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
