Ohio Business Lobby Pushes Eminent Domain Reforms That Critics Say Could Enable Faster Land Takings for Data Center Infrastructure on Farmland — Raising Serious Property Rights Concerns

Ohio farmers and property rights advocates are sounding the alarm over a recommendation from the powerful Ohio Business Roundtable (OBRT) to reform the state’s eminent domain laws. The proposal would allow faster “possession” and construction on private land for energy infrastructure projects once a court establishes public use and necessity — even while compensation disputes continue. Critics, including the Ohio Farm Bureau, fear this “deposit and build” or “quick take” approach could indirectly benefit data center developers by easing the acquisition of farmland for power lines, substations, and other supporting infrastructure.

While no bill has yet been formally introduced to enact this specific change, the OBRT’s push — detailed in documents obtained by journalists — has ignited debate just as lawmakers introduced broader data center regulations on June 10, 2026. The controversy highlights tensions between rapid energy infrastructure needs for AI and hyperscale data centers and longstanding protections for private property owners.

The Proposal in Plain Terms

In a document obtained by News5Cleveland and the Ohio Capital Journal, the OBRT recommends that Ohio lawmakers “extend possession authority to energy infrastructure projects once public use and necessity have been established.” This aligns Ohio with a “deposit and build” framework used in 45 other states.

• Current Ohio eminent domain process (for utilities under the Ohio Power Siting Board): Government or qualifying utilities must prove public use and necessity in court.
• If approved, the appraised value is deposited into a court account.
• Landowners can appeal for higher compensation.
• Construction is generally not allowed to begin while appeals proceed, which can delay projects for years.

Proposed change:
Once the necessity is established and the deposit is made, the entity could take immediate possession and begin construction. Compensation appeals would continue separately. Proponents argue this prevents costly multi-year delays that harm energy reliability and economic development.

Ohio Farm Bureau spokesperson Evan Callicoat warned: “We are aware of efforts to further erode the limited protections that landowners have, allowing for quick take of property without first paying for the property and determining a landowner’s rights and compensation through a court of law.” He noted that while data center companies themselves lack eminent domain power, “many of the services and utilities that they require do hold that authority,” and the proposal’s breadth could allow farmers to lose land before receiving payment — potentially for months or years — while construction proceeds on disputed property.

OBRT’s Nick Rhodes countered that the intent is not to target data centers directly and questioned whether data center infrastructure would even meet the “public use” threshold. He emphasized that current delays are excessive and that possession after necessity is established (with ongoing appeals) is standard elsewhere.

Data Centers in Ohio: The Broader Context

Ohio has become one of the fastest-growing data center markets in the U.S., driven by demand for AI, cloud computing, and digital infrastructure. This has brought economic activity but also controversies over:

• Conversion of prime farmland
• Massive water and electricity consumption
• Potential upward pressure on utility rates for other customers
• Generous tax incentives (hundreds of millions to billions in sales tax exemptions for companies like Amazon, Google, and Meta)

On the same day the OBRT proposal surfaced publicly (June 10, 2026), Ohio lawmakers introduced sweeping data center legislation (a substitute version tied to HB 646). Key provisions include:

• Reducing the sales/use tax exemption from 100% to 50% generally (or up to 75% for brownfield sites or projects bringing their own power)
• Capping local property tax abatements at 50%
• Eliminating access to long-term mega-project grants for data centers
• New requirements for water usage reporting/conservation, a separate utility rate class for data centers, and financial assurances (e.g., surety bonds) for communities.

Separately, lawmakers have considered measures to explicitly bar eminent domain for data center projects to protect farmland and individual property rights.

A proposed constitutional amendment to ban new large data centers (>25 MW aggregate demand) is also advancing via a petition for the November 2026 ballot.

Analysis: Potential Overreach and Violations of Personal/Property Rights

The core concern is not eminent domain itself — which is a longstanding government power rooted in the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment (“nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”) — but the proposed acceleration and its application in the context of private corporate development.

Key issues raised by critics:Delayed or uncertain “just compensation”: Traditional protections aim to ensure owners are made whole before irreversible actions like construction. Allowing the building to proceed during appeals shifts leverage dramatically toward the taking entity. Owners may face fait accompli situations, emotional distress, and prolonged legal battles for fair value (plus interest, but time and legal costs add up).

“Public use” doctrine stretch: The Supreme Court’s Kelo v. City of New London (2005) decision broadly interpreted “public use” to include economic development benefiting private parties. Applying this to energy infrastructure primarily serving private data centers (Big Tech profits) could be viewed as prioritizing corporate interests over individual landowners. Data centers are not traditional public utilities like roads or schools.

Corporate lobbying influence: The OBRT represents major CEOs and companies. Critics argue that powerful business interests are quietly shaping policy to reduce barriers for high-demand projects, potentially at the expense of rural families whose land has been in their families for generations. This echoes broader debates about regulatory capture and unequal power dynamics.

Due process and fairness concerns: Quick-take mechanisms exist in many states but often include strict safeguards (e.g., higher deposits, expedited hearings, owner relocation assistance). Ohio’s current more protective stance (delaying construction) is seen by some as a stronger safeguard for individual rights. Weakening it risks abuse in defining “necessity.”

Farmland and rural impact: Ohio Farm Bureau’s 2026 Action Plan specifically flags data centers as a threat to farmland and calls for enhanced landowner protections, including eminent domain reform. Prime agricultural land converted irreversibly affects food production, local economies, and heritage.

Counterarguments from proponents:

Energy infrastructure is genuinely needed for grid reliability amid surging demand (data centers + electrification + renewables).
Delays increase costs passed to ratepayers and slow economic growth/jobs.
Landowners still receive compensation and appeal rights; the model works in dozens of other states without collapsing property rights.
Data centers provide tax revenue, jobs, and essential digital infrastructure that benefits society broadly.

Constitutional perspective: Quick-take is generally constitutional when paired with adequate safeguards and a legitimate public purpose. However, the specific application here — pushed amid a data center boom and opposed by the main farm advocacy group — raises legitimate questions about whether it adequately protects the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights of individual property owners against well-resourced corporate and governmental actors. Many property rights advocates (across the political spectrum) view expansive or accelerated eminent domain as an inherent threat to personal liberty and the foundational American principle that government cannot easily seize what citizens own.

This is not a blanket ban on development or data centers. It is a debate over how and how fast private land can be taken when powerful interests claim necessity.

What Happens Next?

The OBRT recommendation is not yet law. Lawmakers are actively debating data center policy, with protective measures (including potential eminent domain restrictions) also in play. Ohio voters and farmers are urged to contact their representatives, monitor the Ohio General Assembly, and engage with groups like the Ohio Farm Bureau.

The fight reflects a national tension: the explosive growth of AI and data infrastructure requires enormous energy and land resources, but it must not come at the unchecked expense of individual property rights.

Are Ohio farmers and landowners being adequately protected, or is corporate-driven policy eroding foundational rights? The coming weeks and months in Columbus will provide clearer answers.

This is just like Oregon and California’s agricultural problems. Stu Turley is interviewing several farmers as they are facing energy and regulatory problems. We have also reached out to John Rich to interview him as the newly appointed Agricultural Leader for Saving Farms. Get involved now before it is too late.

The post Ohio Business Lobby Pushes Eminent Domain Reforms That Critics Say Could Enable Faster Land Takings for Data Center Infrastructure on Farmland — Raising Serious Property Rights Concerns appeared first on Energy News Beat.