There are six proposals on the ballot this year. Ballot proposals are suggested changes to the state and city’s governing documents, the State Constitution and the City Charter. Voters get to decide on the changes they want to see passed.
Why is Ballot Proposal 1 on the ballot?
This proposal would change the New York State Constitution. Changes to the Constitution require statewide approval.
Why are Ballot Proposals 2 through 6 on the ballot?
The 2025 Charter Revision Commission reviewed the New York City Charter, held public hearings, considered public input, and suggested five changes to the Charter.
Statement Summaries
Still confused about the ballot proposals? We’ve got you.
We invited New Yorkers to submit statements on ballot proposals, whether you support or oppose them. We summarized the submissions we received and published those summaries below, so you can see the key arguments for and against each proposal before you make your own decisions.
We kept submissions from everyday people private, but you can see which organizations and elected officials weighed in. In some cases, we included quotations from their statements, too.
The Proposals
What you'll see 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.
What this proposal says
This proposal would allow the expansion of new ski trails in the Olympic Sports Complex in Essex County, New York. The Olympic Sport Complex is in state forest preserve land. This proposal would also require New York State to add 2,500 acres of protected forest land to Adirondack Park.
What this proposal means
Currently, there are strict rules for the kinds of construction that are allowed on state-owned and protected forest land. The Olympic Sports Complex is in the Adirondack forest preserve in Essex County (in upstate New York). This proposal would allow the construction of new ski trails.
This proposal also requires New York State to add an additional 2,500 acres of forest land to the Adirondack forest preserve. This is a statewide ballot proposal because it requires a change to the New York State Constitution.
A “yes” vote changes the New York State Constitution to allow the creation of new trails in the Olympic Sports Complex on forest preserve land in Essex County, New York.
A “no” vote leaves the New York State Constitution unchanged.
Summary of Statements – Vote Yes on Proposal 1
Those who submitted statements in support of Proposal 1 state that by authorizing limited development and requiring the state to compensate the public with 2,500 acres of new protected forest land, the measure adequately protects the nature of the Adirondack Forest. They point out that any changes to state forest preserves require the approval of both voters and the legislature. The Adirondack Council, an organization whose mission is to protect the ecological integrity of Adirondack Park, says, “This amendment would bring into compliance with the NY Constitution several apparent land-use violations by the state’s Olympic Regional Development Authority” by allowing the state to keep already-constructed Olympic facilities, later build new sports facilities, and retain the lands under the sports complex in the Forest Preserve. Additionally, the Adirondack Council writes, “When the training facilities become obsolete, state law would require their removal so the site could revert to wild forest. The amendment also specifically prohibits tourist attractions at Mt. Van Hoevenberg (zip lines, hotels, condominiums, off-road vehicle rentals, etc.) and bans commercial buildings above 2,200 feet (to protect sensitive sub-alpine forest).”
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Center for the Independence of the Disabled, New York (CIDNY)
- Climate Changemakers
- The Adirondack Council
Number of statements: 5
Summary of Statements – Vote No on Proposal 1
Respondents expressed concern about weakening or carving out constitutional protections for New York’s “forever wild” forest preserves, either because doing so could create a precedent for future encroachments on protected land, or because they feel state forests should remain free of ski trails. One respondent shared they plan to not vote on this proposal due to their lack of information about the origin of and support for it. Council Member Robert Holden writes, “New York’s ‘forever wild’ protections are not a suggestion. I oppose carving exceptions into the Constitution for new construction on protected lands. Once we weaken these safeguards, it becomes easier to do it again.”
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Council Member Robert Holden
Number of statements: 3
What you'll see 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.
What this proposal says
This proposal would make two new processes to fast-track certain affordable housing projects. The first process is for publicly financed affordable housing projects. The second process is for affordable housing projects in the 12 community districts with the lowest rates of affordable housing development.
What this proposal means
Most housing projects must go through the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP), a seven-month review process. This proposal would make two new processes for certain affordable housing projects.
The first process would allow the Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) to approve publicly financed affordable housing projects, after a 60-day review by the local Community Board and a 30-day review by the BSA.
The second process would create a faster review for projects in the 12 community districts with the lowest rates of affordable housing. This process would allow the Community Board and local Borough President to review at the same time, followed by a 30- to 45-day review by the City Planning Commission (CPC). The CPC would have final approval instead of the City Council.
A “yes” vote makes two processes to fast-track affordable housing projects.
A “no” vote keeps the seven-month review process with input from the local Community Board, local Borough President, CPC, City Council, and Mayor.
Summary of Statements – Vote Yes on Proposal 2
Those who support Proposal 2 see it as a solution to New York City’s housing shortage and affordability crisis. Multiple respondents referred to the proposal as a set of “common-sense reforms” and argued there should be a distinct process to approve and build modest housing developments as opposed to skyscrapers and large developments. Supporters believe the measure would help accelerate the construction of affordable housing, reduce bureaucratic or “politicized” barriers, and expand access to homes for low- and moderate-income residents. Many discuss rising rents and the limited supply of affordable units, emphasizing that without reforms, working and middle-class New Yorkers will continue to struggle to remain in their communities. Several argue the proposal would compel all neighborhoods to build their fair share of affordable housing. New York Housing Conference points out that according to their research, “Over the past decade, the top 10 producing City Council districts added nearly 540 affordable apartments per year on average, while the bottom 10 districts added just 11.” Regarding concerns that the City Council would not be included in the new approval processes, Citizens Budget Commission writes, “With its members appointed by the Mayor, Borough Presidents, and Public Advocate, the City Planning Commission can readily balance the whole city’s housing needs with various neighborhoods’ concerns. Importantly, Community Board and Borough President reviews continue to provide neighborhoods with a critical voice.”
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Habitat for Humanity New York City and Westchester County
- Association for Neighborhood & Housing Development (ANHD)
- Regional Plan Association
- Abundance New York
- New York Housing Conference
- Citizens Budget Commission
Number of statements: 8
Summary of Statements – Vote No on Proposal 2
Those who submitted statements in opposition to Proposal 2 believe it would weaken public oversight in housing decisions by taking the City Council out of the process and reducing opportunities for community input by making the Borough President and Community Board review proposals happen at the same time. Manhattan Community Board 3 writes, “The role of the community board is to provide a place for the community to have a voice in planning. The Borough President should be hearing input from the community through the community board before taking action.” Respondents also argue the proposed method to fast-track development would risk prioritizing real estate profit over genuine affordability, with several pointing out the proposal is favorable to developers. They call for clearer policies to ensure truly affordable housing and solutions that center the needs of people who require affordable housing over those of the real estate industry, such as by minimizing market-rate or luxury housing and promoting holistic community investment.
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Council Member Robert Holden
- Manhattan Community Board 3
Number of statements: 9
What you'll see 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.
What this proposal says
This proposal would create a faster review process for certain land use projects, such as smaller projects to change how land is used and to prepare the city for extreme weather or other future challenges. For most of these projects, the proposed process would remove final review by the City Council.
What this proposal means
Currently, most land use projects must go through the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP), a seven-month public review process. This proposal would create an Expedited Land Use Review Procedure (ELURP) for smaller projects to change how land is used and to prepare the city for extreme weather or other future challenges. This process would include a 60-day review period for the local Community Board and local Borough President, followed by a 30-day review and final decision by the City Planning Commission (CPC).
A “yes” vote creates a faster process for smaller zoning changes and other land use actions. It also removes the City Council’s review for most projects.
A “no” vote keeps the seven-month public review process with input from the local Community Board, local Borough President, CPC, City Council, and Mayor.
Summary of Statements – Vote Yes on Proposal 3
Supporters of Proposal 3 discuss two key reasons to create a new process to review modest land use changes: building more housing and preparing the city for extreme weather and climate impacts. Respondents focused on housing reference “red tape” and believe the new process would increase housing production significantly by differentiating the process to approve “modestly-sized” housing development from “large, complex, and sometimes controversial proposals” (Citizens Housing and Planning Council) to incentivize more housing development at different scales. They argue that under the current system, “only large-scale projects, which can generate more profit, are proposed” (Abundance New York), and subjecting smaller proposals to the same process “slows them, makes them more costly, and very often prevents them from happening at all” (Citizens Housing and Planning Council). Respondents focused on climate resilience cite increased flooding, heat waves, electrical grid brownouts, and the need for renewable energy projects like solar panels. Several mention the importance of not letting bureaucratic process slow down measures to prepare the city and its residents for the impacts of extreme weather and climate change. Nearly all respondents in support of the proposal feel positive developments have been stymied under ULURP (the current process), and that the city should be able to respond more quickly and nimbly to emerging needs.
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Regional Plan Association
- Abundance New York
- Citizens Budget Commission
- The Health & Housing Consortium
- Citizens Housing and Planning Council
- Dattner Architects
- Climate Changemakers Brooklyn
- Climate Changemakers
- Open New York
Number of statements: 25
Summary of Statements – Vote No on Proposal 3
Respondents who oppose Proposal 3 think it removes power from the City Council and reduces community input while using misleading and overly broad language (such as “modest”), which developers could take advantage of. Council Member Robert Holden writes, “ Modest can become a loophole.” Respondents express concern that the proposal would shift decision-making power away from everyday New Yorkers, undermining communities' say in what gets built in their neighborhoods. Manhattan Community Board 3 “is adamant about preserving the already limited ability of the community boards to provide input.” Critics warn of negative impacts like displacement, continued affordability issues, disinvestment in neighborhoods, and pushed-through zoning changes that primarily benefit developers.
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Council Member Robert Holden
- Manhattan Community Board 3
Number of statements: 5
What you'll see 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.
What this proposal says
This proposal would change the current land use review process when the City Council rejects or changes an affordable housing project. The proposal would create an Affordable Housing Appeals Board, made up of the local Borough President, Speaker of the City Council, and Mayor. The proposal would allow the Appeals Board to reverse the City Council’s decision with a two-to-one vote.
What this proposal means
Currently, most affordable housing projects must go through the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP), a seven-month review process that ends in a final City Council vote. The mayor has the power to veto this decision, and the City Council can overturn the veto.
This proposal would apply to affordable housing projects the City Council rejects or changes. This proposal would create an Affordable Housing Appeals Board that would have the power to reverse the City Council’s decision. The Appeals Board would include the local Borough President, Speaker of the City Council, and Mayor. Projects would pass if two of the three members agree.
A “yes” vote creates the Affordable Housing Appeals Board, which would be able to reverse City Council decisions on affordable housing projects with a two-to-one vote. The Appeals Board would consist of the local Borough President, Speaker of the City Council, and Mayor.
A “no” vote keeps the current review process for affordable housing projects, which includes a final decision by the City Council.
Summary of Statements – Vote Yes on Proposal 4
Supporters argue Proposal 4 represents a step to build more affordable housing across the city. They criticize the current City Council practice of “member deference,” in which the Council member who represents the district in which a given housing development is being proposed can effectively veto it. They argue that member deference prevents affordable housing from being built and contributes to inequity. The Anti-Discrimination Center writes that member deference is “is a process without accountability, one shared by some of the most segregated major cities in the U.S., and one which helps explain why we produce so much less housing per 1,000 residents than some other parts of the metro area.” Abundance New York says with a vacancy rate for apartments at 1.4%, landlords have outsized power to jack up rents, and this is because “it is far easier for the city to say ‘no’ to new affordable housing than to say 'yes.’” Altogether, respondents reject the current system in which council members can block housing projects even in the face of widespread support and clear benefits to the city, and they embrace the proposal to balance neighborhood and citywide priorities by shifting decision-making to the Council Speaker, Mayor, and local Borough President.
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Regional Plan Association
- Abundance New York
- Citizens Budget Commission
- Anti-Discrimination Center
- Citizens Housing and Planning Council
- Dattner Architects
- Climate Changemakers
- Open New York
Number of statements: 14
Summary of Statements – Vote No on Proposal 4
Those who submitted statements in opposition to Proposal 4 warn it would strip community members of their power to influence development decisions in their neighborhoods by shifting toward centralized power held by a few city leaders. They warn the proposal will not actually lead to housing that addresses residents’ needs, with concerns about catering to developers’ interests, government corruption, gentrification and displacement. Respondents believe council members (and community boards) should be able to represent the interests of the neighborhoods they represent, and that the people deserve a seat at the table for decision-making to ensure transparency, trust, and accountability. Council Member Robert Holden says, “New York needs housing built with trust, transparency, and strong conflict of interest rules, not another venue to rubber stamp bad projects.”
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Council Member Robert Holden
- Manhattan Community Board 3
Number of statements: 8
What you'll see 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.
What this proposal says
This proposal would make the Department of City Planning (DCP) responsible for creating, maintaining, and digitizing a single City Map.
What this proposal means
The City Map legally defines street names, widths, and lines. Currently, the City Map is managed by five Topographical Bureaus in each Borough President’s office. The City Map consists of 8,000 paper maps. This proposal would require the Department of City Planning (DCP) to consolidate these separately maintained paper maps into one centralized and digitized City Map.
A “yes” vote creates a centralized digital City Map maintained by the Department of City Planning.
A “no” vote keeps each borough’s paper maps separate and administered by each Borough President’s office.
Summary of Statements – Vote Yes on Proposal 5
Supporters of Proposal 5 see the creation of a unified digital City Map as an important step toward speeding up months- or years-long processes that depend on city maps, such as infrastructure and housing projects. Supporters think this proposal would make public information more readily available, especially to New Yorkers with disabilities. “Modernizing administration of the City Map would increase the efficiency and effectiveness of government operations and speed up the time needed to advance public and private projects that involve changes to the public realm” (Citizens Budget Commission). The Center for Independence of the Disabled, New York (CIDNY) writes that the current system of 8,000 paper maps in five different borough offices present challenges for people with mobility or vision disabilities, and “a digitized map will provide clearer, more consistent information on street names and layouts, while allowing residents to access this information from home.”
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Citizens Budget Commission
- Center for Independence of the Disabled, New York (CIDNY)
- Climate Changemakers
- Open New York
Number of statements: 6
Summary of Statements – Vote No on Proposal 5
Those who oppose Proposal 5 range in their reasoning, from concerns about the vagueness of the proposal and doubts about its value, to belief in the value of paper maps, to warnings that the Department of City Planning is ill-equipped to take on the work of each borough’s Topographical Bureau. Staten Island Borough President Vito J. Fossella writes, “By design, the Topographical Bureaus are kept local and close to the expertise of both their workers, who maintain highly technical maps, and to the professionals and Borough residents who often need and use these maps,” and when Staten Islanders need help resolving a land use or property issue, “because the Topographical Bureau is managed by staff who understand their community, they deliver fast, direct service to residents.” Fossella continues, “this move would put these functions in an agency that lacks the genuine human interaction that is needed for results. DCP is also notorious for being overburdened, with long backlogs and inaccuracies. This move has the potential to slow processes, create further service backlogs, weaken accountability and make it harder for everyday New Yorkers to get help.” Council Member Robert Holden adds, “A single digital map sounds helpful, but this measure is vague on cost, privacy, and who gets to change it.”
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Staten Island Borough President Vito J. Fossella
- Council Member Robert Holden
Number of statements: 5
What you'll see 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.
What this proposal says
This proposal would move election dates for city offices to the same year as federal presidential elections.
What this proposal means
Currently, city elections are held on odd-numbered years and federal presidential elections are held on even-numbered years, every four years. This proposal would make city and federal presidential elections occur on the same years. This means elections for city offices (for Mayor, Public Advocate, Comptroller, Borough President, and City Council) would occur in the same year as federal presidential elections. This proposal would also require a change to New York State law before it takes effect.
A “yes” vote moves city elections to the same year as federal elections, dependent on a change to state law.
A “no” vote keeps city elections held in odd-numbered years, on a different election cycle from federal presidential elections.
Summary of Statements – Vote Yes on Proposal 6
Supporters of Proposal 6 say shifting the local election calendar to align with presidential election years would significantly increase voter turnout and increase representation among those who vote, so voters are more reflective of the city. They point to other U.S. cities that have enacted this change – Los Angeles, Baltimore, Phoenix, El Paso, Austin – which have seen the “benefits of a more inclusive, representative democracy” (Brennan Center for Justice). The Center for Independence of the Disabled, New York (CIDNY) also lifts up that “higher-turnout elections typically come with more investment in accessible poll sites, better training for poll workers, and greater outreach to voters.” Respondents agree moving local elections to even years would allow more New Yorkers to have a say in the city’s leadership. Multiple submissions note the discrepancy between presidential election turnout (60% in 2020) versus local election turnout (23% in 2021). Abundance New York notes, “The leaders who run our city day-to-day have a major impact on the city’s cost of living, quality of life, and safety; off-year elections mean that very few New York voters are actually choosing who those leaders are. ... Higher turnout means more New Yorkers having a voice in our politics, more representativeness and responsiveness from our elected leaders, and better outcomes for all.” Several submissions add that this change would save millions of dollars by reducing the number of elections overall.
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Citizens Union
- Abundance New York
- Brennan Center for Justice
- Center for Independence of the Disabled, New York (CIDNY)
- Climate Changemakers
- Reinvent Albany
- League of Women Voters of the City of New York
Number of statements: 14
Summary of Statements – Vote No on Proposal 6
Those who oppose Proposal 6 believe local issues deserve the focused attention of an election year distinct from presidential elections. Some express a lack of trust in changing the status quo and believe the current calendar grants needed focus on local issues. The statements reflect skepticism that the calendar is the cause of low voter turnout, and posit that rebuilding trust and strengthening civic engagement would better address the issue of low voter participation. Council Member Robert Holden says, “In the 1960s and 1970s New York often saw turnout above 70 percent with one day to vote. The issue is not the calendar, it is engagement and confidence in local government.”
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Council Member Robert Holden
Number of statements: 5
Publication of statements in the Voter Guide is not guaranteed. The Campaign Finance Board/NYC Votes maintains editorial control over the Voter Guide and may edit, summarize, or decline to publish any public statement.
