aware of the frightening increase in both speeding and red light running. I've actually been stopped at a red light and had cars go left of center to pass me to go through the red light. I've had cars illegally pass me on the right so they can drive over the speed limit. Every method available has to be used to curtail these selfish, dangerous choices by drivers. Representative Schmidt's concern about getting a ticket for going through the red light to avoid being rear-ended is a valid one. Apparently, a camera can't see a wide enough area to see what the situation was, whereas a patrol officer could. However, this is not a good enough reason to do away with the cameras. I've reduced this risk by tapping my brakes as I approach a potential situation like this. With my brake lights flashing, a driver behind me is more likely to notice that I'm going to stop. And I check my rear view mirror as I slow down, so if the driver behind me isn't slowing, I do go on through if no one in the cross street has started yet. Even if that driver doesn't notice and assumes I'm going to run the red light so they can too, I'd much rather get the camera's ticket and have to take time later to explain the situation than to be rear-ended. You're never going to make everyone happy. Many people complain about patrol cars sitting and watching. I often hear, don't they have anything better to do? But traffic enforcement isn't about making everyone happy. It's about making everyone as safe as possible. Representative Craig believes voters should have a say in whether their community will use cameras. Choosing traffic safety measures should not be a popularity contest. On speed traps, quite frankly, I don't know how one municipality gets labeled a speed trap and another doesn't. I'm not aware of any that don't lower the speed limits from the roads outside their limits to those inside their limits. If the ones who get that label haven't given sufficient warning of reduced speed ahead, then that, not the use of cameras, is the problem. When I drive to the Statehouse from my home in Gahanna near the airport, I use I-670 to 3rd Street. The speed limit is 65, then 55 with a sign warning me that it will soon be 55, then 35 with advance warning, then 25 with advance warning. If a patrol car were on 3rd Street after the limit went down to 25, but I didn't, and I got a ticket, would that make Columbus a speed trap? If there are problems with how enforcement cameras are used, fix the problems. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, which is what voters usually do, according to Representative Craig. Traffic safety is something everyone deserves. Thank you for hearing the perspective of someone whose life was turned upside down by traffic violence. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks for being here, Mrs. Montgomery. As I was looking through your testimony, I was wondering what your interest was, so I Googled you, and I think I may have come across some sad news. Can you share with us what your interest is in this issue?

Representative, is it a question?

Thank you for sharing your very personal story and we're sorry for your loss. Are there any questions from members of the committee? Sinan, thank you so much for being with us and sharing your thoughts on this legislation. And again, we're sorry for your loss.

Okay. At this time, seeing that there's no further questions, I'd like to direct the committee members to four pieces of proponent testimony and four pieces of opponent testimony on their iPads. Make sure that you read over those and take a look at them. And this will conclude the second hearing for House Bill 843. And I would like to call forward House Bill 569 for its third hearing. And we have with us Patrick Maloney of Legal Aid from Southwest and Central Ohio to provide opponent testimony. Patrick, welcome to committee. Begin when you're ready.

Thank you for being with us today and thank you for your testimony to Ranking Member Sims.

Chairman McCain, Representative Sims, thank you for the question. In real terms, it means a lot of low-income homeowners in the post-eviction process. They will have, if it's under $3,000, it generally means the home is blighted or needs torn down. I have clients that will very frequently, post-eviction, sell their homes they've lived in for many of years for anywhere from $5,000 to $9,000. Well, that may not be the full market value of the home if they had time to sell it. That is the amount of value they can retain in the post-eviction process where they have a limited time to sell their home and recoup some of their money. Without that, it's possible that with an increase in the value threshold to $10,000, a park operator can say with more reasonable belief than anything less than $3,000 that this home is only worth $9,000, and then they can apply for a court order and just get title to that home free and clear, which would deprive that previous homeowner of up to $9,000 which they could then use to stay out of the shelter system, apply for a new apartment, put it towards the purchase of a new home and that could be the entirety of their assets outside of maybe a small amount of money they have in the bank Thank you Madam Chair Thank you Are there any other questions Representative Brennan Thank you Having lived with a single mom who lived in a mobile home at one time by someone who owned

Chairwoman King, Representative Brennan. I think it will necessarily lead to that. Various counties have different times for which their public auction has to be posted. In some counties it might be as short as three weeks. The way the proposed bill is currently written, a proposed bidder who would want to buy the home and then presumably move into the manufactured home park, would have a couple of weeks to identify the home, figure out they wanted to potentially purchase it, make sure they had the secured funds for it. Then they would have to apply to the manufactured home park for residency, a process that can take any amount of time depending on that park operator. And there's nothing in the bill actually requiring that park operator to approve the home. So if, or approve the person who would prefer to have residency, which means that person, as the law is written, would be excluded from even bidding on the home. This doesn't even just include homes worth about $10,000. We could be talking about homes worth $50,000, $60,000, $70,000, where a bidder might want to come in and bid a large amount of money on this home, which, if they are successful, would then go to pay court costs, auction costs. As the law is written, it would go to pay back lot rent, and then it would go to unclaimed funds where the former order could go claim them, which could leave tens of thousands of dollars. But the way it's written now, a park owner could simply just not approve you for residency. And then they could decline all qualified bidders that would want to come in, and then they would get a free asset worth tens of thousands of dollars, which they could flip to a new buyer that may be even the same person. But then that money would not go to the former homeowner. It would just be a windfall for the park operator.

Thank you. Chairman King, Representative Brennan. Any number of things. The most common question I get from my clients is, where am I going to go now? And often the answer is to a homeless shelter. They may have to try to move in with family if they have some around. As with any eviction, that is a risk of displacement. but when you were a homeowner, you had equity, you had value in the home. Even if you didn't have a lot of savings, you could have sold that and retained some of that. But if that is just taken by court order, you're wiped out, which is an even greater risk than a typical low-income person in, say, an apartment building, getting evicted, didn't have anyone in their savings account. So it could be devastating. It could wipe out life savings. Thank you.

I'm sorry, I'm just trying to figure this all out. So if I purchase a manufactured home, have it delivered to a site, I own the home. I said I paid $10,000 for the manufactured home. Now it's on the site. And all of a sudden I fall into some type of difficulty where the owner wants to evict me. What's to stop me from having my home picked up and taken with me when I go?

Follow-up? Are there any other questions? Just really quick. Ranking Member Sims?

Chairman King, Mr. Sims, thank you very much. I've highlighted the two biggest concerns that I have today, which is the increase of the threshold of value to $10,000 and the way that a park operator could manufacture an auction afterwards, post-eviction judgment, to get a manufactured home of any amount of value, free and clear, by paying no money, and then the previous homeowner losing all the equity in their home. The issues that we generally run into around here, which is another big concern of ours, is the affidavit that a park operator submits to the court post-eviction, saying that I reasonably believe the value of this home to be X amount of dollars. I've done a diligent search showing for anyone who has a right title or interest in it. I've come up with none, and if I have, I've given them that notice. That is where the abuse often comes into this situation. And one of the larger concerns we have, I would direct your attention to lines 787 to 788, where it says that a plaintiff park operator can ask the clerk of courts for details on the title to the home. I think that could risk being interpreted as being sufficient evidence of complying with your search and notice requirements, when it absolutely should not be. The only information that a clerk of courts might have on the title is who has the title and who currently have the title. it would not necessarily comply with the remainder of the statute as previously and would be written in this new bill to say, conduct a diligent search of relevant public records to find anyone who may have a right title or interest to the home. That is an issue that often comes up in litigation around our clients as well. Follow-up?

because the management officer of the park can determine who can live there. So if the house, we find it next to Ken, it's a daughter, it's mom's house, can they keep that person from living there?

Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon. Chair King, Vice Chair Kishman, Ranking Member Sims, and members of the House Local Government Committee, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in opposition to House Bill 569. My name is Zach Eccles. I'm an attorney with the Ohio Poverty Law Center. Our mission is to reduce poverty and increase justice by protecting and expanding the legal rights of Ohioans living, working, and raising their families in poverty. Manufactured housing is an incredibly important piece of the affordable housing landscape here in Ohio. It provides an opportunity for low-income Ohioans to secure safe, affordable housing that can be passed on from one generation to the next. Because manufactured homeowners often do not own the land that the home sits on, they can become homeowners at a much lower cost than if they were to purchase a traditional single-family home. Unfortunately, there are also significant risks with this arrangement. A manufactured homeowner residing in a manufactured home park is subject to park rules enforced by the park operator and pays monthly rent for the lot that the home sits on. Park operators are required by the revised code to offer a homeowner a one-year lease agreement, but there are no limitations on rent increases when one lease agreement expires and the homeowner is offered a new lease agreement As housing prices and rents have increased in Ohio generally over recent years so too have lot rents In 2019, the Twin Lakes Manufactured Housing Community, which is a retirement community in Loring County, it's 55 and up, was purchased by an out-of-state property management company. Residents there have not seen any improvements in the park amenities or operations, but since 2021, their lot rents have more than doubled to $850 per year. I was at a community event with some of these residents last month, and they said that they expect their lot rents to increase to $1,100 in their next lease agreement. This puts the manufactured homeowners in this retirement community in a really impossible situation. Many of them are on fixed incomes and purchase their homes expecting it to be their last. When they can no longer afford the lot rent, they have very few options available. They could try to move the home, but older homes are often not structurally sound enough to be moved, and those that are structurally sound that can be moved, the cost to move one often reaches $10,000 or even more. They could try to sell their homes, but as the lot rents continue to increase, it becomes more and more difficult to find potential buyers. The homeowners who cannot keep up with the lot rent increases or find a way out will likely face eviction. And this is an extremely difficult situation without an easy solution. I don't think that we'll find a solution to not being able to afford rent today, but I think it's really important context for how some of the changes in House Bill 569 will put these residents into an even more perilous situation. House Bill 569 would greatly increase the leverage a park operator has to take title from one of these homeowners following an eviction. First, increasing the threshold value at which a public auction is required from $3,000 to $10,000 would unnecessarily expand the number of homes possibly subject to title forfeiture following an eviction. Current law already creates a conflict of interest where the park operator is the primary party determining whether the value of the home requires a public auction or if the title can be forfeited by court order to the park operator. Increasing the threshold value would exacerbate that conflict of interest. There are manufactured homes across the state worth less than $10,000 that still provide a retiree or a low-income family with safe, affordable housing. If the goal of House Bill 569 is to clear blight and truly vacant homes, the $3,000 threshold is sufficient. Even in cases where a public auction is required, there is additional proposed language in House Bill 569 that would provide park operators with even more leverage to force a no sale and take title by forfeiture. The bill requires all bidders who intend to reside in the park to be pre-approved for residency at least seven days before the sale. So unless there is a bidder who intends to purchase the home and then move the home out of the park, the park operator could deny all potential bidders, force a no sale, and take title by court order. This proposal creates another critical conflict of interest. Under current law, park operators can deny residency to prospective purchasers after they have already purchased the home. But this is a different calculation because the person already has title to the home. They're presumably prepared to move in and pay rent. And in order to deny them, the park operator would have to initiate a new legal proceeding against the purchaser. House bill fixed. Oops, sorry. So if a resident of Twin Lakes were evicted and their home was to be sold at auction, House Bill 569 would allow the park operator to deny potential buyers in an already difficult market and prevent the resident from recouping the maximum value out of the home. This legislation is dangerous for low-income Ohioans who own their home in a manufactured home park and are struggling to keep up with rising costs. It creates additional opportunities and expedites the process for a park operator to take title of the single most important asset a low-income family may have. Thank you for your time and opportunity to provide testimony. I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thanks again, Madam Chair. Thanks, Mr. Eccles, for being here as well and for your perspective. Again, I remember when we first moved into what was called our mobile home, I realized very quickly, even as a little boy, it's not mobile. and as we heard, it's about $10,000 to move them, which is obviously way out of the realm for many folks that live in them. So I'm thinking about your traditional site-built home. Do you think Ohioans would accept the ability of a third party to, without an auction, take someone's home away? in the way that this bill would allow it to happen to a mobile home or manufactured home? Without a competitive sale and without ensuring that the individual receives the equity that they invested?

Good point. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ranking Member Sims. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your testimony today. I guess the same question to you regarding what is the biggest challenges that you have with the bill as it currently stands, or it's simply that you may need a lot more time.

Follow up? No, thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.