(For info on SoHo/NoHo rezoning, click here.)

Explanation of ballot questions 2-4 is available here, and language of the questions as they will appear on your ballot can be found here. Info + registration for October 15 webinar Town Hall is here.

Q: Is the primary impact of ballot questions 2–4 making the approval process faster for certain projects?
A: Not really. It would reduce the approval process by just a few weeks for projects that typically take years to realize and for rezonings that enable development that takes place over the course of several decades — so the time saved is negligible. The primary impact of the changes is they would concentrate all decision-making authority with the Mayor for a broad range of land use actions that previously were subject to legislative review as well.

Q: Wouldn’t these changes just apply to specific affordable housing projects?
A: No. Only one small part of one question would apply solely to fully affordable housing developments. Everything else would apply to residential construction that’s unaffordable as well as “affordable” (most, however, would be unaffordable), and in many cases to zoning actions that include nonresidential developments such as corporate office buildings, hotels, shopping centers, etc.

Q: Wouldn’t these changes apply only to housing of some sort?
A: No. Each of the changes would apply to rezonings that can include nonhousing projects and uses.

Q: Don’t these proposed changes only apply to relatively small or discrete projects?
A. No. Questions 2 and 4 both apply to rezonings which can be neighborhood-wide and often include dozens of blocks allowing scores of new developments with millions of square feet of new construction. Question 3 applies to increasing the size of allowable developments by up to 30%. So if a developer wants to expand his planned 50-story building to a 65-story building, or add an extra 150 luxury condos to a planned 500-unit luxury condo, this process would apply.

Q: Whatever else they do, wouldn’t these changes result in more affordable housing being built?
A: Not necessarily; in fact, arguably they would frequently result in less affordable housing being built. The primary change these questions would result in is removing the City Council from the approval process for rezonings and various projects. The City Council often requires more affordable housing and/or more deeply affordable housing, as well as other measures to help improve the development or rezoning and its impact on the neighborhood, such as more infrastructure to handle additional people, support for anti-eviction or tenant services to ensure displacement doesn’t occur, etc.

Q: But this doesn’t really give sole discretion to the Mayor, since these projects would still have to be approved by other bodies like the City Planning Commission or the Board of Standards and Appeals, right?
A: Wrong. The Board of Standards and Appeals consists entirely of appointees of the Mayor. The majority of the City Planning Commissioners are appointed by the Mayor, and approval by a majority of commissioners is all that would be required under this process. Both bodies are widely understood to carry out the policies and wishes of the Mayor.

Q: Isn’t one of the questions just about allowing a quicker and simpler process for approving publicly financed affordable housing projects?
A: No. Question 2 does have one provision that would speed and simplify approval for publicly financed affordable housing projects. But the Mayor cynically attached to that same question another much broader provision that would entirely eliminate City Council oversight for approval of a whole range of land use actions, including large-scale neighborhood rezonings, which can include luxury housing, corporate offices, shopping centers, and other expensive upscale uses.

Q: Don’t the proposed changes always apply to approvals that must include at least some affordable housing?
A: No. Question 3 doesn’t have an affordable housing requirement attached to it — it just allows developers an easier path to approval for increases of up to 30% in the size of their projects.

Q: But Questions 2 and 4 do apply to actions with some affordable housing component, right?
A: It depends on what you consider affordable. Many would argue that what qualifies as “affordable” under these provisions isn’t truly affordable. Both questions apply to neighborhood-wide rezonings that can include a considerable amount of nonresidential uses (corporate office, hotel, shopping, etc.). The residential component will include a very large increase in the allowable size and amount of market rate housing (i.e. not affordable), which is many neighborhoods means super-luxury. No more than 20–30% of the housing has to be what the Mayor calls “affordable” — which only requires that on average the “affordable” housing serve households with incomes that are about 25% higher than the median for NYC, allowing some units for households with more than double the median household income for NYC. In many NYC neighborhoods, the “affordable” units under this program actually charge higher rents than the market-rate, non-“affordable” ones.

Q: Wouldn’t these questions put in place provisions that help ensure that neighborhoods that have been blocking affordable housing have to provide it?
A: Not really — though the Mayor wants you to think so. One provision would give the Mayor sole discretion to approve new rezonings for five years in the 12 (out of 59 total) community boards that have built the least new “affordable”housing over the last five years. This would not take into account how much affordable housing had already been built or exists in the community board, nor would it count rent-regulated housing as affordable. And the reason some of those community boards haven’t produced more affordable housing isn’t because of resistance; it’s actually often because of the Mayor, to whom this change would grant more power. For example: Community Board 2 Manhattan has a very pro-affordable housing Community Board and City Councilmembers. It’s had three rezonings covering dozens of blocks that were proposed or advanced by the Mayor. Each rezoning was supposed to deliver many more units of affordable housing promised by the Mayor than it actually has — including the SoHo/NoHo rezoning that, four years after it was passed, hasn’t produced a single unit of affordable housing (the other two rezonings produced much more corporate office development than predicted, resulting is less housing and affordable housing than promised). The local community called for reduced allowances for office development in each of these rezonings, but was ignored by the Mayor. If the ballot question passes, it would give the Mayor more unilateral power to authorize similar rezonings in these neighborhoods, with no requirements that they actually produce the promised affordable housing.

Q: Aren’t these proposed changes necessary to address a system where any member of the City Council can veto affordable housing in their district due to “member deference”?
A: It’s inaccurate to say that any Councilmember can block any affordable housing development and the rest of the Council will just defer to them. In fact, the Council just went against the wishes of local Republican Councilmember Kristy Marmorato to approve a supportive affordable housing project for former Rikers detainees with serious health issues — an affordable housing project that the Mayor is now trying to kill. In fact, much more often than not, Councilmembers use the approval process to fight for more services and assistance for their communities, including more housing, more and deeper affordability, more tenant protections, more educational, health, and recreational services to support new residents, and necessary environmental infrastructure.

Q: If I believe our next Mayor will be good on affordable housing and other issues I care about, shouldn’t I support these proposed changes?
A: These changes will permanently alter the NYC Charter or constitution, and apply to every Mayor moving forward — not just the next one. So no matter who you think the next Mayor will be or what you think of them, these questions should be considered in terms of what makes the most sense for a permanent system for decision-making about important issues in our city. No one knows who future Mayors will be and what they will do. We do know who our most recent Mayors were and what they did — Eric Adams, Bill de Blasio, Michael Bloomberg, and Rudy Giuliani. And we can see in Washington, D.C. what happens when a chief executive has unchecked power, and checks and balances are removed from the decision-making process. A system that allows both the legislative and the executive branch to have a say in big decisions is how our system of government was intended to function, and arguably leads to the best (if imperfect) outcomes.