2025 General Election
Don't Skip These 6 'Hidden' Ballot Questions That Will Shape NYC’s Future
Voting on ballot proposals is an important way for New Yorkers to shape how our city and state are run, and this November, six proposals give us the chance to directly influence policies that affect housing, community resources, local government, and State land use. It's easy to skip these, but they may impact our city's future more than the candidates.
For many Asian American voters—especially those new to the voting process—these questions may seem complicated or unfamiliar, but learning about them helps ensure our voices are fully represented in decisions that impact our neighborhoods, families, and future generations. Taking a few minutes to understand each proposal before voting can make a real difference in how fairly and effectively our city serves all communities, including ours. Don't leave them blank. Think critically. Make your vote count.
Proposal 1: Allow Olympic Sports Complex In Essex County on State Forest Preserve Land?
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.
I’m voting yes:
Net Win for Conservation: This will secure 2,500 new acres of protected forest in exchange for development.
An Overdue Solution: This will fix a long-standing legal problem and allow necessary upgrades to the Olympic Sports Complex.
I’m voting no:
"Forever Wild" Means Forever Wild: I'm voting “NO” on principle. The constitution says forest land must be kept wild. No exceptions.
Set A Dangerous Precedent: A "YES" vote will make it easier for future proposals to chip away at our state's core environmental protections.
Proposal 2: Fast Track Affordable Housing to Build More Affordable Housing Across the City
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.
I’m voting yes:
Faster Action on the Housing Crisis: This cuts red tape to get affordable housing built more quickly.
More Efficient: This supports a streamlined process to reduce costly delays for needed housing.
I’m voting no:
"Affordable" Not Being Truly Affordable: This might result in projects that aren't truly affordable for my community, worsening gentrification.
Rush Community Input: Making the Borough President and Community Board review projects at the same time cuts short the community's ability to give thoughtful feedback.
Proposal 3: Simplify Review of Modest Housing and Infrastructure Projects?
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.
I’m voting yes:
An Appropriate Review Process: It's wasteful to use the same 7-month review for a 50-story tower and a small project. This creates a simpler path for simpler projects.
Support Smaller Developers: The current long, costly system favors large developers. This will help smaller, local builders add modest housing.
I’m voting no:
Bypassing My Elected Representative: This takes power from my City Council member—the person I elect—and gives final approval to unelected mayoral appointees.
A Risk of More Displacement: Even 'modest' changes have big impacts. Rushing
projects without a Council review could lead to more gentrification.
Proposal 4: Establish an Affordable Housing Appeals Board with Council, Borough, and Citywide Representation?
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 Board to reflect Council, borough, and citywide perspectives. “No” leaves affordable housing subject to the Mayor’s veto and final decision by City Council.
I’m voting yes:
End "Member Deference": This stops a single Council member from being able to veto a housing project the rest of the city needs.
Balance of City & Borough Voices: This ensures a centralized board formed by the core of city leadership makes final decisions.
I’m voting no:
An End to Negotiating for More Affordability: This takes away my Council Member's power to vote 'NO' on a bad plan to force developers to come back with more affordable units and benefits, thereby reducing our community’s collective power in the negotiation process.
Centralization of Power: This shifts power from the 51-member Council, which represents every neighborhood, and gives it to just three people.
Proposal 5: Create a Digital City Map to Modernize City Operations?
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.
I’m voting yes:
Government Efficiency: A single digital map will speed up city operations, making it faster to plan and approve housing and infrastructure projects.
Proposal 6: Move Local Elections to Presidential Election Years to Increase Voter Participation?
Move the City’s primary & 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.
I’m voting yes:
Increase Voter Turnout: This moves city elections to a year when turnout is much higher (e.g., 60% vs 23%). A government elected by more people is more representative.
More Representative Electorate: Higher-turnout elections bring in more young, diverse, and renter voters, ensuring our leaders are chosen by a group that truly reflects our city.
I’m voting no:
Local Issues Will Be Drowned Out: Presidential elections get all the media attention. Critical issues facing schools, rent, and the subway will be ignored. It will be harder for local candidates to get their message heard.
Weaken 'People-Powered' Campaigns: Our public matching funds program empowers regular New Yorkers. In a presidential year, all the local energy and money will be drawn to national races.
Want to learn more or share this information? Print the leaflet below or pass it along to your family and friends—and check the Google Drive link to access translations in other languages: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Xqy4GQNvvd-YVtmg_wZFz21Z03EYR16C?usp=sharing