What’s the deal with the 2025 NYC ballot proposals?

The New York City mayoral election is eating up much of the attention as it gets closer to Election Day, but there’s another important battle playing out in the background: the fate of ballot proposals that could reshape the city’s ability to build housing.

There will be six proposals on the New York City ballot this fall, five of which were crafted by a Charter Revision Commission convened by Mayor Eric Adams. A firestorm has erupted around three of those in particular, furthering the divide between the Adams administration and the City Council, in addition to forging some uncommon alliances. Arguing that the proposals’ language was misleading, the City Council sought to get the Board of Elections to take the measures off the ballot last month, but after that failed, leadership began mounting an opposition campaign aimed at getting New Yorkers to reject them. The proposals have plenty of supporters too – a broad coalition of housing advocates and elected officials like Manhattan Borough President Mark Levine and Comptroller Brad Lander are touting the measures as essential tools to combat the city’s dire housing crisis.

Both sides can acknowledge that these proposals are complex and not easily distilled into a few sentences on the back of a ballot. The language that’ll appear on the ballot can be found on the New York City Board of Elections’ website. Here’s a breakdown of each measure.

Question 1: “Amendment to allow Olympic Sports Complex in Essex County on state forest preserve land”

What’s the deal? Of all the questions that’ll appear on the ballot, the first is probably the least controversial – at least in New York City. It’s the only statewide proposal this year and has to do with the Mount Van Hoevenberg Winter Sports Complex. That’s the facility owned by the state and managed by the Olympic Regional Development Authority, which has hosted a slew of athletic events over the past century. Efforts to expand the facility have been met with legal battle after legal battle because part of the complex is on state Forest Preserve land, meaning it’s constitutionally protected and must be kept wild.

What would the proposal do? The ballot proposal question would allow the state to use more than 300 acres of the land for the complex. And in exchange, the state would buy 2,500 acres of Adirondacks land to add to the Forest Preserve.

How does the City Council feel? They couldn’t care less.

Question 2: “Fast track affordable housing to build more affordable housing across the city”

What’s the deal? It’s not a secret, the process to get affordable housing approved and built is long and arduous. The process for many of these approvals – called the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure or ULURP – can take around seven months as the local community board and borough president give advisory opinions and the project is reviewed and voted on by the City Planning Commission and the City Council. Many have argued that the distribution of affordable housing projects is inequitable too. Over the past 10 years, 12 community districts have added as much affordable housing as the other 47 community districts combined, according to the Charter Revision Commission.

What would the proposal do? It would create two new fast-track review processes for certain publicly financed affordable housing projects – eliminating City Council input. One of them, the Board of Standards and Appeals’ zoning action for publicly financed affordable housing projects, would permit qualifying affordable housing projects to seek approval from the Board of Standards and Appeals, which currently interprets and issues zoning variances and permits to property owners. (The board’s five members are appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the City Council.) Qualifying projects would be sent to the local community board for review followed by a public hearing with the Board of Standards and Appeals, which would then vote on the application.

The other track, dubbed the affordable housing track, would apply to certain affordable housing projects within the 12 community districts that have produced the least affordable housing. (This would be assessed by the city every five years.) To expedite the approval timeline for qualifying projects, the borough president and community board would review the application at the same time – rather than one after the other – over a 60-day period. Then the City Planning Commission would have 30 to 45 days to review it and hold a final vote – effectively removing the City Council from the process.

How does the City Council feel? Pretty pissed. They are arguing that this change – specifically the fact that council members would be removed from the process – would take away the power of communities to ensure that housing is actually affordable and meets residents’ needs. Decision-making would be shifted toward mayoral appointees, which could weaken the community’s influence over the project’s affordability and beyond. They also point to the fact that the City Council is not to blame for why it takes ULURP so long, as members currently have a 50-day window to take up a project.

Question 3: Simplify review of modest housing and infrastructure projects

What’s the deal? Again, ULURP is a long, complex process. All rezoning applications and land use actions are required to go through the seven-month review regardless of their size. That even applies to modest increases in housing capacity as well as simple infrastructure and resiliency projects like raising the grade of a street or adding solar panels to public property.

What would the proposal do? It would create an alternative, faster review process called an Expedited Land Use Review Procedure for smaller projects that meet certain requirements. Some examples include modest zoning change applications for housing (specifically, rezoning districts with a standard height of no more than 45 feet in lower-density areas and housing capacity increases up to 30% in medium- and high-density areas) and acquisitions for voluntary flood buyouts. This alternative process would start with the borough president and community board concurrently conducting their 60-day review followed by the 30-day period the City Planning Commission has to hold a public hearing and issue a final vote to approve or reject the project. (As dictated by state law, the City Council would get final approval for dispositions of city property to Housing Development Fund Companies.) 

How does the City Council feel? Not good! They don’t like that it would take away council members’ power to approve or reject qualifying development projects – again because they see that as taking away the public ability to weigh in. Council members in lower-density districts, largely located in the outer boroughs, are particularly opposed to this one. 

Question 4: Establish an affordable housing appeals board with council, borough and citywide representation

What’s the deal? The City Council currently has a great deal of power to kill or approve land use applications. While the mayor technically has the power to veto these decisions, members can override this with a two-thirds majority vote. Individual council members also often have a lot of sway over how the chamber moves due to an informal process known as member deference. With some exceptions, this means the chamber generally defers to what the local member wants when deciding the fate of an application in their district.

What would the proposal do? It would create an appeals board made up of the mayor, City Council speaker and the relevant borough president with the power to reverse City Council decisions to reject or modify affordable housing projects. This would replace the existing mayoral veto.

How does the City Council feel? Fuming. This proposal would mark the death of member deference – a power the City Council holds dear. Members argue that they best understand their constituents, and are thus the most equipped to know whether a project does or doesn’t align with a district’s needs.

Question 5: Create a digital city map to modernize city operations 

What’s the deal? Let’s put it like this. New York City has a ton of maps – an excessive amount in fact. You can blame it on the fact that the city has never adopted a single, official unified city map defining the legal boundaries of streets, parks and public spaces since the five boroughs were consolidated in 1898. For some reason, each borough has its own individual city map instead, which together add up to a grand total of over 8,000 individual paper maps. This has caused problems in the past as this map plays an important role in the approval of housing and infrastructure projects, causing ULURP delays.

What would the proposal do? It would require the city to consolidate the official city map into a single, unified map by January 2028 and digitize it by January 2029.

How does the City Council feel? Chill. Some members don’t particularly care, though any map-lovers have reason to rejoice.

Question 6: Move local elections to presidential election years to increase voter participation

What’s the deal? This is the only proposal created by the Charter Revision Commission that doesn’t relate to housing, and it had a wide range of supporters. It was crafted with the goal of boosting voter turnout, which has been historically dismal in New York City. On average, a mere 29.5% of voters have turned out for general mayoral elections since 2001. Supporters of this proposal argue that holding municipal elections in presidential election years will alleviate election fatigue and ultimately significantly increase turnout. There’s some precedent – big cities Los Angeles and San Francisco recently made this change and saw turnout increase.

What would the proposal do? It would move city elections like mayoral and City Council races from odd-numbered years to even-numbered years – bringing them in alignment with higher-profile federal elections. There’s one big caveat though: to take effect, the measure would require a constitutional amendment, which would need to be passed by state lawmakers in two consecutive legislative sessions. Then it would head back to voters, this time as a statewide referendum. If all that happens, the next mayor – likely Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani – could end up serving a total of 11 years instead of two four-year terms.

How does the City Council feel? On an individual level, some members might not be crazy about it, but as a collective, the City Council hasn’t taken a position on this one.