Local hiring restriction could stifle job opportunities for Ohioans

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 opportunities change the future of not only a family
but an entire community.
However, legislation currently being debated in the Ohio House of Representatives
would restrict this practice, potentially giving an edge to out of state contractors.
House Bill 180, which recently passed out
of the House Commerce and Labor Committee 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 represent 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 unemployment, 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 rebuilding 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 empowering cities to expand economic opportunities for
their residents, not putting up roadblocks.
The bill now goes to the Senate for further consideration.

Bi-partisan effort could abolish state death penalty

Amid ongoing controversy surrounding capital punishment in Ohio, state lawmakers recently introduced a
bipartisan plan to end Ohios death penalty and replace it with sentences of life in prison without parole.
Sponsored by Reps. Nickie J. Antonio (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 concerns over Ohios death penalty, citing racial and socio-economical disparities in sentencing as well as the penaltys failure to deter violent
crime.
Some lawmakers also argue that the death penalty is
an unnecessary fiscal burden to the state. Costs associated with death penalty cases, especially those with
prolonged appeals processes, are significantly higher

than criminal cases that result in a life sentence without parole. These costs to the state are ultimately being paid for by taxpayers.
The bills 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 punishment 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, becoming the seventh state to do so since 2007.
*http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/node/6152