Weigh in on Ballot Proposals
We want to hear from you about the proposals on November’s ballot! When voters head to the polls this November, you’ll be asked to weigh in on six ballot measures that impact decision-making at the city and state level. Until 5 pm ET on Friday, September 12, New Yorkers were invited to submit public statements on ballot proposals, whether you support or oppose them.
We’ve broken down the ballot proposals for you – what they mean, who will be impacted, and what a “yes” and “no” vote would mean for our communities. We’ll publish the findings to help educate NYC voters about the proposals.
The Proposals
What you'll see on the ballot
Allows skiing and related trail facilities on state forest preserve land. The site is 1,039 acres. Requires State to add 2,500 acres of new forest land in Adirondack Park.
A yes vote authorizes new ski trails and related facilities in the Adirondack forest preserve.
A no vote does not authorize this use.
What this proposal says
This proposal would allow the expansion of new ski trails in the Olympic Sports Complex in Essex County, New York. The Olympic Sport Complex is in state forest preserve land. This proposal would also require New York State to add 2,500 acres of protected forest land to Adirondack Park.
What this proposal means
Currently, there are strict rules for the kinds of construction that are allowed on state-owned and protected forest land. The Olympic Sports Complex is in the Adirondack forest preserve in Essex County (in upstate New York). This proposal would allow the construction of new ski trails.
This proposal also requires New York State to add an additional 2,500 acres of forest land to the Adirondack forest preserve. This is a statewide ballot proposal because it requires a change to the New York State Constitution.
A “yes” vote changes the New York State Constitution to allow the creation of new trails in the Olympic Sports Complex on forest preserve land in Essex County, New York.
A “no” vote leaves the New York State Constitution unchanged.
What you'll see on the ballot
Fast track publicly financed affordable housing. Fast track applications delivering affordable housing in the community districts that produce the least affordable housing, significantly reducing review time. Maintain Community Board review.
“Yes” fast tracks applications at the Board of Standards and Appeals or City Planning Commission.
“No” leaves affordable housing subject to longer review and final decision at City Council.
What this proposal says
This proposal would make two new processes to fast-track certain affordable housing projects. The first process is for publicly financed affordable housing projects. The second process is for affordable housing projects in the 12 community districts with the lowest rates of affordable housing development.
What this proposal means
Most housing projects must go through the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP), a seven-month review process. This proposal would make two new processes for certain affordable housing projects.
The first process would allow the Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) to approve publicly financed affordable housing projects, after a 60-day review by the local Community Board and a 30-day review by the BSA.
The second process would create a faster review for projects in the 12 community districts with the lowest rates of affordable housing. This process would allow the Community Board and local Borough President to review at the same time, followed by a 30- to 45-day review by the City Planning Commission (CPC). The CPC would have final approval instead of the City Council.
A “yes” vote makes two processes to fast-track affordable housing projects.
A “no” vote keeps the seven-month review process with input from the local Community Board, local Borough President, CPC, City Council, and Mayor.
What you'll see on the ballot
Simplify review of modest amounts of additional housing and minor infrastructure projects, significantly reducing review time. Maintain Community Board review, with final decision by the City Planning Commission.
“Yes” simplifies review for limited land-use changes, including modest housing and minor infrastructure projects.
“No” leaves these changes subject to longer review, with final decision by City Council.
What this proposal says
This proposal would create a faster review process for certain land use projects, such as smaller projects to change how land is used and to prepare the city for extreme weather or other future challenges. For most of these projects, the proposed process would remove final review by the City Council.
What this proposal means
Currently, most land use projects must go through the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP), a seven-month public review process. This proposal would create an Expedited Land Use Review Procedure (ELURP) for smaller projects to change how land is used and to prepare the city for extreme weather or other future challenges. This process would include a 60-day review period for the local Community Board and local Borough President, followed by a 30-day review and final decision by the City Planning Commission (CPC).
A “yes” vote creates a faster process for smaller zoning changes and other land use actions. It also removes the City Council’s review for most projects.
A “no” vote keeps the seven-month public review process with input from the local Community Board, local Borough President, CPC, City Council, and Mayor.
What you'll see on the ballot
Establish an Affordable Housing Appeals Board with the Council Speaker, local Borough President, and Mayor to review Council actions that reject or change applications creating affordable housing.
“Yes” creates the three-member Affordable Housing Appeals Board to reflect Council, borough, and citywide perspectives.
“No” leaves affordable housing subject to the Mayor’s veto and final decision by City Council.
What this proposal says
This proposal would change the current land use review process when the City Council rejects or changes an affordable housing project. The proposal would create an Affordable Housing Appeals Board, made up of the local Borough President, Speaker of the City Council, and Mayor. The proposal would allow the Appeals Board to reverse the City Council’s decision with a two-to-one vote.
What this proposal means
Currently, most affordable housing projects must go through the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP), a seven-month review process that ends in a final City Council vote. The mayor has the power to veto this decision, and the City Council can overturn the veto.
This proposal would apply to affordable housing projects the City Council rejects or changes. This proposal would create an Affordable Housing Appeals Board that would have the power to reverse the City Council’s decision. The Appeals Board would include the local Borough President, Speaker of the City Council, and Mayor. Projects would pass if two of the three members agree.
A “yes” vote creates the Affordable Housing Appeals Board, which would be able to reverse City Council decisions on affordable housing projects with a two-to-one vote. The Appeals Board would consist of the local Borough President, Speaker of the City Council, and Mayor.
A “no” vote keeps the current review process for affordable housing projects, which includes a final decision by the City Council.
What you'll see on the ballot
Consolidate borough map office and address assignment functions, and create one digital City Map at Department of City Planning. Today, the City Map consists of paper maps across five offices.
“Yes” creates a consolidated, digital City Map.
“No” leaves in place five separate map and address assignment functions, administered by Borough President Offices.
What this proposal says
This proposal would make the Department of City Planning (DCP) responsible for creating, maintaining, and digitizing a single City Map.
What this proposal means
The City Map legally defines street names, widths, and lines. Currently, the City Map is managed by five Topographical Bureaus in each Borough President’s office. The City Map consists of 8,000 paper maps. This proposal would require the Department of City Planning (DCP) to consolidate these separately maintained paper maps into one centralized and digitized City Map.
A “yes” vote creates a centralized digital City Map maintained by the Department of City Planning.
A “no” vote keeps each borough’s paper maps separate and administered by each Borough President’s office.
What you'll see on the ballot
Move the City’s primary and general election dates so that City elections are held in the same year as Federal Presidential elections, when permitted by state law.
“Yes” moves City elections to the same year as Federal Presidential Elections, when permitted by state law.
“No” leaves laws unchanged.
What this proposal says
This proposal would move election dates for city offices to the same year as federal presidential elections.
What this proposal means
Currently, city elections are held on odd-numbered years and federal presidential elections are held on even-numbered years, every four years. This proposal would make city and federal presidential elections occur on the same years. This means elections for city offices (for Mayor, Public Advocate, Comptroller, Borough President, and City Council) would occur in the same year as federal presidential elections. This proposal would also require a change to New York State law before it takes effect.
A “yes” vote moves city elections to the same year as federal elections, dependent on a change to state law.
A “no” vote keeps city elections held in odd-numbered years, on a different election cycle from federal presidential elections.
Publication of statements in the Voter Guide is not guaranteed. The Campaign Finance Board/NYC Votes maintains editorial control over the Voter Guide and may edit, summarize, or decline to publish any public statement.
