Latest news with #Bill113
Yahoo
01-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Huber Heights' annexation of Bethel Twp. land at center of new House bill
Apr. 1—Spurred from a saga that saw chunks of Bethel Twp. land annexed into Huber Heights, a Miami County lawmaker is hoping to pass a bill that would have given his county commissioners the power of veto. "We're wanting to reform the law related to annexation to simply say that county commissioners in this county over here need to have a voice in this in order to prevent problems from coming," Ohio House Rep. Johnathan Newman, R-Troy, told this outlet in an interview. Newman and Rep. Adam Bird, R-New Richmond, are pushing to tweak Ohio's annexation laws with House Bill 113. The biggest change the bill proposes is granting county commissioners of would-be annexed land the responsibility to determine whether the annexation serves "the general good." The annexation of Bethel Twp. land to Huber Heights, which sits across the border in Montgomery County, has been marked by strong opposition from township leaders and Miami County commissioners. In July, Huber Heights approved an annexation request of nearly 300 acres of farmland that was once part of Bethel Twp., with the intent of expanding a new-build Carriage Trails neighborhood. That annexation was strongly opposed by the leaders of Bethel Twp. and Miami County. It came through so-called Type 2 expedited annexation, which Newman described as "when all the people living on the property that is to be annexed... sign (a petition saying) that they want to be annexed." Newman said Ohio's Type 2 annexation law currently gives the very few people living on the land the power to decide to annex and then sell their land to a neighborhood developer — potentially leading to a population shift of hundreds or thousands. "Here's the deal: If it was a neighborhood of (500 people) and all 500 people said, 'Yes, we want to be annexed to Huber Heights,' then, OK," Newman said. "But that's not what's been happening. What's been happening is, this is farmland where almost nobody lives." In this case, the proposed development is zoned for mixed-use purposes with the intent of building hundreds of new homes, apartment buildings, a new school, a public park and a fire station. Bethel Twp. residents have been concerned that new development would overcrowd nearby schools and otherwise alter their way of life. "Folks move to Bethel Twp. for a reason; we don't want to live 10 feet from our neighbor. We want the quiet and tranquility of a rural lifestyle," township Trustee Julie Reese said in June 2024. "We want the country roads without a stoplight on every corner, we want to drive those roads and look out the window at the crops growing and the cattle grazing. Annexation is destroying our way of life." Newman said that Type 2 annexation is basically a matter of paperwork if the landowners want to annex and the annexing municipality agrees. While Newman said he's sure Huber Heights is acting in good faith, he feels the power is off balance. "The county commissioners and townships need to have more say in this," Newman said. The Ohio Municipal League, a lobbying organization for Ohio's cities and villages, told this outlet that it opposes H.B. 113. "House Bill 113 is a response to an isolated issue of disagreement in one small area of the state and would interfere with a system that has worked well for over 20 years, providing greater predictability in the annexation process for Ohio's local governments across the state," OML Director of Public Affairs Bevan Schneck said in a statement to this outlet. Schneck framed the bill as "unnecessary" and said it would "compromise the ability of our communities to meet the critical challenge to provide more housing opportunities." He said current law "respects the rights of Ohio's property owners." H.B. 113 is slated to have more hearings in the House Local Government Committee in the coming weeks. ------ For more stories like this, sign up for our Ohio Politics newsletter. It's free, curated, and delivered straight to your inbox every Thursday evening. Avery Kreemer can be reached at 614-981-1422, on X, via email, or you can drop him a comment/tip with the survey below.
Yahoo
12-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Uncompromising sponsor sees parent-rights bill die
PIERRE, S.D. (KELO) — Republican Sen. Tamara Grove wouldn't give in. Instead, the first-year lawmaker could only watch on Wednesday as the South Dakota House of Representatives debated whether to kill her Senate Bill 113 that would protect parents' rights to raise their children as they see fit. Grove stook in the back of the House chamber and later paced the legislators-only hallway as one after another representative stood to speak. County officials differ on new property tax bill She had refused to accept a House version that added a sentence saying state laws on child abuse and juvenile courts would still apply, regardless of the rest of her bill's content. The House sentence specifically said, 'No person may use this section to challenge a proceeding under chapters 26-7A or 26-8A.' Grove found that sentence unacceptable. The stand-off led to the appointment of a conference committee. Its members on Wednesday morning recommended 5-1 removing the sentence added by the House and returning the bill to the Senate version. When the House considered whether to accept the conference report on Wednesday afternoon, Republican Rep. Tim Reisch called for the bill's rejection. 'It's very troubling that the bill's sponsor doesn't want to include a simple sentence of clarification that our laws against child abuse and neglect are not to be impacted by this,' Reisch said. A former Miner County sheriff and a former state secretary of corrections, Reisch had called for the addition of the sentence when SB 113 came through the House the first time. The vote on the amendment that day was 37-32. On Wednesday, Reisch cast the nay during the conference vote. The hour-long debate among House members that followed saw several opponents of the bill deliver emotional speeches about their experiences in law enforcement and the Department of Social Services, interspersed by comments from supporters such as Republican Rep. Travis Ismay, who was a foster parent for seven years. 'The system is broke. Parents need to have parental rights and have it in law like this,' Ismay said. In the end, the House followed Reisch's lead and voted 39-31 for a double-barreled motion to not accept the conference committee's report and to not appoint a new committee. And with that, SB 113 was dead. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
31-01-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Could lawmakers legalize marijuana this year? These are the bills to watch.
The push for marijuana legalization in Indiana has new money and new faces behind it. It's more bipartisan than ever before. And there's a new governor who's more amenable to certain aspects of the debate than the previous one. Every year there have been many, sometimes dozens, of bills attempting to move the needle, but they always fail to make it into law. Indiana is now surrounded on all sides by states where some level of cannabis is legal. Could this finally be the year for one of these bills to go the distance? Indiana General Assembly: With a new governor and Republican-backed marijuana lobbying effort, will anything change? Leaders behind a new lobbying group, Safe and Regulated Indiana, are projecting optimism. Some lawmakers behind the bills are far more tempered in their expectations: This could take multiple election cycles, but it does seem like there's some momentum. Still, so far this year none of the bills legalizing marijuana have received a hearing, the first step toward becoming law. Here are the marijuana-related bills lawmakers have proposed this session: Four bills would allow people with a medical condition and their doctor's permission to use medical marijuana, and establish a regulatory framework to oversee a medical marijuana program: , by Rep. Jake Teshka, R-North Liberty Senate Bill 341, by Sen. Michael Young, R-Indianapolis , by Sen. Greg Taylor, D-Indianapolis House Bill 1178, by Rep. Jim Lucas, R-Seymour. This bill also includes a host of other regulations about the packaging and labeling of medical marijuana. Four bills would legalize the production and sale of marijuana for adults, establish a tax and create a new state agency to oversee the regulations: House Bill 1630, by Rep. Heath VanNatter, R-Kokomo Senate Bill 113, by Sen. Rodney Pol, D-Chesterton, and Sen. Kyle Walker, R-Fishers , by Rep. Blake Johnson, D-Indianapolis House Bill 1654, by Rep. Zach Payne, R-Charlestown. This bill would set the legal age at 18, whereas the others set it at 21. , by Rep. Heath VanNatter, R-Kokomo, would decriminalize the possession of two ounces or less of marijuana. This isn't the same as legalization, which would involve regulating a market. Senate Bill 166, by Sens. Spencer Deery, R-West Lafayette, and Tyler Johnson, R-Leo; as well as , by Rep. Timothy Wesco, R-Osceola, would prohibit the advertising of the product or a related business by any medium ― billboard, digital, etc. House Bill 1026, by Rep. Joanna King, R-Middlebury, narrowly focuses a prohibition on physical signs located within 1,000 feet of places where kids are, such as schools and public parks. House Bill 1119, by Rep. Wendy McNamara, R-Evansville would set the legal limit for the amount of THC that can be found in a person's saliva to be penalized with an OWI charge. Current law says you can get charged if you have any measurable amount in your blood; this bill would set the threshold at five nanograms per milliliter in your saliva, the common limit in states where marijuana is legal. Contact IndyStar state government and politics reporter Kayla Dwyer at kdwyer@ or follow her on Twitter @kayla_dwyer17. This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Marijuana bills filed in the Indiana legislature in 2025
