今年的选票上共有六项提案。选票提案旨在修改州及市级治理文件——《州宪法》与《城市宪章》。选民可以决定他们希望通过的变革。
为什么选票提案 1 被列入选票？
本提案将改变《纽约州宪法》。《宪法》的修改需要全州批准。
为什么选票提案 2 至 6 被列入选票？
2025 年宪章修改委员会审核了《纽约城市宪章》后，经公开听证会及公众意见征询，提出以下五项宪章修订建议。
Statement Summaries
Still confused about the ballot proposals? We’ve got you.
We invited New Yorkers to submit statements on ballot proposals, whether you support or oppose them. We summarized the submissions we received and published those summaries below, so you can see the key arguments for and against each proposal before you make your own decisions.
We kept submissions from everyday people private, but you can see which organizations and elected officials weighed in. In some cases, we included quotations from their statements, too.
提案
选票上会出现什么
允许在州立森林保护区内建设滑雪及相关步道设施。该场地面积为 1,039 英亩。要求州政府在 Adirondack Park 新增 2,500 英亩森林用地。
赞成票将授权在 Adirondack 森林保护区新建滑雪道及配套设施。
反对票则不予授权。
本提案内容如下
本提案将允许纽约州 Essex 县奥林匹克体育中心扩建新滑雪道。奥林匹克体育中心位于州立森林保护区内。本提案同时要求纽约州政府在 Adirondack Park 新增 2,500 英亩受保护林地。
本提案的含义
目前，州属及受保护林地建设项目受严格法规约束。奥林匹克体育中心位于 Essex 县（纽约州北部）Adirondack 森林保护区内。本提案将允许新建滑雪道。
本提案同时要求纽约州向 Adirondack 森林保护区新增 2,500 英亩林地。此为全州公投选票提案，因其涉及修改《纽约州宪法》。
投“赞成票”将修改《纽约州宪法》，允许在纽约州 Essex 县森林保护区内的奥林匹克体育中心开辟新滑雪道。
投“反对票”将维持《纽约州宪法》不变。
Summary of Statements – Vote Yes on Proposal 1
Those who submitted statements in support of Proposal 1 state that by authorizing limited development and requiring the state to compensate the public with 2,500 acres of new protected forest land, the measure adequately protects the nature of the Adirondack Forest. They point out that any changes to state forest preserves require the approval of both voters and the legislature. The Adirondack Council, an organization whose mission is to protect the ecological integrity of Adirondack Park, says, “This amendment would bring into compliance with the NY Constitution several apparent land-use violations by the state’s Olympic Regional Development Authority” by allowing the state to keep already-constructed Olympic facilities, later build new sports facilities, and retain the lands under the sports complex in the Forest Preserve. Additionally, the Adirondack Council writes, “When the training facilities become obsolete, state law would require their removal so the site could revert to wild forest. The amendment also specifically prohibits tourist attractions at Mt. Van Hoevenberg (zip lines, hotels, condominiums, off-road vehicle rentals, etc.) and bans commercial buildings above 2,200 feet (to protect sensitive sub-alpine forest).”
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Center for the Independence of the Disabled, New York (CIDNY)
- Climate Changemakers
- The Adirondack Council
Number of statements: 5
Summary of Statements – Vote No on Proposal 1
Respondents expressed concern about weakening or carving out constitutional protections for New York’s “forever wild” forest preserves, either because doing so could create a precedent for future encroachments on protected land, or because they feel state forests should remain free of ski trails. One respondent shared they plan to not vote on this proposal due to their lack of information about the origin of and support for it. Council Member Robert Holden writes, “New York’s ‘forever wild’ protections are not a suggestion. I oppose carving exceptions into the Constitution for new construction on protected lands. Once we weaken these safeguards, it becomes easier to do it again.”
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Council Member Robert Holden
Number of statements: 3
选票上会出现什么
加快推进公共资金资助的经济适用房项目。在经济适用房供应最少的社区地区，使经济适用房申请获得快速审核，大幅缩短审核周期。维持社区委员会审核机制。
投“赞成票”将使申请在标准与上诉委员会或城市规划委员会获得快速审核。
投“反对票”则使经济适用房申请仍需经更长时间的审核并由市议会作出最终决定。
本提案内容如下
本提案将建立两项新流程以加快推动特定经济适用房项目。第一项流程适用于公共资金资助的经济适用房项目。第二项流程针对经济适用房开发率最低的 12 个社区地区内的经济适用房项目。
本提案的含义
大多数的住房项目必须经历统一土地使用审核程序 (Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, ULURP)，这是一个为期七个月的审议期。本提案将为特定经济适用房项目设立两项新流程。
第一项流程将允许标准与上诉委员会 (Board of Standards and Appeals, BSA) 在经所在社区委员会 60 天审核及 BSA 自身 30 天审核后，批准由公共资金资助的经济适用房项目。
第二项流程将为经济适用房开发率最低的 12 个社区地区内的项目建立快速审核机制。该流程将允许社区委员会与所在行政区区长同步进行审核，随后由城市规划委员会 (City Planning Commission, CPC) 进行 30 至 45 天审核。最终审批权将由市议会移交至 CPC。
投“赞成票”将建立两项加快推动经济适用房项目的流程。
投“反对票”则将维持现行七个月的审核流程，并需征询所在社区委员会、行政区区长、CPC、市议会及市长意见。
Summary of Statements – Vote Yes on Proposal 2
Those who support Proposal 2 see it as a solution to New York City’s housing shortage and affordability crisis. Multiple respondents referred to the proposal as a set of “common-sense reforms” and argued there should be a distinct process to approve and build modest housing developments as opposed to skyscrapers and large developments. Supporters believe the measure would help accelerate the construction of affordable housing, reduce bureaucratic or “politicized” barriers, and expand access to homes for low- and moderate-income residents. Many discuss rising rents and the limited supply of affordable units, emphasizing that without reforms, working and middle-class New Yorkers will continue to struggle to remain in their communities. Several argue the proposal would compel all neighborhoods to build their fair share of affordable housing. New York Housing Conference points out that according to their research, “Over the past decade, the top 10 producing City Council districts added nearly 540 affordable apartments per year on average, while the bottom 10 districts added just 11.” Regarding concerns that the City Council would not be included in the new approval processes, Citizens Budget Commission writes, “With its members appointed by the Mayor, Borough Presidents, and Public Advocate, the City Planning Commission can readily balance the whole city’s housing needs with various neighborhoods’ concerns. Importantly, Community Board and Borough President reviews continue to provide neighborhoods with a critical voice.”
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Habitat for Humanity New York City and Westchester County
- Association for Neighborhood & Housing Development (ANHD)
- Regional Plan Association
- Abundance New York
- New York Housing Conference
- Citizens Budget Commission
Number of statements: 8
Summary of Statements – Vote No on Proposal 2
Those who submitted statements in opposition to Proposal 2 believe it would weaken public oversight in housing decisions by taking the City Council out of the process and reducing opportunities for community input by making the Borough President and Community Board review proposals happen at the same time. Manhattan Community Board 3 writes, “The role of the community board is to provide a place for the community to have a voice in planning. The Borough President should be hearing input from the community through the community board before taking action.” Respondents also argue the proposed method to fast-track development would risk prioritizing real estate profit over genuine affordability, with several pointing out the proposal is favorable to developers. They call for clearer policies to ensure truly affordable housing and solutions that center the needs of people who require affordable housing over those of the real estate industry, such as by minimizing market-rate or luxury housing and promoting holistic community investment.
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Council Member Robert Holden
- Manhattan Community Board 3
Number of statements: 9
选票上会出现什么
简化少量新增住房及小型基础设施项目的审核流程，大幅缩短审核周期。保留社区委员会审核环节，城市规划委员会具有最终决定权。
投“赞成票”将简化土地使用有限变更的审核流程，涵盖经济型住房和小型基础设施项目。
投“反对票”将使这些变更仍需经更长时间的审核，市议会具有最终决定权。
本提案内容如下
本提案将为特定土地使用项目建立更快捷的审核流程，例如规模较小的土地用途变更项目，以及纽约市应对极端天气或其他未来挑战做好准备的项目。对于大多数此类项目，拟议的流程将免除市议会的最终审核环节。
本提案的含义
目前，大多数的土地使用项目必须经历统一土地使用审核程序 (Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, ULURP)，这是一个为期七个月的公共审议期。本提案将为小型土地用途变更项目或其他未来挑战做好准备的项目设立快速土地使用审核程序 (Expedited Land Use Review Procedure, ELURP)。该流程包含由所在社区委员会和所在行政区区长进行 60 天审核期，随后由城市规划委员会 (City Planning Commission, CPC) 进行 30 天审核并作出最终决定。
投“赞成票”将为小型土地用途变更及其他土地使用项目建立更快捷的审核流程。同时取消市议会对多数项目的审核权。
投“反对票”将维持现行七个月的公共审议流程，并需征询所在社区委员会、行政区区长、CPC、市议会及市长的意见。
Summary of Statements – Vote Yes on Proposal 3
Supporters of Proposal 3 discuss two key reasons to create a new process to review modest land use changes: building more housing and preparing the city for extreme weather and climate impacts. Respondents focused on housing reference “red tape” and believe the new process would increase housing production significantly by differentiating the process to approve “modestly-sized” housing development from “large, complex, and sometimes controversial proposals” (Citizens Housing and Planning Council) to incentivize more housing development at different scales. They argue that under the current system, “only large-scale projects, which can generate more profit, are proposed” (Abundance New York), and subjecting smaller proposals to the same process “slows them, makes them more costly, and very often prevents them from happening at all” (Citizens Housing and Planning Council). Respondents focused on climate resilience cite increased flooding, heat waves, electrical grid brownouts, and the need for renewable energy projects like solar panels. Several mention the importance of not letting bureaucratic process slow down measures to prepare the city and its residents for the impacts of extreme weather and climate change. Nearly all respondents in support of the proposal feel positive developments have been stymied under ULURP (the current process), and that the city should be able to respond more quickly and nimbly to emerging needs.
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Regional Plan Association
- Abundance New York
- Citizens Budget Commission
- The Health & Housing Consortium
- Citizens Housing and Planning Council
- Dattner Architects
- Climate Changemakers Brooklyn
- Climate Changemakers
- Open New York
Number of statements: 25
Summary of Statements – Vote No on Proposal 3
Respondents who oppose Proposal 3 think it removes power from the City Council and reduces community input while using misleading and overly broad language (such as “modest”), which developers could take advantage of. Council Member Robert Holden writes, “ Modest can become a loophole.” Respondents express concern that the proposal would shift decision-making power away from everyday New Yorkers, undermining communities' say in what gets built in their neighborhoods. Manhattan Community Board 3 “is adamant about preserving the already limited ability of the community boards to provide input.” Critics warn of negative impacts like displacement, continued affordability issues, disinvestment in neighborhoods, and pushed-through zoning changes that primarily benefit developers.
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Council Member Robert Holden
- Manhattan Community Board 3
Number of statements: 5
选票上会出现什么
设立由市议会议长、所在行政区区长及市长组成的经济适用房上诉委员会，负责审核市议会否决或修改经济适用房建设申请的决定。
投“赞成票”将设立三名成员组成的经济适用房上诉委员会，综合反映市议会、行政区级和全市层面的视角。
投“反对票”将使平价住房项目仍受制于市长否决权，市议会具有最终决定权。
本提案内容如下
本提案将改变市议会否决或修改经济适用房项目时的现行土地使用审核流程。本提案将设立由所在行政区区长、市议会议长及市长组成的经济适用房上诉委员会 (Affordable Housing Appeals Board)。本提案将允许上诉委员会通过二比一表决推翻市议会的决定。
本提案的含义
目前，多数经济适用房项目须经统一土地使用审核程序 (Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, ULURP)——这是一个为期七个月的审核流程，最终由市议会投票表决。市长对此决定拥有否决权，而市议会可推翻该否决。
本提案适用于市议会否决或修改的经济适用房项目。本提案将设立经济适用房上诉委员会，该委员会有权推翻市议会决定。上诉委员会成员包括所在行政区区长、市议会议长及市长。若三名成员中有两名同意，项目即获通过。
投“赞成票”将设立经济适用房上诉委员会，该委员会可通过二比一表决推翻市议会对经济适用房项目的决定。上诉委员会由所在行政区区长、市议会议长及市长组成。
投“反对票”将维持现行经济适用房项目审核流程，市议会具有最终决定权。
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
选票上会出现什么
整合各行政区地图办公室和地址分配职能，并在纽约市城市规划局创建统一的数字化城市地图。当前的城市地图由五个办公室分散管理的纸质地图组成。
投“赞成票”将创建统一的数字化城市地图。
投“反对票”将继续维持由各行政区区长办公室分管的五套独立地图及地址分配系统。
本提案内容如下
本提案将使纽约市城市规划局 (Department of City Planning, DCP) 负责创建、维护与数字化统一的纽约市地图 (City Map)。
本提案的含义
城市地图在法律层面界定街道名称、宽度及边界线。目前，城市地图由各行政区区长办公室下属的五个地形局管理。城市地图由 8,000 张纸质地图组成。本提案要求纽约市城市规划局 (Department of City Planning, DCP) 将这些分别管理的纸质地图整合为统一的数字化城市地图。
投“赞成票”将创建由纽约市城市规划局维护的集中数字化城市地图。
投“反对票”将维持各行政区纸质地图的独立管理模式，由各行政区区长办公室负责。
Summary of Statements – Vote Yes on Proposal 5
Supporters of Proposal 5 see the creation of a unified digital City Map as an important step toward speeding up months- or years-long processes that depend on city maps, such as infrastructure and housing projects. Supporters think this proposal would make public information more readily available, especially to New Yorkers with disabilities. “Modernizing administration of the City Map would increase the efficiency and effectiveness of government operations and speed up the time needed to advance public and private projects that involve changes to the public realm” (Citizens Budget Commission). The Center for Independence of the Disabled, New York (CIDNY) writes that the current system of 8,000 paper maps in five different borough offices present challenges for people with mobility or vision disabilities, and “a digitized map will provide clearer, more consistent information on street names and layouts, while allowing residents to access this information from home.”
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Citizens Budget Commission
- Center for Independence of the Disabled, New York (CIDNY)
- Climate Changemakers
- Open New York
Number of statements: 6
Summary of Statements – Vote No on Proposal 5
Those who oppose Proposal 5 range in their reasoning, from concerns about the vagueness of the proposal and doubts about its value, to belief in the value of paper maps, to warnings that the Department of City Planning is ill-equipped to take on the work of each borough’s Topographical Bureau. Staten Island Borough President Vito J. Fossella writes, “By design, the Topographical Bureaus are kept local and close to the expertise of both their workers, who maintain highly technical maps, and to the professionals and Borough residents who often need and use these maps,” and when Staten Islanders need help resolving a land use or property issue, “because the Topographical Bureau is managed by staff who understand their community, they deliver fast, direct service to residents.” Fossella continues, “this move would put these functions in an agency that lacks the genuine human interaction that is needed for results. DCP is also notorious for being overburdened, with long backlogs and inaccuracies. This move has the potential to slow processes, create further service backlogs, weaken accountability and make it harder for everyday New Yorkers to get help.” Council Member Robert Holden adds, “A single digital map sounds helpful, but this measure is vague on cost, privacy, and who gets to change it.”
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Staten Island Borough President Vito J. Fossella
- Council Member Robert Holden
Number of statements: 5
选票上会出现什么
在州法律许可的情况下，调整本市初选与大选日期，使市政选举与联邦总统选举同年举行。
投“赞成票”将在州法律许可的情况下，将市政选举改至与联邦总统选举同年举行。
“反对票”表示法律将保持不变。
本提案内容如下
本提案将市政公职选举日期改至与联邦总统选举同年举行。
本提案的含义
目前，市政选举在奇数年举行，而联邦总统选举在偶数年举行，两者周期均为四年。本提案将使市政选举与联邦总统选举同年举行。这意味着市政公职（市长、公共议政员、审计长、行政区区长以及市议员）的选举将与联邦总统选举同年举行。本提案生效还需修改纽约州法律。
投“赞成票”表示若州法律修改通过，市政选举将改至与联邦选举同年举行。
投“反对票”维持市政选举在奇数年举行，与联邦总统选举周期保持分离。
Summary of Statements – Vote Yes on Proposal 6
Supporters of Proposal 6 say shifting the local election calendar to align with presidential election years would significantly increase voter turnout and increase representation among those who vote, so voters are more reflective of the city. They point to other U.S. cities that have enacted this change – Los Angeles, Baltimore, Phoenix, El Paso, Austin – which have seen the “benefits of a more inclusive, representative democracy” (Brennan Center for Justice). The Center for Independence of the Disabled, New York (CIDNY) also lifts up that “higher-turnout elections typically come with more investment in accessible poll sites, better training for poll workers, and greater outreach to voters.” Respondents agree moving local elections to even years would allow more New Yorkers to have a say in the city’s leadership. Multiple submissions note the discrepancy between presidential election turnout (60% in 2020) versus local election turnout (23% in 2021). Abundance New York notes, “The leaders who run our city day-to-day have a major impact on the city’s cost of living, quality of life, and safety; off-year elections mean that very few New York voters are actually choosing who those leaders are. ... Higher turnout means more New Yorkers having a voice in our politics, more representativeness and responsiveness from our elected leaders, and better outcomes for all.” Several submissions add that this change would save millions of dollars by reducing the number of elections overall.
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Citizens Union
- Abundance New York
- Brennan Center for Justice
- Center for Independence of the Disabled, New York (CIDNY)
- Climate Changemakers
- Reinvent Albany
- League of Women Voters of the City of New York
Number of statements: 14
Summary of Statements – Vote No on Proposal 6
Those who oppose Proposal 6 believe local issues deserve the focused attention of an election year distinct from presidential elections. Some express a lack of trust in changing the status quo and believe the current calendar grants needed focus on local issues. The statements reflect skepticism that the calendar is the cause of low voter turnout, and posit that rebuilding trust and strengthening civic engagement would better address the issue of low voter participation. Council Member Robert Holden says, “In the 1960s and 1970s New York often saw turnout above 70 percent with one day to vote. The issue is not the calendar, it is engagement and confidence in local government.”
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Council Member Robert Holden
Number of statements: 5
不保证《选民指南》中的声明一定会发布。竞选财务委员会/NYC Votes 保留对《选民指南》的编辑控制权，并可以编辑、总结或拒绝发表任何公开声明。
