Many Ohio communities use local hiring quotas for

publicly financed projects as a way to strengthen local

workforce participation and, in turn, strengthen local

economies. Residency requirements give qualified

workers the opportunity to find rewarding employment

in their own communities. These opportuni-

ties change the future of not only a family

but an entire community.

However, legislation currently being debat-

ed in the Ohio House of Representatives

would restrict this practice, potentially giv-

ing an edge to out of state contractors.

House Bill 180, which recently passed out

of the House Commerce and Labor Commit-

tee along partisan lines, prohibits cities and

other municipalities from setting local hiring

requirements for public works projects.

Current and upcoming public works projects such as

the $331 million Opportunity Corridor in Cleveland and

the $1.4 billion sewer system upgrade in Akron repre-

sent significant opportunities for municipalities to open

the door to employment for their residents.

HB 180 may preclude many municipalities’ efforts to

use local hiring quotas to combat poverty and unem-

ployment, especially in urban areas, which typically

have higher unemployment rates than the national

average.

Ohioans deserve a fair shot at good-paying

local jobs because they have a stake in re-

building the communities where they live

and raise their family. When workers live in

the same municipality as a construction

project then the local community benefits

from the worker spending their paycheck at

the local grocery store, restaurant, or day

care.

I believe Ohio lawmakers should be em-

powering cities to expand economic opportunities for

their residents, not putting up roadblocks.

The bill now goes to the Senate for further considera-

tion.

Local hiring restriction could stifle job opportunities for Ohioans

Amid ongoing controversy surrounding capital punish-

ment in Ohio, state lawmakers recently introduced a

bipartisan plan to end Ohio’s death penalty and re-

place it with sentences of life in prison without parole.

Sponsored by Reps. Nickie J. Anto-

nio (D-Lakewood) and Niraj Antani

(R-Miami Township), House Bill 289

has garnered support from both

sides of the aisle as well as from a

number of criminal justice reform

organizations and various religious

groups.

Democrats have long voiced con-

cerns over Ohio’s death penalty, cit-

ing racial and socio-economical disparities in sentenc-

ing as well as the penalty’s failure to deter violent

crime.

Some lawmakers also argue that the death penalty is

an unnecessary fiscal burden to the state. Costs asso-

ciated with death penalty cases, especially those with

prolonged appeals processes, are significantly higher

than criminal cases that result in a life sentence with-

out parole. These costs to the state are ultimately be-

ing paid for by taxpayers.

The bill’s sponsors also noted that Ohio has struggled

in recent years to obtain the drugs

required for lethal injection, as many

pharmaceutical companies have

ceased manufacturing the drugs due

to moral and legal hurdles.

Ohio adopted its current capital pun-

ishment statute in 1981. To date,

Ohio has executed a total of 393

convicted murderers, while over 140

other prisoners remain on death

row. Ohio is scheduled to execute 21 prisoners on

death row in the next four years alone.

If HB 289 passes, Ohio would join 19 other states in

abolishing the death penalty.* Nebraska most recently

eliminated their death penalty statute this year, be-

coming the seventh state to do so since 2007.

*http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/6152

Bi-partisan effort could abolish state death penalty