When Intel selected Licking County, Ohio, for its massive semiconductor facility, the decision triggered a wave of follow-on investments, including data centers and advanced manufacturing operations. But according to Brian Lorenz, Director of Planning and Permitting for the Ohio House of Representatives, these companies are not choosing Ohio primarily for tax incentives or lower labor costs. Instead, they are prioritizing predictability in the approval process.
“The number one thing that I emphasize and that I see in the market is predictability, that comfort level,” Lorenz says. “Am I going to be successful here? What’s my path to approval? How much is this going to cost me, and how long is it going to take me to get it?”
Lorenz, who previously worked in site selection and development across nine states and nine Canadian provinces, argues that Ohio’s competitive advantage is not being the cheapest option, but offering clarity about the permitting process and timeline. For major corporate projects where a six-month delay can cost millions in lost revenue, this regulatory certainty outweighs minor differences in tax rates.
In addition to regulatory predictability, Lorenz highlights Ohio’s infrastructure assets, which are often overlooked in typical site-selection marketing. He cites Lake Erie as a significant resource, noting that water availability has become a critical constraint for data centers and advanced manufacturing in the western states. “That’s not an issue for places like data centers here,” he says.
Lorenz also cites Ohio’s abundant water, significant natural gas reserves, and what he describes as near energy independence, which together create a reliable operating environment for facilities with high infrastructure demands. The state’s engineering programs at universities such as the University of Toledo and Ohio State University provide the skilled workforce these operations need.
“What really makes our state attractive is the intellectual capital that we have within our residents,” Lorenz says. Ohio’s workforce, familiar with manufacturing and industrial operations, allows companies to staff advanced facilities without starting from scratch.
These factors, Lorenz argues, combine to create a “sweet spot” for site selection: the intersection of regulatory clarity, infrastructure capacity, workforce availability, and manageable operating costs. “You’ve got to hit that sweet spot, that Venn diagram of all those things, to make it happen,” he says.
Lorenz contends that what distinguishes Ohio from competing states is a development philosophy that treats government as a partner rather than an obstacle. “You’ve got a legislature and a government that is very pro-business, working to create attractive packages and wants to be a partner with you instead of working against you,” he says.
This partnership approach extends beyond tax incentives to include efforts to reduce regulatory barriers. The Ohio legislature has recently revised programs for historic housing credits and tax increment financing to make them more flexible and accessible. Lorenz notes that some programs were previously underutilized due to unnecessary complexity, but recent changes have made them more practical for developers.
For institutional investors evaluating the Midwest, Lorenz argues that the combination of predictability, infrastructure assets, and government partnership creates a strong value proposition, even if Ohio is not the absolute lowest-cost option. He points out that some areas may be attractive for retail development based on population growth, but could be less appealing due to cumbersome permitting or higher regulatory costs. “From a taxing standpoint, from a red tape standpoint, from a permitting standpoint, that may not be the place you want to go,” he says.
While the Intel project and related investments have focused attention on central Ohio, Lorenz emphasizes that opportunities exist across the state’s other large metropolitan areas. These secondary markets offer growth potential without the congestion and competition of primary coastal metros or established tech hubs.
“Everybody wants to be in Columbus, and we have five other large metropolitan areas, so there’s plenty of places for people to go,” Lorenz says. These markets offer adequate infrastructure, strong highway systems, and recreational amenities, while avoiding the regulatory complexity of older development markets.
The main challenge for these secondary markets is competing with neighboring states that offer their own incentive packages and pro-development policies. According to Lorenz, Ohio’s advantage in this competition is its ability to provide clear answers to companies about the approval process and expected timelines.
Whether Ohio’s advantage in regulatory clarity will last depends on how quickly other states recognize that predictability has become as crucial as traditional incentives in corporate site selection. For now, Lorenz says, Ohio is winning projects by offering something competitors struggle to match: a clear, navigable path to development success.
As companies weigh locations for significant investments, the ability to answer basic questions about costs, timelines, and regulatory steps is now a deciding factor. Ohio’s focus on transparency and partnership is attracting businesses that prioritize certainty over marginal savings, positioning the state as a leader in the next phase of corporate site selection.
Explore similar articles from Our Team of Experts.
The commercial real estate industry is reaching a tipping point as climate risk data becomes more accessible, yet most transactions continue to overlook its importance. While technology now ...
The Midwest multifamily market has undergone a dramatic transformation over three decades, evolving from a fragmented, locally-owned market to one that now attracts sophisticated institution...
