Question 1: Bringing an Olympic Sports Complex into Environmental Compliance
This would grant the state-owned Olympic sports complex in Lake Placid — which, over the years, mistakenly built trails and a facility on protected state land in the Adirondacks — the right to remain on that public land, bringing it into compliance with the state Constitution. In exchange, the state would purchase 2,500 acres of land to add to the Adirondack Forest Preserve.
The allotment of this acreage to the complex allows them to maintain trails and forest on their existing property. Importantly, this amendment has no opposition from The Adirondack Council or other forest preservation groups. I recommend voting ‘yes’ on question 1.
Questions 2-4 on Affordable Housing: City Charter Changes That Sideline the City Council
First, let’s address a few housing facts. While these ballot questions address the city’s processes for building affordable units, most housing in New York City — about 80% — is “as of right” and therefore needs no public approvals.
Putting together the financing alone can take years, often encumbered by agency staff shortages. Certifying a proposal for public review can take a year or so, but the Uniform Land Use Review Process itself takes seven months, and few proposals are rejected by the Council.
Second, instead of serious urban planning, New York City zones and permits developers to fill in the envelope — the literal space where construction can be built, how high, etc.
Some proposals are great, others are not. Many can and have been improved by the developer working with the councilmember and the community, particularly the push for greater affordability or public amenities like schools.
It is also important to note that these proposals were created at the behest of Mayor Eric Adams, who appears to have been frustrated by having to govern in a system with three coequal branches of government with important checks and balances. This is called the separation of powers.
Many Americans are frustrated by Congress members ceding their legislative powers to an authoritarian president. Here, the mayor’s charter revision commission is asking voters to eliminate key functions of the legislative branch in favor of the executive branch — the mayor, the borough presidents and the speaker, a role selected by other councilmembers.
These proposals would eliminate the city’s legislative branch’s most important powers. They are, at base, undemocratic.
Questions 2 and 3: Build Affordable Housing More Quickly
Question 2 would streamline approvals for predominantly affordable housing projects on private property and facilitate more housing development in the 20% of neighborhoods that have produced the least affordable housing.
My district has seen one of the largest creations of both housing and affordable housing over the last decade.
Approvals would circumvent the City Council and be approved by the Board of Standards and Appeals.
I believe Question 2 is fundamentally undemocratic in nature, but I also believe it sufficiently addresses concerns about certain districts that have been unwelcoming to affordable housing. I’m not wild about it, but I suggest a ‘yes’ vote on Question 2.
Question 3 would allow for a streamlined approval process if developers are aiming to build more than what the current zoning allows.
Normally, this would go through the 7-month ULURP process. The actual language of the qualifying criteria for affordability is too vague for my liking, and I believe it will lead to confusion and elasticity as to what qualifies for this provision in decision-making, which would again circumvent the Council.
Further, Question 3 doesn’t fundamentally change the housing picture, which is that a portion of “affordable” units in large, privately developed housing far too often isn’t really affordable for those who need it. I suggest a ‘no’ vote on Question 3.
Question 4: Eliminating Your Voices in Land-Use Decisions
This proposal is by far the most undemocratic of all the ballot questions. It would effectively eliminate the role of City Council members and the communities in the land use process by shifting power to the mayor and developers and empower an Appeals Board to overrule any Council decision the developer doesn’t like. This is dangerously short-sighted and overtly authoritarian.
Currently, councilmembers are incentivized to engage with the community to make improvements to proposals so as to secure public support. This is how a community can weigh in for deeper affordability, larger apartments for growing families, park space, investments in climate resiliency, transit infrastructure, schools and the like.
While ULURP leaves much to be desired, it does provide a certain degree of transparency and several opportunities for the public to be heard in a defined timetable that lasts no more than 7 months.
I agree with Council Member Lincoln Restler’s statement, “…under the proposed appeals board, developers will be able to build whatever they propose, which will likely be mostly studios at affordability levels that working-class people cannot actually afford. We believe this will ultimately generate deeper and broader opposition to future development projects and leave growing neighborhoods without the infrastructure we need.”
We need more housing and more deeply affordable housing, but Question 4 would not deliver it. We need more family-sized apartments so we don’t lose residents when they have another child, but Question 4 would not deliver that either. I strongly urge you to vote ‘no’ on Question 4.
Also of note, Met Council Action — a long-time tenants’ rights group — urges a NO vote on 2, 3 and 4: “These proposals disempower working-class tenants and will accelerate displacement, particularly in already-gentrifying neighborhoods. They are written in purposefully misleading language with no real affordability mandates.”
Question 5: Modernizing City Maps
Today, citywide maps are drawn and printed on paper — 8,000 different maps are maintained in the offices of the five Borough Presidents.
Question 5 would modernize the city’s maps and make them digitally accessible. The digital maps would be centrally managed by the Department of City Planning, allowing for more efficiency and effectiveness in their work. I recommend voting ‘yes’ on Question 5.
Question 6: Moving City Elections to Even Years
State and federal elections are held in even years, while New York City’s are held in odd years.
Proponents believe that consolidating election cycles will increase voter turnout and allow for more diverse participation in municipal elections. There is some evidence to that effect in other cities, and it would certainly save money.
I have mixed feelings about this. I support increased voter participation, but this would put a huge number of candidates on the ballot every 4 years, and I suspect voters would have even less familiarity with candidates, especially for those running in local seats like City Council and NYS Assembly.
This is, in part, because of press coverage, the bandwidth of campaign volunteers and the bandwidth of voters. In a mayoral election year, the press largely ignores other races to cover the “big” race. In a presidential year, that problem would likely be magnified.
I’m also concerned this will favor incumbents and candidates with larger financial resources. I suggest voting ‘no’ on Question 6.
