HB186: Why Ohio’s New Property Tax Reform Could Help Homeowners but Hit Single-Family Renters the Hardest
As Ohio prepares for the most significant property tax adjustment in years, House Bill 186 is being framed as welcome relief for homeowners overwhelmed by rising valuations. But here in Dayton — where roughly half of all single-family homes are renter-occupied — the reform raises a deeper question: Who actually benefits, and who ends up carrying the load?
This tension isn’t new. Renters in single-family homes often sit at the intersection of two narratives that ignore them: the political push to protect homeowners, and the public perception that renters mostly live in large apartment complexes. But the data tells a very different story. From the City of Dayton’s own auditor-backed parcel records, nearly 50% of all single-family houses in Dayton are rentals — a figure that only grows when apartments are added to the mix.
And yet, these are the very households who may feel the brunt of HB186.
What HB186 Promises for Homeowners
HB186, introduced last spring, is designed to slow down the rapidly rising property tax bills hitting Ohioans, especially seniors living on fixed incomes. The bill includes several major components:
- A cap on school district revenue growth tied to inflation
- A phased-in 15% property tax credit for homeowners
- Targeted protections for owner-occupants as home values rise
- New guardrails intended to limit tax advantages for institutional investors
Supporters estimate the bill will collectively save Ohio homeowners $1.7 billion.
For many owner-occupants — including thousands of long-time Dayton residents — this relief is both meaningful and overdue. With property values jumping sharply across Montgomery County in recent reappraisals, tax bills have put real pressure on older residents and families who are not benefiting from the same income increases seen elsewhere.
The Clause That Changes Everything for Renters
A late addition to the bill removes the property tax credit for properties classified as “business use” — specifically, homes with one to four rental units. While this language was intended to target out-of-state institutional investors, the definition sweeps in nearly all small, local landlords who own single-family rentals.
In other words: apartment complexes keep their tax relief structure. Small rental homes do not.
That raises the stakes significantly.
Scott Ellsworth, president of the Ohio Real Estate Investors Association, warned that the change “puts the burden on the renters,” noting that these are not hedge funds or Wall Street firms — these are the same “mom-and-pop” owners providing most of the affordable housing in cities like Dayton.
Even if rents don’t immediately rise dollar-for-dollar, higher operating costs for these landlords ripple downward. In a market already strained by limited supply, single-family renters often have the fewest alternatives and the least protection.
Dayton’s Housing Reality Doesn’t Fit the Statehouse Narrative
One of the greatest misperceptions surrounding housing policy is the assumption that renters overwhelmingly live in large apartment buildings. In Dayton, that’s simply incorrect.
- Approximately 50% of single-family homes in the city are occupied by renters
- Single-family rentals house thousands of families, retirees, and fixed-income residents
- These residents are disproportionately impacted by tax-driven rent increases
- Legislative language rarely distinguishes them from institutional landlords
This creates an unspoken — but powerful — statewide message: “If you can’t afford to buy a home, you must live in an apartment.”
But that ignores the lived experience of Dayton neighborhoods, where single-family rentals make up a foundational part of the housing ecosystem. Kids grow up in them. Teachers and service workers rely on them. Elderly residents downsize into them. Families displaced from rising mortgage costs move into them.
And this bill, as written, risks squeezing exactly those households.
Supporters Say the Bill Is a Compromise — Critics Say It Misses the Mark
State Sen. Kyle Koehler, a co-sponsor of HB186, acknowledges the challenge: protecting homeowners on fixed incomes while not unintentionally harming renters caught in the middle. He argues many renters don’t realize they indirectly pay property taxes through their monthly rent.
Montgomery County Auditor Karl Keith supports the bill’s overall direction but concedes it’s not a complete solution — rather, a step toward rebalancing a system struggling under inflation, rising valuations, and shifting investor activity.
Opposition groups, including the Ohio Real Estate Investors Association, hope for a line-item veto from Governor DeWine on the rental-property provision. Without it, the bill goes into effect as-is — and renters across Dayton’s neighborhoods may feel a significant new weight added to their housing costs.
What Happens Next
HB186 is now at the governor’s desk awaiting signature, likely in early December. If signed without amendment:
- Owner-occupants across Ohio will receive meaningful tax reductions
- Investors with large apartment holdings are largely unaffected
- Small local landlords of single-family rentals lose their credit
- Thousands of Dayton renters may indirectly absorb that cost
It’s a classic case of unintended consequences — one that highlights how state-level policy often fails to reflect on-the-ground realities in cities like Dayton.
And with half the single-family homes in the city occupied by renters, this isn’t a fringe issue. It’s a core part of Dayton’s housing stability.
As a citizen of the City of Dayton and Montgomery County, if you dislike this legislation, it’s your duty to reach out to your local House Representative or State Senator and let your voice be known.
