City Council members slam ballot proposals at rally they say wasn’t electioneering

New York City Council members gathered alongside union representatives and advocates in Essex Crossing Park on Tuesday for what they advertised as a “press conference to highlight the misleading language and negative impacts” of three housing-related ballot proposals submitted by Mayor Eric Adams. But the elected officials – including City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, and Council Members Kevin Riley, Lynn Schulman, Gale Brewer, Chris Banks, Crystal Hudson and Julie Won – did more than underscore the language of the proposals. At least one directly called on the public to vote ‘no’ on the measures, a move that has led critics to call for greater attention into if the council members are engaging in electioneering by advocating against a candidate or bill issue through the use of public funds.    

The New York City Council has been vocal about its opposition to three of the proposals intended to spur housing development since they were put forward, even imploring the Board of Elections to keep them off the ballot last month (an effort that ultimately failed). But Tuesday’s rally was the most explicit move members have made in opposition so far. 

When responding to a question about whether the rally was in fact an example of electioneering, Hudson said “we’re not electioneering because we haven’t told people how to vote.” 

However, Schulman said earlier at that rally: “I’m asking people to please vote no on these measures.”

Others were more careful. “We're not saying vote yes or vote no, but we're saying, Here are the ways that you should understand what this means,” Council member Julie Won told City & State after the rally. 

Richard Briffault, former chair of the Conflicts of Interest Board, said that a direct call to action like this should require the elected officials to raise their own campaign funds, rather than making these types of announcements on city time.  

“I think they think they’ve gone up to the line without crossing, but it seems to me it’s a ‘may or may not have crossed it’ and its certainty inconsistent with the spirit of the law,” Briffault said. 

According to Briffault, the city charter prohibits the use of taxpayer money for electioneering messaging that is “designed to urge the public to vote a certain way.” The ambiguous language of “designed to urge” rather than simply “urge” has led to the gray area about whether the City Council members’ stance is electioneering. But Briffault said the law could make this message a misdemeanor, of intentionally using public funds for electioneering, making the district attorney responsible in looking into these allegations. 

At the heart of the dispute are three proposals created by a 13-member Charter Revision Commission which was convened by Mayor Eric Adams last year to make changes to the city’s governing document. While the commission ultimately crafted five proposals, the three that have caused the greatest stir within the City Council are all housing-related – and if approved, could cause members to lose some authority over new housing development projects. 

One would create a three-person appeals board that could overrule a City Council decision to reject or modify an affordable housing development project. Another would create a fast-track for rezonings proposed in council districts that have allowed the least amount of affordable housing to be built and another would speed up the review process for modestly sized projects. 

This isn’t the first time the City Council has fought proposed reforms put forward by a commission – nor is it the first time members have squared off against the mayor. The first Charter Revision Commission convened by Mayor Adams also put forward several ballot proposals in 2024 that became a central battleground in the power struggle between the mayor and the City Council. Despite the opposition campaign mounted by the City Council and allies, voters ultimately approved four of the five proposals. 

Council Member Chris Banks called the proposals an "insult to democracy,” with all elected officials claiming at the rally that the proposals shift power away from the local community and into the hands of the mayor and real estate developers.  

For housing advocate and former Manhattan Community Board 4 Chair Jeffrey LeFrancois, however, the broad City Council opposition to the proposals that seek to address the “single most important” issue facing the city – affordable housing – may be particularly harmful because “all options should be on the table.”

“These changes would require more from neighborhoods who have done less as it relates to developing housing,” LeFrancois said. “And that's not necessarily a bad thing.”  

For her part, Gov. Kathy Hochul endorsed the ballot proposals Tuesday, saying in a press release from the “YES on Affordable Housing” coalition that “the only solution to New York’s housing crisis is to build more.”