Proposals on the Ballot in New York City in the 2025 General Election

Proposal #1: Constitutional Amendment to Article 14

Language on the Ballot

What Would This Proposal Do?

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.

 The proposed New York State Constitutional Amendment is in effect a land swap that would authorize NYS to use up to 323 of the 1,039 acres in the Complex currently designated as constitutionally protected Forest Preserve for construction, operation and maintenance of Nordic skiing and biathlon trails and a stadium for training and events and related facilities (excluding hotels, swimming pools and zip lines) in exchange for incorporation into the Forest Preserve by NYS of at least 2,500 acres of forest land in the Adirondack Park. The Sport Complex is state-owned and operated; it is managed by the Olympic Regional Development Authority (ORDA).

PROS

  • Will bring the complex into compliance with the Constitution to resolve past violations 
  • Will provide clarity for permissible future enhancements to the Complex

It will essentially provide the legal basis for work already completed and future necessary improvements to the Complex.  Supporters urging voters to vote in favor of this Constitutional Amendment in November include:  

CONS

Previously, efforts were made to stop the proposed amendment to ensure that facilities at the Complex would not further violate the Forever Wild Clause. 

Currently no groups are on record opposing this proposed Constitutional Amendment.

Why is this measure on the ballot?

The so-called “Forever Wild “ Clause of Article 14, Section 1 of the New York State Constitution reads as follows: “The lands of the state, now owned or hereafter acquired, constituting the forest preserve as now fixed by law, shall be forever kept as wild forest lands. They shall not be leased, sold or exchanged, or be taken by any corporation, public or private, nor shall the timber thereon be sold, removed or destroyed.” The clause was adopted to protect the integrity of New York’s Forest Preserve lands.

Protect the Adirondacks, Inc. (aka PROTECT), a regional organization, had substantial involvement in ensuring the constitutional amendment would redress past violations and limit future use to prevent future violations. Past violations include a state-initiated construction of snowmobile trails at the Complex involving clear cutting thousands of trees. In ensuing litigation, the New York Court of Appeals determined that construction of these trails violated the Forever Wild clause and required a constitutional amendment, not administrative decision making.  

Proposals #2-6: Proposed Changes to the New York City Charter

The League of Women Voters of the City of New York has long supported government policies which assure an adequate supply of decent affordable housing in New York City.   LWVNYC also supports equity, fairness and efficiency in government policies. 

LWVNYC supports a YES vote for Ballot Proposals #2, #3, #5 and #6 and provides pros and cons for ballot question #4 as the League does not have a position addressing this issue.

Please note that the proposed expedited approval process would impact only those projects meeting the criteria outlined in ballot questions #2 and #3 and that the existing Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) process would remain the same for all other development projects.  

Proposal #2

Language on the Ballot

What Would This Proposal Do?

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.

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.

The League supports a YES vote on ballot proposal 2.  The League maintains the position that government policies need to assure an adequate supply of affordable housing, support an expansion of zoning when addressing affordable housing and support increased density provided that developments ensure there is adequate infrastructure.  Providing a fast track for affordable housing will avoid increased costs, excessive and unpredictable project delays, maintain appropriate review by the Community Board, Borough President, public and other government agencies.

The ballot proposal will address two issues of the affordable housing development process:  

1. It will accelerate the time needed to approve publicly financed affordable housing administered by the Board of Standards and Appeals that are seeking zoning waivers.  The change would still maintain Community Board review and public hearings as well as consideration of neighborhood character.  This will allow affordable housing projects to be developed more quickly and at a lower cost.  It would also streamline the process creating equity across builders, especially for family and minority owned businesses.

2. The second aspect of ballot question 2 will address the uneven development of affordable housing throughout the city by providing an accelerated approval process for projects in the 12 community districts that produce the least amount of affordable housing.  This process would make it less costly and less time consuming for these 12 community districts to contribute affordable housing to New Yorkers thus distributing the responsibility across the city.  The process would maintain Community Board and public review as well as analysis of appropriate infrastructure.

Proposal #3

Language on the Ballot

What Would This Proposal Do?

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.

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.

The League supports a YES vote on ballot proposal 3.  Creating an expedited land use review process for modest housing changes would reduce costs, make a simpler and more predictable process which would allow builders to maximize resources.  It would create greater equity empowering smaller builders (family and minority owned) who may not have the capital, time and understanding as wealthy developers to navigate the complex land use review system.  And it would create more affordable housing in lower density neighborhoods that want to make modest housing additions.  The expedited process would still allow for adequate review from the Community Board, Borough President and the public.

Proposal #4

Language on the Ballot

What Would This Proposal Do?

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.

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.

Pros:

  • Allows for better balance of city, borough and local voices when approving affordable housing projects that have been rejected or modified by City Council
  • Would require two out of the three members of the panel, Council Speaker, local Borough President and Mayor, to agree in order to reverse affordable housing development decision thus representing a majority of voices
  • Reduces the influence and power of “member deference”
  • Only applies to affordable housing projects; approval process for all other projects remains the same
  • Encourages builders, especially small and minority owned builders, to complete affordable housing approval process knowing that there may be recourse should their project be rejected or modified

Cons:

  • Local or neighborhood voice is diminished
  • City Council no longer has the final decision

Proposal #5

Language on the Ballot

What Would This Proposal Do?

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.

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.

The League supports a YES vote on ballot proposal 5.  Consolidating borough map offices and digitizing 8,000 paper maps into one digital City Map will centralize administration and provide increased government efficiency.  It will also reduce costs and time, provide greater access and equity to all New Yorkers needing to refer to and use the City Map.  

Proposal #6

Language on the Ballot

What Would This Proposal Do?

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.

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.

The League supports a YES vote on ballot proposal 6.
Aligning municipal elections with even-year federal election cycles will address voter turnout, equity, and cost-effectiveness challenges, ultimately strengthening democratic engagement.

Moving elections to even years is a highly effective way to increase turnout. Cities like Los Angeles, Baltimore, and Phoenix experienced 20-60% increases after shifting their election dates. In fact, more people vote in at the bottom of a national election’s ballot, than vote at the top of a local-only ballot.

It will also promote a more inclusive and representative electorate. Research in California on school board elections found that the share of minority voters, young voters, and renters all increase during even years.

Consolidating elections will ensure compliance with federal laws on ballot access. The Help America Vote Act guarantees protections to voters in federal elections, and moving NYC elections to even-numbered years would ensure HAVA also applies to city elections.

Finally, consolidating elections will save millions of dollars by reducing the need for redundant staffing, polling locations, and materials.