Overview:
New York City voters will see six ballot proposals during the upcoming general election on Nov. 4. The measures cover housing development reforms, a constitutional amendment to expand a winter sports complex, and a shift to align local elections with presidential cycles. The proposals follow months of debate, with critics warning of reduced City Council oversight, while supporters argue the changes would increase efficiency and voter turnout.
By The City, Marina Samuel
Election Day is approaching and New Yorkers won’t simply have a say on who represents them.
On the back of each ballot, you will find six questions that could ultimately amend the state’s constitution and revise the city charter, the document that outlines the powers and duties of the municipal government.
Four questions aim to speed and simplify the lengthy approval processes for affordable housing projects. Another proposal would move all municipal elections to even-numbered years in an effort to increase voter turnout. State lawmakers are also asking New Yorkers’ to sign off on an amendment to expand an Olympic sports complex near Lake Placid.
Remember, Election Day is Nov. 4. Early voting starts Oct. 25 — make sure you’re registered.
Why Are These Questions On My Ballot?
Voters have the opportunity to directly weigh in on ballot measures that were created by an appointed commission to amend the city charter. Last December, Mayor Eric Adams convened the Charter Revision Commission with a mandate to focus on alleviating the housing affordability crisis. Over seven months, the 13-member panel held public hearings to gather feedback from New Yorkers about potential ballot questions.
The process has been bumpy and not without controversy.
City Council leaders have pushed back against the panel, describing it as a power grab by Adams that “would put a wide range of land-use decisions in the hands of mayoral appointees.”
After the City Clerk’s Office certified the ballot measures, Council leadership published a letter on Aug. 27 calling on the Board of Elections to reject them. They claimed that the language of the questions were vague and did not inform voters of the Council’s reduced authority over land use decisions for affordable housing projects.
The Board of Elections ignored that request and ultimately decided to approve the ballot measures. In a last-ditch effort to block them from appearing on the ballot, members of the Council’s Common Sense Caucus filed a lawsuit to block three of the questions, charging that the measures violate environmental and city laws.
Proposal #1: Amendment to Allow an Olympic Sports Complex on Forest Preserve
Language 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.
The first question is the only one that will appear on ballots statewide this year. It concerns the Mount Van Hoevenberg Winter Sports Complex in Lake Placid, a state-owned facility managed by the Olympic Regional Development Authority, which had hosted events for the 1932 and 1980 Winter Olympics and other major international athletic competitions over the years.
Part of the complex sits on state forest preserve land protected under Article 14 of the New York State Constitution, which requires that the land must be “forever kept wild.” Because of this provision, efforts to expand the facility have sparked decades of legal disputes.
A new proposal addressed by the ballot question would authorize the state to use 323 acres of the preserve land for the complex and allow future upgrades. In exchange, the state plans to purchase 2,500 acres of Adirondacks land to add to the Forest Preserve, a trade that the preservationist group Adirondacks Council described as “the best case scenario.”
Proposal #2: Fast Track Affordable Housing to Build More Across the City
Language 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.
Many affordable housing developments in the city are subject to a long process for zoning approvals — called the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, or ULURP — that can take up to seven months to complete. This proposal aims to speed and simplify zoning-change procedures for affordable-housing projects by creating two actions.
The first is a “Fast Track Zoning Action,” which would give publicly financed affordable housing projects the ability to obtain approval from the Board of Standards and Appeals, the agency that issues zoning variances and permits. The Board of Standards and Appeals will then refer the application to the local community board for a 60-day review period. Once the community board provides their advisory recommendation, the Board of Standards and Appeals will hold a hearing and decide whether to approve or reject the application.
The second proposal would create an Affordable Housing Fast Track for applications under the city’s Mandatory Inclusionary Housing program — a de Blasio-era policy aiming to boost income-restricted housing — specifically in the twelve community districts that have produced the least affordable housing over the past five years. To expedite the timeline, the community board’s 60-day review period will remain, but the local borough presidents’ and City Planning Commission’s 30-day review period will happen at the same time, instead of one after the other. The City Planning Commission will cast the final vote on the project’s future.
New housing stood across from the Coney Island boardwalk, Sept. 29, 2025. Credit: Ben Fractenberg/THE CITY
Both measures would remove the City Council from the process, eliminating its usual power to decide whether these projects proceed.
Housing advocates see the proposals as a critical step forwards.
“We have to address housing affordability,” said Annemarie Gray, executive director of pro-housing group Open New York. “We have to do that in a lot of different ways, but we need every tool in the toolbox and making sure that we’re making it easier to build affordable housing in the places that need it.”
Open New York is one of 40 groups a part of Yes on Affordable Housing, a political action collective pushing voters to approve the housing-related proposals.
But critics worry that developers could exploit the accelerated timeline by submitting applications under the Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) program that include only a small share of affordable units, while the majority remain market-rate.
“The level of affordability that’s required can be as high as two-thirds higher than the median household income in New York City,” said Andrew Berman, executive director of the Greenwich Village Society for Historic Preservation, referring to the income requirements for tenants in subsidized rentals.
“We would argue, simply requiring MIH is not in and of itself a boon to affordability,” Berman said. “And that’s all that’s required to get this expedited process.”
Proposal #3: Simplify Review of Modest Housing and Infrastructure Projects
Language 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
The third proposal would create an expedited ULURP, or ELURP, offering a faster and simpler land-use review timeline. It would apply for proposals for small-scale changes that are often delayed and burdened with the costs of the current seven-month timeline
The faster timeline would apply for modest housing changes, including increases to residential capacity in low-density and high-density districts by 30% or less. These projects would allow for additional housing in single or multi-family homes and apartment buildings.
The ELURP would also speed up projects involving the purchase or sale of city-owned property for affordable housing projects and unusable lots and city map changes for affordable housing and flood resiliency projects.
The timeline would also apply to projects that would help protect flood-prone communities and expand public resources.
For the public review period, the local community board and borough president will have 60 days to issue their recommendations. Then, the City Planning Commission will have 30 days to review the application, hold a public hearing and issue a final decision on the project’s approval. The timeline would conclude in 90 days, a major cut from the usual seven-month schedule.
Proposal #4: Establish an Affordable Housing Appeals Board with Council, Borough and Citywide Representation
Language 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.
The fifth proposal would remove the mayor’s veto power in ULURP (the city’s land use review process), replacing it with an Appeals Board for affordable housing developments.
The board would be composed of the City Council speaker, the local borough president and the mayor. If the Council decides to strike down an application to deliver affordable housing, the project could proceed to the Appeals Board, where the three elected officials would, ideally, “strike a better balance between local, boroughwide, and citywide voices in the land-use process,” according to the Commission’s final report. A two-thirds majority would be enough to override the Council’s vote.
The three-member board is meant to curb the Council’s informal practice of deferring to the local member on applications within their district, which often allows councilmembers to block projects they oppose.
Currently, the mayor serves as the final vote to overturn the Council’s decision, but has rarely used that power in the Adams years. The most recent and unusual instance was the mayoral veto of the City Council’s snub of the Bally’s Corporation’s land-use application for a Bronx casino.
Proposal #5: Create a Digital City Map to Modernize City Operations
Language 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.
The official City Map defines the locations and legal boundaries of streets, parks, public places and other public land. Since the consolidation of the five boroughs in 1898, New York City has never adopted a single, unified City Map. Instead, each borough maintains its own sets, resulting in more than 8,000 maps citywide.
The antiquated map results in delays in the borough presidents’ topographical offices, as City Map changes are subject to the ULURP process. The proposal would require the Department of City Planning to create a unified City Map by 2026, followed by a digital version that could be used to streamline ULURP timelines by 2029.
Proposal #6: Move Local Elections to Presidential Election Years
Language 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.
The only non-housing proposal put forth by the city commission would give the OK to move local elections to even-numbered years, aligning them with federal elections, with the aim of increasing voter turnout. Historically, New York City has had dismal voter turnout. In 2021, just 23% of voters went to the polls to elect a new mayor, according to the Board of Elections.
Plus, the change could save money for the city. The Independent Budget Office estimates the switch could save the city $42 million every year.
But even if voters approve this measure, the change will be far from automatic. State lawmakers must still sign off, and that will take a while.
To take effect, the measure would require a constitutional amendment, which Albany lawmakers would need to pass in two consecutive legislative sessions before it could appear on a statewide ballot for final approval.
Like this:
Loading…
