Amid ballot proposals fight, City Council spends $2 million on mail

The New York City Council paid $2 million to the United States Postal Service earlier this month – days before New Yorkers across the city began receiving mailers criticizing three housing-related ballot proposals up for consideration on the November ballot. 

The first round of paper mailers, sent in early October, warn readers to not be “misled” by the three questions, which have sparked fierce debate since they were created by a Charter Revision Commission convened by Mayor Eric Adams last year. City Council spokespeople would not say how much money was being spent on the mailers – so it’s unclear how much of the $2 million went toward sending them. Records posted to Checkbook NYC dated Oct. 2 only say the money was for postage and paid to the USPS, not what it was used to send. City & State submitted a public records request for the purpose of the spending Thursday morning at the suggestion of a council spokesperson.

“The Council regularly communicates with New Yorkers through direct mail and other means. It is our responsibility to engage in important public policy debates and ensure voters understand their impacts,” City Council spokesperson Julia Agos said in a statement. “The cited items on Checkbook NYC reflect the Council depositing funds into its U.S. Postal Service account for all postage, including individual council member newsletters. This is something the Council does every year and is not a reflection of any specific mailing or initiative.”

But the $2 million, spread across five transactions, one for each borough – far exceeds other transactions for postage made in a day in recent years. It’s even more than what the City Council spent throughout entire fiscal years, according to Checkbook NYC records. The City Council spent $775,000 on postage in fiscal year 2024, $745,000 in fiscal year 2023, $670,265 in fiscal year 2022, $260,245 in fiscal year 2021 and $702,245 in fiscal year 2020. Spending last fiscal year was higher at $1.6 million – likely at least in part due to the City Council sending mailers criticizing a different set of ballot proposals. That’s still far less than the total $2.9 million spent so far this year.

All this comes after the City Council increased its budget for postage and printing supplies by roughly $2.3 million earlier this year – though this was before the Charter Revision Commission published its preliminary report detailing some of the potential changes it was considering bringing forward as ballot proposals

The three housing-related questions are the heart of an ongoing public education battle being forged in tandem with the mayoral race. It’s been a firestorm – one that’s further widened the divide between the Adams administration and City Council leadership. Both have launched public education campaigns that frame the proposals in wildly different lights. In short, the proposals would change the City Charter to “fast-track” approvals for some affordable housing projects – in part by cutting City Council review out of the approval process – and establishing a three-person appeals board that could reverse members’ decision if the City Council votes to reject a project to create affordable housing.

Digital ads and other materials released by the Charter Revision Commission paint the measures as deeply needed changes to tackle the city’s housing crisis – as do other supporters like Comptroller Brad Lander, borough presidents Mark Levine, Donovan Richards and Antonio Reynoso and pro-housing, YIMBY advocacy groups. The City Council’s campaign meanwhile has featured stark warnings that the proposals would take away communities’ power in favor of developers, ultimately leading to less affordable housing and more gentrification – an effort that’s drawn some allegations that members are engaging in improper electioneering. It also follows the City Council’s unsuccessful effort to convince the Board of Elections to not approve the questions for the general election ballot. Last week, a Manhattan judge threw out a lawsuit filed by Republican Congresswoman Nicole Malliotakis and members of the City Council’s conservative Common Sense Caucus seeking to remove the measures. 

According to a spokesperson for the Charter Revision Commission, the Adams administration plans to spend about $1.6 million on its public education campaign with the majority of it going toward digital ads. A political action committee led by pro-housing organization Open New York and Democratic strategist Amit Singh Bagga has said it would spend $3 million to run ads supporting the proposals. But it’s unclear how much the City Council will spend. Spokespeople have also declined to provide how much will be spent on the campaign, saying the information could only be shared through a public records request.

Electioneering?

Spending on the mailers – be it nearly the full $2 million or less – sheds some insight into the urgency and alarm the measures have stoked within the City Council. At least two different mailers criticizing ballot proposals 2 through 4 have hit New Yorkers’ inboxes over the last few weeks. (The City Council did not respond to questions about how many were sent or how many rounds remain.) The mailers, sent on official City Council letterhead, say things like “giving our power to developers leads to less affordable housing and more gentrification,” “your power could be taken away” and “your neighborhood essentials are at stake this election.” 

Efforts have been widespread. The website the City Council launched about the proposals is more in-depth, but features similar language. Council staffers have delivered other warnings at several recent Community Board meetings, according to Crain’s New York Business. A new digital ad on Facebook includes a black and white picture of a person’s face, a thick strip of duct tape snaked around their mouth featuring the words “ballot proposals 2, 3 and 4.” And some council members, including City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, joined union leaders from 32BJ SEIU and the Hotel and Gaming Trades Council earlier this month to voice opposition to the proposals.

Critics have accused the City Council of fearmongering. Some have raised concerns that the campaign’s methods may violate the city’s laws against electioneering, which bans elected officials and public servants from using government funds or resources for a public communication “designed to urge the public to … support or oppose a particular referendum question.” The Adams administration and Charter Revision Commission are beholden to the same rules.

It’s a complex issue. The mailers, ads and the website don’t explicitly tell New Yorkers how they should vote and the City Council has argued its efforts are simply to educate the public about the proposals and claimed it received guidance from the Conflicts of Interest Board. But the materials do contain negative imagery, critical language and stark warnings about the proposals – clearly designed in a way that would encourage viewers to oppose them. (At least one council member has directly called on the public to vote no on the measures). Materials released through the Charter Revision Commission’s campaign also paint the proposals in a favorable light, but don’t describe their potential impacts in overly grandiose terms. 

“Any reasonable person looking at the City Council mailers would know that they are trying to convince voters to vote down those ballot questions,” said Grace Rauh, executive director of good government group Citizens Union, which supports the measures. “There's no subtlety to it – they clearly have an agenda.” 

This isn’t the first time the City Council has fought proposed reforms put forward by a commission with a public education campaign – nor is it the first time those efforts have drawn accusations of electioneering. The Campaign Finance Board, the Conflicts of Interest Board and the Department of Investigation didn’t take any public action over the campaign the City Council launched last year against another set of ballot proposals. 

In November last year, watchdog groups Citizens Union, Reinvent Albany, and NYPIRG sent a letter to COIB urging the agency to provide the public with clearer guidelines on using city resources in relation to ballot questions.

“There needs to be much brighter lines about what is allowed and what is not allowed,” Rauh said. “Now that we are talking about possibly millions of dollars in public funding being put behind these electioneering efforts, that is a really big problem.”