Statement on Ballot Proposals
If they passed, the city would be better for it. Here is why.
This year, there will be six proposals on the ballots in NYC. Number 1 is a statewide question and concerns an upstate sports complex, the rest are revisions to NYC’s Charter. No. 2-4 would encourage more housing development in NYC, No. 5 would bring the city map into the 21st century, and No. 6 would move local elections to even years.
We have been covering the underlying issues and the reasoning behind these proposals all year and think that if they passed, the city would be better for it. Here is why.
Ballot Proposal 1
The Mount Van Hoevenberg Olympic Sports Complex, in upstate Essex County, is likely technically in violation of the state constitution. The facility has existed for nearly a century, but most of its tracks and buildings were constructed for the 1980 Winter Olympics and after. But these were built on forest preserve lands designated by Art. XIV, Sec. 1 of the NYS constitution as “forever wild.” The facility’s lands should have been carved out from the state constitution prior to being built.
Ballot Proposal 1 would remedy this violation and allow for 323 acres of ski trails. The state would be required to add 2,500 acres of protected forest land to Adirondack Park.
Recommendation: Yes. This proposal corrects a long-neglected technical land-use violation of the state constitution and would expand an important sports training and recreational facility.
NYC Charter Ballot Proposals
Ballot Proposal 2
This proposal contains two parts. First, it would allow the Board of Standards and Appeals greater leeway to issue site-specific zoning waivers for publicly financed 100% affordable housing developments. Such action would only be available to Housing Development Fund Companies, legal entities that are responsible for developing publicly financed 100% affordable housing projects, which would need to demonstrate that an eligible project is consistent with neighborhood character and would promote affordable housing development.
Second, Proposal 2 would create a fast-track review procedure for rezoning applications in the 12 community districts with the lowest relative growth of permitted affordable housing in the last five years. Such expedited rezonings would retain community input but combine the review periods of the community board and borough president (60 days). This process would bypass the City Council and require only a vote of the City Planning Commission (CPC), eliminating the customary councilmember veto under ULURP. The 12 community districts affected are not yet known; if the measure passes, the city will produce a report in October 2026 designating the 12 affected community districts.
New York City has long relied on building “100% affordable” housing, primarily through the federal Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program. LIHTC was enacted in 1986 and has been repeatedly expanded with bipartisan support—most recently this year, under President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Every major U.S. city uses LIHTC to finance affordable construction.
Ballot Proposal 2 aims to shorten the years it takes to rezone and build these 100% affordable developments. It would accelerate approvals for such projects, allowing them to proceed in neighborhoods with access to jobs, stores, and health care—the very places where families can thrive. By streamlining approvals and eliminating the councilmember veto that chills or blocks rezonings, Ballot Proposal 2 would enable more affordable housing to be built faster and at lower cost.
Recommendation: Yes. Not only would the proposal directly encourage more housing supply through streamlined review procedures, it would spur NIMBY districts to produce more affordable housing.
Ballot Proposal 3
This proposal introduces a new expedited review (ELURP) for modest rezonings—those that don’t trigger an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In medium- and high-density zones, projects under ELURP would allow up to a 30% increase in floor area (without Council review). In low-density zones with a standard height limit of 45 feet and maximum floor area ratio of 2, ELURP would be available for any zoning change.
Importantly, rezonings under ELURP would not require city-council approval and thus would avoid the customary councilmember veto under ULURP.
Recommendation: Yes. This proposal would facilitate gradual densification by significantly reducing the costs of securing a rezoning for smaller-scale projects.
Ballot Proposal 4
For zoning changes that facilitate the creation of affordable housing and require City Council approval, the proposal would eliminate the mayor’s ineffective and rarely used veto over city-council disapprovals or modifications of City Planning Commission (CPC)–approved rezonings. In its place, it would establish a three-member Affordable Housing Appeals Board, composed of the mayor, the City Council speaker, and the relevant borough president. If the Council rejects or alters such a zoning change, the board could—by a two-of-three vote—reinstate, in whole or in part, the terms of the CPC’s original approval.
Recommendation: Yes. This proposal would provide a check on the city council’s informal practice of deferring to the wishes of the councilmember in whose district a proposed rezoning falls—resulting in the unilateral blockage of housing developments that otherwise meet citywide planning and policy goals.
Ballot Proposal 5
This technocratic change would consolidate New York’s official City Map into a single, digitized version under the Department of City Planning. Today, the map is composed of five sets of paper maps (one per borough) totaling more than 8,000 individual maps managed by Topographical Bureaus in each borough president’s office. Digitization would expedite processes that involve map changes (e.g. streets, infrastructure) and likely result in faster public works projects.
Recommendation: Yes. This is a long overdue change to an antiquated city mapping system that still relies on paper and fragmented oversight.
Ballot Proposal 6
Proposal 6 would change the timing of municipal elections (for mayor, comptroller, council, etc.) from odd-numbered years to the same years as U.S. presidential elections. Evidence from cities across the nation and in New York City consistently demonstrates that the single most effective way to increase voter turnout dramatically is to align the date of local elections with federal elections. In NYC, Proposal 6 would likely more than double voter participation in local elections, if fully enacted.
Even-year local elections would also likely dilute the power and influence of special elections like public-sector unions. If influencing an outcome requires more votes, the cost of exerting that influence will rise.
Importantly, the change would take effect only if a corresponding amendment to the New York State Constitution is approved (the state constitution currently requires city elections in odd years). If the legislature and voters approve the constitutional amendment, the earliest even-year local election would likely be 2032.
Recommendation: Yes. This proposal would dramatically increase democratic participation and save the city the cost of holding elections every year.