The Property Tax Abolition Push: Legitimate Concerns vs. Serious Risks for Ohio Communities

Let’s Talk About the Property Tax Abolition Movement in Ohio

A grassroots effort is underway to place a constitutional amendment on the ballot that would make property taxes unconstitutional in Ohio. While the movement draws more support from Republicans than Democrats, this isn’t purely a partisan issue. Supporters include people across party lines frustrated with rising bills, and opponents include both Republican and Democratic elected officials at the state and local levels.

Framing this as “We the People vs. the Columbus establishment” may feel appealing, but it overlooks the real reasons many leaders oppose the measure—and why you should consider those reasons carefully too.

Common Talking Points from the Abolition Campaign—and Why They Fall Short

Talking Point 1: “Columbus insiders and politicians fight abolition because they personally benefit from the property-tax gravy train—revolving-door consulting gigs, lobbying payoffs, and protecting their own paychecks.”

Property taxes do generate a large amount of money—roughly $24 billion annually. But virtually 100% of that revenue goes directly to local governments and services, not to state legislators, lobbyists, or state bureaucrats. The money stays in your community.The loudest critics of full abolition are often local leaders: school superintendents, county auditors, township trustees, city managers, and public-safety officials. They’re concerned because their budgets would face immediate, deep cuts if the tax disappears overnight.

Talking Point 2: “Follow the money: Real estate lobbies, municipal bond firms, and public unions donate heavily to opponents to protect their profits from the property-tax system.”

There is no clear evidence of a coordinated flood of such donations specifically tied to blocking this campaign.

In fact:

• Real estate organizations have often supported efforts to lower property taxes to encourage development and investment.

• Municipal bond firms and lawyers have warned about serious risks: existing local debt (for schools, fire stations, roads, etc.) is backed by property taxes. Abolition could trigger defaults, credit downgrades, and much higher future borrowing costs.

• Public unions, especially education groups, oppose it because roughly 60–64% of all property tax revenue (about $13.6 billion) currently goes to public schools.

Talking Point 3: “They’re not protecting homeowners—they’re protecting their own paychecks and the status quo in Columbus.”

State legislators (Republican or Democratic) are not paid from property taxes, and the revenue does not create a slush fund for pet projects in Columbus. It funds local services in the communities that collect it.

The Real Concerns—and the Glaring Gaps in the Abolition Plan

The abolition effort taps into a legitimate frustration many Ohioans feel. Property values have risen sharply in many areas, leading to painful tax bill increases. Retirees and others on fixed incomes worry about being unable to afford their homes and facing foreclosure. These fears are valid. We need strong protections, especially for seniors who have spent decades paying for a home they deserve to enjoy in retirement.

However, the proposal glosses over major problems. It would eliminate property taxes without any replacement revenue mechanism. Here’s what that means in practice:

• Public schools receive the largest share of property tax dollars—more than three-fifths (~60–64%) of the total. Local property taxes make up roughly 44–55% of overall school district funding in recent years (the single biggest source for most districts). Losing this would force widespread cuts to teachers, programs, special education, transportation, and staffing.

• The remaining ~36–40% supports other local services, including counties, townships, cities, libraries, parks, senior programs, and public safety (police, fire, and EMS). Many townships rely heavily on dedicated property tax levies for emergency services and could face station closures or slower response times.

Without a plan to replace the ~$24 billion hole, local governments would scramble. The most likely outcome in many areas would be sharp increases in local sales taxes or income taxes—or deep service reductions. Sales tax hikes would hit middle-class families, the poor, and the elderly hardest by reducing buying power and slowing local economies, especially during tough times.

Incremental reforms passed in 2025—including inflation caps on certain levies and tighter rules on levy growth—already provide billions in targeted relief and help address sudden spikes without eliminating the entire system.

A Better Path Forward

Ohio’s heavy reliance on local property taxes for schools has long been criticized, including in past court challenges over the funding formula. We should push for more stable and equitable state support for public education, stronger income-based relief (such as expanded circuit breakers or homestead exemptions for seniors and lower-income homeowners), and smarter tools to prevent sudden spikes.

Full abolition without a replacement isn’t the solution. If successful, it risks leaving schools short-staffed, communities less safe, local services strained, and many Ohioans facing higher costs elsewhere.

We can—and should—deliver meaningful, targeted property tax relief that protects vulnerable homeowners while preserving the essential services that make our communities strong. Let’s focus on responsible reforms instead of an all-or-nothing constitutional change that could create far bigger problems.

Paid for by Friends of Arienne Childrey