This election cycle in New York City has been dominated by the mayor’s race, with the candidates sparring over crime, affordability and the war in Gaza. But the six proposals that will appear on the back of ballots could also have a major impact.
Proposal 1, about protected land, goes before voters across the state. But the other measures were written for New York City voters. At least three of them could significantly diminish the power the City Council has over housing development.
Those measures have ignited a fiery response from the Council, which says they will leave neighborhoods unable to shape their future and instead hand power to housing developers and the mayor. Their proponents say they are crucial for addressing the city’s housing shortage.
Proposals 2 through 6 were written, with public input, by the 13-member Charter Revision Commission that Mayor Eric Adams created in December, setting up a face-off between City Hall and the City Council.
Early voting begins in New York on Saturday, Oct. 25, and Election Day is Nov. 4. Here is what to know about the ballot measures.
Proposal 1: Allow an Olympic Sports Complex on State Forest Preserve Land
The Mount Van Hoevenberg Olympic Sports Complex in Essex County, which hosted the 1932 and 1980 Winter Olympics, extends into more than 300 acres of protected forest lands in the Adirondack Park in violation of the State Constitution, which says part of the park shall be “forever wild.”
A “yes” vote would amend the Constitution to authorize the complex retroactively. The proposal’s passage would trigger legislation banning most further development not directly related to the complex. Gov. Kathy Hochul would need to sign that legislation.
The state would be required to add at least 2,500 acres to the protected lands to offset the loss of land to the complex.
A “no” vote would leave the Constitution as is, and the complex would remain in violation of it.
Who supports this?
The Adirondack Council, a nonprofit environmental advocacy group, said in a statement that it would be best for “the human and ecological communities of the Adirondacks.”
Who opposes this?
Councilman Robert Holden, a Queens Democrat, said in a statement he was opposed to “carving exceptions into the Constitution for new construction on protected lands. Once we weaken these safeguards, it becomes easier to do it again.”
Proposal 2: Fast Track Affordable Housing
New York City is dealing with a dire housing shortage.
A “yes” vote would make it easier and faster to approve housing projects financed by the city, which are typically the most affordable. The City Council would not get to vote on mixed-income housing developments in the dozen community districts where the least housing has been built over the preceding five years.
A “no” vote would leave the current system in place, where nearly all of these types of housing projects must go through a land use process and ultimately be approved by the City Council.
Who supports this?
The measure was one of the five written by Mr. Adams’s charter commission, and supporters view it as a simple way to speed up development of affordable housing. Mr. Adams blames the shortage, in part, on “member deference” — an unofficial veto that council members hold over new developments in their districts.
Alec Schierenbeck, the executive director of the commission, said its proposals would “create faster, simpler, and less political processes for the types of development that New Yorkers frequently say they want most: affordable housing and modest projects that fit into the existing neighborhood fabric.”
Former Gov. Andrew Cuomo is the only mayoral candidate that supports the measure. It is also backed by Gov. Kathy Hochul; Brad Lander, the city comptroller; and the borough presidents of Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens.
Who opposes this?
The City Council, led by Speaker Adrienne Adams, has characterized the measure as a mayoral power grab.
They say that diminishing the City Council’s power over new developments removes the ability of members to negotiate benefits — like parks, subsidies for low-income renters and infrastructure upgrades — from City Hall and developers.
The Council has sent mailers out claiming the measure would lead to “less affordable housing,” “fewer quality parks” and “more gentrification.”
“We have real housing challenges, but these are false solutions,” said Julia Agos, a spokeswoman for the City Council.
Several major labor unions are also opposed, including Local 32BJ of the Service Employees International Union and the Hotel & Gaming Trades Council. City Council members are often able to extract gains for unionized workers by threatening a veto over projects.
The Democratic nominee in the mayor’s race, Zohran Mamdani, has conspicuously not taken a position on the measure. The Republican nominee, Curtis Sliwa, opposes it.
Proposal 3: Simplify Review of Modest Housing Projects
This proposal for “modest” projects — up to 30 percent bulkier than current rules allow, or up to 45 feet tall — would allow such proposals to move forward more quickly.
A “yes” vote would shorten the approval process to three months from roughly seven. The City Council would no longer have the final say. That would come from the City Planning Commission, where the majority of members are appointed by the mayor.
A “no” vote would leave the current process in place.
Who supports this?
A coalition of politicians, civic leaders and groups — including Mr. Adams, Ms. Hochul, Mr. Lander, Mr. Cuomo and others — support Proposal 3.
They say that these types of “modest” developments will be more attractive to developers and therefore more likely to be built if the process is streamlined.
Who opposes this?
The City Council, some labor unions, and Mr. Sliwa are also against this proposal.
They say shifting the power from the City Council to the Planning Commission gives more authority to the mayor and removes the ability of individual council members to extract better benefits for their districts.
Mr. Mamdani has not taken a position.
Proposal 4: Establish an Affordable Housing Appeals Board
A “yes” vote would give a new three-member board — made up of the mayor, the Council speaker and the local borough president — the power to reverse City Council decisions to reject or modify many mixed-income housing proposals.
A “no” vote would leave the current system in place, where individual council members, with rare exceptions, decide the fate of development projects in their districts.
Who supports this?
This is perhaps the most contentious of the commission’s four housing proposals. It is, however, supported by the same group that supports Proposal 2 and 3.
Supporters say that the unofficial veto held by individual council members ensures that many projects do not get proposed at all if there is a hint of opposition. And while the veto power may help defend the interest of a single neighborhood, supporters say the housing crisis should be tackled as a citywide problem.
Who opposes this?
The same opponents point out how the proposal would undermine the power of the City Council.
Developers could negotiate directly with the mayor and borough president and ignore the local council member, critics say.
“This would give the city and developers significantly more power to disregard the needs of neighborhoods,” the City Council says on its website.
Proposal 5: Create a Digital City Map
Currently, each borough president is in charge of maintaining paper maps of each borough. The maps are the official record of street lines and street grades, and the locations of public parks and open space.
A “yes” vote would require the city to consolidate and digitize the map under the planning commission.
A “no” vote would keep the current map system in place.
Unlike the three housing-related proposals, this one has seen little opposition.
Proposal 6: Move Local Elections to Presidential Election Years
Elections for city offices like mayor and public advocate are held in odd-numbered years at four-year intervals (like 2021 and 2025), while presidential elections are held in even years at four-year intervals (like 2020 and 2024).
There is typically more turnout for presidential elections. Just 23 percent of registered voters cast ballots in New York City’s mayoral election in 2021, while 60 percent participated in the 2024 presidential election, according to the New York City Campaign Finance Board.
A “yes” vote would move city elections to even years. This would amend the State Constitution and would need to be also approved by two consecutive State Legislatures and by voters in a statewide referendum.
A “no” vote would keep the election schedule the same.
Who supports this?
Moving city elections to even-numbered years could help “increase voter turnout, promote a more representative electorate and reduce election administration costs,” the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan think tank, has said.
The Charter Revision Commission said it would save an estimated $42 million every two years.
In a statement submitted in favor of the proposal, the Center for Independence of the Disabled in New York said “higher-turnout elections typically come with more investment in accessible poll sites, better training for poll workers and greater outreach to voters.”
Who opposes this?
One member of the Charter Revision Commission, Diane Savino, said that she had concerns that holding the elections simultaneously could end up diverting attention from local races.
Errol Louis, a New York magazine columnist, agreed. “National political dynamics would inevitably cause vital city issues unique to New York to get swallowed, distorted, or ignored,” he wrote.
Camille Baker is a Times reporter covering New York City and its surrounding areas.
Mihir Zaveri covers housing in the New York City region for The Times.
The post There Are 6 Ballot Measures In New York City. Here’s an Overview. appeared first on New York Times.
