2025 ELECTION: Advocates welcome approval of housing reform ballot proposals on election day

New Yorkers voted Tuesday to approve three divisive ballot proposals that aim to fast-track certain housing developments and stimulate housing production in districts that lag far behind the citywide median.

Questions 2-4 on the ballot, proposed by a Charter Review Commission (CRC) convened by outgoing Mayor Eric Adams, will alter how the city approves housing developments and had ignited a fierce battle between the City Council and City Hall.

The proposals will shift review powers from the City Council to independent panels largely appointed by the mayor for certain housing developments. They will also drastically reduce the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) time from about seven months to a maximum of three months for certain developments.

All three proposals passed with a minimum of 56% of the vote on Tuesday, according to unofficial results from the Board of Elections.

Big wins for ‘yes’ on housing proposals

The proposals were approved at a time when the city boasts a historically low vacancy of around 1.4% – according to 2023 figures – and a citywide median rent of $3,676 per month, based on data from December 2024. Over 50% of New Yorkers currently spend more than 30% of their salary on rent – the typical definition of affordable housing – according to a report by the Yes on Affordable Housing Coalition.

Housing advocates touted the three ballot proposals as a partial solution to the housing crisis by encouraging more development, especially in districts that have not kept pace with the citywide median.

However, they had ignited fierce debate in the lead-up to the election.

Question 2, which passed with 58.32% of the vote, aims to “fast-track affordable housing to build more affordable housing across the city.” The proposal will introduce two new fast-tracked procedures for developing affordable housing and will significantly alter the approval process for publicly financed affordable housing developments, which will no longer be required to undergo the full seven-month ULURP process.

Instead, such developments could seek approval directly from a reformed Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA), which has oversight of the entire development process. It would have 30 days to deliberate on a project after relevant community boards reviewed the development for 60 days previously.

But all five BSA members would be appointed by the mayor — shifting power from the City Council, and potentially reshaping housing development for generations.

The new process will also target districts with the lowest rates of affordable housing by allowing community board and borough president reviews to take place simultaneously before the development proceeds directly to a final vote from the City Planning Commission.

Question 3, meanwhile, which passed with 56.75% of the vote, aims to simplify the review of modest housing and infrastructure projects by replacing ULURP with a new Expedited Land Use Review Procedure (ELURP). This represents a significant change from ULURP by reducing the process from seven months to approximately three months.

The new simplified review would only apply to developments that increase residential capacity by up to 30% in medium- and high-density districts, or to developments up to 45 feet in height in low-density districts.

Question 4 passed with 58.3% and will establish an Affordable Housing Appeals Board comprising the mayor, the council speaker, and the relevant borough president. Advocates say the measure help cut through local politics and prevent council members from effectively vetoing affordable housing developments in their districts.

The new appeals board will have the power to override the Council when it rejects a housing development in addition to the power to override the Council when it approves a development with modifications. The board will be able to revert Council modifications back to what had originally been approved by the City Planning Commission.

Other proposals

Another proposal – to create a digitized city map – passed with over 73% of the vote, reflecting the lack of similar controversy attached to the proposal.

But another divisive proposal, which aimed to shift municipal elections to presidential election years in a bid to increase voter turnout, failed on Tuesday after winning just 46.9% of the vote. Opponents had argued that running local elections alongside national elections would result in city elections and local talking points being overshadowed.

Mamdani indicated Tuesday that he had voted against the proposal.

Another proposal, which aims to retroactively approve state land for an Olympic Games facility upstate, was also defeated on Tuesday after receiving 45% of the vote. The proposal did not impact New York City, but voters were asked to weigh in because it would amend the State Constitution.

Housing advocates yes votes

Housing advocates and CRC officials welcomed the approval of proposals 2-4, stating that the measures would help accelerate the delivery of affordable housing and ensure that every neighborhood contributes to the city’s housing crisis resolution.

CRC Chair Richard Buery said voters “sent a message” by voting in favor of the three proposals, stating that the measures will hand the city the tools to deliver more housing.

“These proposals will make it faster and more efficient to build affordable housing in every neighborhood,” Buery said in a statement. “I look forward to working with the Mayor-elect (Zohran Mamdani) to ensure these tools are put to good work to deliver the affordable housing that New Yorkers so desperately need.”

Alec Schierenbeck, the CRC’s Executive Director, said New Yorkers “took power into their own hands” by demanding action to address the housing crisis.

“Thanks to them, our city will have a faster, simpler, and less political process to deliver housing, and with it, a more affordable New York,” Shierenbeck said in a statement.

Rachel Fee, Executive Director of the New York Housing Conference, a non-profit advocating for affordable housing policy, lauded the passage of the three measures, stating that voters had rejected the status quo in the city.

“Renters made their voices heard — marking a turning point in our city’s efforts to tackle the housing crisis,” Fee said.

Mamdani announced on Election Day that he voted in favor of the three proposals after declining to take a position in the lead-up to the election.

The mayor-elect said he took so long to take a stance because he wanted to deliberate with stakeholders and policy experts on the issue. He added that he understands the concerns of the Council, adding that he hopes to work closely with the next Council from City Hall.

Narrow vote reflects proposals’ divisiveness: Council

The City Council, however, which had long opposed the measures by arguing that they would remove the community’s voice from the approval process, issued a statement Tuesday night contending that the three proposals would “weaken democracy” by placing too much power in the mayor’s hands.

The Council further argued that the proposals were misleading, stating that the proposals’ pledge to “fast-track” housing development was not accurate because the Council’s 65-day review period represents only a tiny fraction of the overall process for most developments, which typically takes around 700 days before even entering ULURP due to long and arduous agency reviews, such as environmental reviews.

“These misleading ballot proposals permanently change the City’s constitution to weaken democracy, lasting beyond the next mayor when we inevitably have a mayor who is bad on housing, equity, and justice for communities,” Council spokesperson Benjamin Feng-Estrada said in a statement. “This will leave our city without the checks and balances of democracy to protect New Yorkers and ensure outcomes that prioritize them, not simply profits.”

Feng-Estrada accused the Adams Administration of intentionally deceiving voters about the impact the proposals would have.

“Tonight’s results are not surprising given the misleading language placed on the ballot to describe these proposals that intentionally sought to deceive voters by hiding what they do.”