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
