'You own it, you owe it' has to change

The political storm in Ohio about reducing — or even abolishing — property taxes is not going to subside. Why would it? It is a real response to a real and growing problem. Property taxes are not just unpopular, they are politically corrosive. Property taxes erode trust in our civic institutions, but they also damage something deeper: the idea that hard work leads to stability. The prospect of long-term homeownership. The belief that if you play by the rules, pay your mortgage, and stay in your home, the system will leave you alone. Property taxes punish the American Dream. They do not ask whether a family's income went up. They do not ask whether a widow on a fixed income suddenly has more cash in her checking account. They do not ask whether an Ohio farmer, retiree, young family, or small business owner actually used more government services this year than last. So the abolition crowd has some strong points. But let's also be candid about a property tax-free state. Cue the broken record: we can't wave a wand, end property tax and leave every township, school district, county, fire department and sheriff's office whole. That is not sound policy. That's a bumper sticker. Still, defending a corrosive system simply because "it's the way things have always been done" isn't serious either. Ohioans demand relief. And the state needs a replacement strategy. Think of it this way: our tax system right now is like an investor who put everything into one stock and now refuses to rebalance the portfolio, even as the risk becomes obvious. That's not strategy. That's denial. A smarter system would reduce exposure to property-based revenue, provide relief to homeowners, leverage existing income and sales tax without increase and expand use-based funding. Not a magic wand. Not a silver bullet. Not one giant tax swap — and certainly not a massive income tax hike or 20% sales tax that hammers families at the self-check-out. Ohio needs diversification, and we need a complete system reset in how we think about taxation overall. Right now the state's taxation model is simple, and flawed. It goes like this: you own something, therefore you owe. I propose that a modern system should look like this: you use the system, therefore you contribute. This is fairer, and far more transparent. It aligns with the way the real economy works. A modern tax structure should shift the burden away from passive ownership and towards actual activity: transactions, filings, licenses, registrations, commercial use, high-volume institutional users and those who utilize public systems to move money, enforce contracts, transfer property, finance vehicles, record liens and access official records. In plain English: we need to stop putting hardship on homeowners just because their names are on a deed. We can give homeowners relief by funding systems through those who actually use the machinery of government. This is not about growing government revenue — it is about shifting the burden off of homeowners and onto high-volume users of the system. And here is the part that state policymakers are missing: Ohio already has the infrastructure to do this. And it sits in every county Clerk of Courts office. As Ottawa County's Clerk of Courts, I see it every day. Our office processes the quiet machinery of commerce: titles, cases, liens, judgments, garnishments, foreclosures, certifications and the records that make private transactions enforceable and legally real. This is not hypothetical — it is constant, high-volume activity. It is commerce moving through public channels. That system has value and should be priced accordingly. Title offices are the clearest example. Ohio already charges title-related fees by statute. Many counties list title fees, duplicate title fees, lien notations fees, salvage title fees, title search fees and late filing fees in their public fee schedules. But those schedules were built for another time. They do not reflect the scale, speed or level of commercial utilization we see today. A smarter, bolder approach is called for. If Ohio policymakers are serious about property tax relief, they need to look where the activity is. The skeleton is already there. Legislators should add muscle to it. A serious property tax-relief package should include a dedicated, locally retained title transaction surcharge. Not punitive. Not hidden. A modest, transparent surcharge of $5, $10 or $15 on high-volume title transactions, dedicated to local property-tax relief or essential local services. Then go further. Create a higher-tier fee for high-volume institutional users of the public systems. Public infrastructure supports private activity. Banks rely on enforceable liens. Dealers rely on clean title transfers. Finance companies rely on accurate records. Out-of-state creditors rely on Ohio's court system to collect debts. These institutional users need to help sustain the system they rely on, and Ohio should shift the burden from passive ownership to active system usage. This approach ensures balance, maintaining affordability for everyday transactions while aligning costs with volume, complexity and demand. Ohio should also modernize lien fees. Notation, release, e-liens, bulk lender submissions, correction filings, expedited service — these are natural fee-for-service revenue points tied directly to activity. The same logic applies to out-of-state title conversions. When a vehicle enters Ohio's system, a modest intake or conversion fee — especially for higher-risk titles — is reasonable. Title washing and title fraud are not imaginary problems. If a transaction requires more scrutiny, it should carry more of the administrative cost. The same logic tracks with expedited services. Government should not nickel-and-dime people for ordinary service. Standard service stays affordable. Premium speed pays for itself. Optional pricing based on demand is how the private sector works. Government can learn the lesson. The courts offer another path. Foreclosures. Garnishments. Judgment liens. Collections. These are not one-off citizen interactions. They involve banks, institutional creditors, commercial litigants and other frequent fliers of the legal system. They represent repeat, high-volume use of public infrastructure. If courts are used to enforce private financial claims, they draw on taxpayer-funded resources — and that should be priced accordingly. Scaled filing fees. Targeted surcharges on foreclosure and collection actions. Higher tiers for high-volume users. Not to hinder commerce, but to allocate costs more effectively. A one-time filer should not be treated the same as a high-volume institutional filer. Fee structures should reflect that reality through targeted, transparent surcharges tied to use. Ohio should examine vehicle registrations. Existing permissive license fees already provide a foundation. A modern approach could expand locally retained, usage-based registration fees: modest for passenger vehicles, higher for fleets and high-impact users. Greater use, greater contribution. That is not radical. That is arithmetic. Consider the data economy. Yes, public records are public, but bulk commercial data extraction is different. If a company is mining public records at scale as a business model, a user fee can help fund maintenance, security and modernization — without limiting individual access. Now, critics will say: "Fees are regressive." Sometimes they are. That is why structure matters. A serious framework should protect ordinary citizens and focus on institutional, high-volume, expedited, complex or noncompliant activity. Keep ordinary access affordable. Charge more for speed, scale and intensity of use. That's the difference between indiscriminate fees and a coherent system. Others will argue that fees alone cannot replace the $24 billion the state currently brings on from property taxes. They're right — and missing the point. The goal is not a magical replacement. The goal is to stop overreliance on a broken system. Fees are the missing piece. They capture non-residents. They scale with activity. They reflect actual use. And they can be phased in without economic shock. The political class loves to talk about reform until reform requires choosing who pays. Well, I say that is the job. If the choice is between a retiree being taxed out of her home, or a commercial lender paying more to enforce a lien, I know where I stand. If the choice is between a family absorbing another valuation spike, or an out-of-state financial institution paying a surcharge to use Ohio's courts and records system, I know where I stand. If the choice is between homeowners carrying the burden, or bulk data companies paying for profitable access to public systems, I know where I stand. The homeowner has endured enough hardship.