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
