今年的選票上共有六項提案。選票提案旨在修改州和市級治理文件，亦即《州憲法》和《城市憲章》。 選民可以決定他們希望通過的改變。
選票提案 1 為什麼會出現在選票上？
這項提案將會改變《紐約州憲法》。修改《憲法》需要全州批准。
選票提案 2 至 6 為什麼會出現在選票上？
2025 年憲章修改委員會審核了《紐約城市憲章》，舉行公開聽證會並徵求公眾意見，提出以下五項憲章修訂建議。
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
您在選票上會看到什麼
允許在州立森林保護區內建設滑雪及相關步道設施。場地面積為 1039 英畝。要求州政府在 Adirondack Park 新增 2500 英畝森林用地。
贊成票將授權在 Adirondack 森林保護區開闢新滑雪道和配套設施。
反對票則不予授權。
這項提案的內容如下
這項提案將允許位於紐約州 Essex 郡的奧林匹克體育中心擴建新滑雪道。奧林匹克體育中心位於州立森林保護區內。這項提案同時要求紐約州在 Adirondack Park 新增 2500 英畝的保護林地。
這項提議的含義
目前，州屬和保護林地的建設專案受到嚴格的法規約束。奧林匹克體育中心位於 Essex 郡（紐約州北部）Adirondack 森林保護區內。這項提案將允許開闢新滑雪道。
這項提案同時要求紐約州在 Adirondack 森林保護區新增 2500 英畝林地。因為涉及修改《紐約州憲法》，所以這是一項全州公投提案。
投票「贊成」將修改《紐約州憲法》，允許在紐約州 Essex 郡森林保護區內的奧林匹克體育中心開闢新滑雪道。
投票「反對」將維持《紐約州憲法》不變。
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
您在選票上會看到什麼
加速推動公共資金資助的平價住房專案。在平價住房供應最少的社區地區，使平價住房申請獲得快速審核，大幅縮短審核週期。 維持社區委員會審核機制。
投票「贊成」將使申請在標準與上訴委員會 (Board of Standards and Appeals, BSA) 或城市規劃委員會 (City Planning Commission, CPC) 獲得快速審核。
投票「反對」將使平價住房申請仍需經過更長時間的審核和市議會的最終決定。
這項提案的內容如下
這項提案將設立兩項新流程以加速推動特定平價住房專案。第一項流程適用於公共資金資助的平價住房專案。第二項流程是針對平價住房開發率最低的 12 個社區地區內的平價住房專案。
這項提議的含義
大多數的住房專案必須經歷統一土地使用審核程序 (Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, ULURP)，這是一個為期七個月的審議期。 這項提案將為特定平價住房專案設立兩項新流程。
第一項流程將允許標準與上訴委員會在經過所在社區委員會的 60 天審核和 BSA 自身的 30 天審核之後，批准由公共資金資助的平價住房專案。
第二項流程將為平價住房開發率最低的 12 個社區地區內的專案設立更快速的審核流程。此流程將允許社區委員會和所在行政區區長同步進行審核，隨後由城市規劃委員會 (City Planning Commission, CPC) 進行 30 至 45 天審核。最終審批權將由市議會移交 CPC。
投票「贊成」將設立兩項加速推動平價住房專案的流程。
投票「反對」將維持現行七個月的審核流程，並需徵詢所在社區委員會、行政區區長、CPC、市議會及市長的意見。
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
您在選票上會看到什麼
簡化少量新增住房和小型基礎建設專案的審核流程，大幅縮短審核週期。保留社區委員會審核環節，城市規劃委員會具有最終決定權。
投票「贊成」將簡化土地使用有限變更的審核流程，涵蓋經濟型住房及小型基礎建設專案。
投票「反對」將使這些變更仍需更長時間的審核，市議會具有最終決定權。
這項提案的內容如下
這項提案將為特定土地使用專案設立更快速的審核流程，例如規模較小的土地用途變更以及紐約市應對極端氣候或其他未來挑戰做好準備的專案。對於大多數這類專案，擬議的流程將免除市議會最後的審核環節。
這項提議的含義
目前，大多數的土地使用專案必須經歷統一土地使用審核程序 (Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, ULURP)，這是一個為期七個月的公共審議期。這項提案將為小型土地用途變更以及紐約市應對極端氣候或其他未來挑戰做好準備的專案設立快速土地使用審核程序 (Expedited Land Use Review Procedure, ELURP)。此流程包含由所在社區委員會和行政區區長進行 60 天審核期，隨後由城市規劃委員會 (City Planning Commission, CPC) 進行 30 天審核並作出最終決定。
投票「贊成」將為小型用地區劃變更及其他土地使用專案設立更快速的審核流程。同時取消市議會對多數專案的審核權。
投票「反對」將維持現行七個月的公共審議流程，並需徵詢所在社區委員會、行政區區長、CPC、市議會及市長的意見。
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
您在選票上會看到什麼
設立由市議會議長、所在行政區區長及市長組成的平價住房上訴委員會，負責審核市議會否決或修改平價住房建設申請的決定。
投票「贊成」將設立由三名成員組成的平價住房上訴委員會，綜合反映市議會、行政區級和全市層面的視角。
投票「反對」將使平價住房專案仍受制於市長否決權，市議會具有最終決定權。
這項提案的內容如下
這項提案將改變市議會否決或修改平價住房專案時的現行土地使用審核流程。這項提案將設立由所在行政區區長、市議會議長及市長組成的平價住房上訴委員會 (Affordable Housing Appeals Board)。這項提案將允許上訴委員會透過二比一表決推翻市議會的決定。
這項提議的含義
目前，大多數的平價住房專案必須經歷統一土地使用審核程序 (Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, ULURP)，這是一個為期七個月的審核流程，最終由市議會投票表決。市長對此決定擁有否決權，而市議會則可推翻該否決。
這項提案適用於市議會否決或修改的平價住房專案。這項提案將設立有權推翻市議會決定的平價住房上訴委員會。上訴委員會成員包括所在行政區區長、市議會議長及市長。若三名成員中有兩名同意，專案即獲通過。
投票「贊成」將設立平價住房上訴委員會，此委員會可以透過二比一表決推翻市議會對平價住房專案的決定。上訴委員會由所在行政區區長、市議會議長及市長組成。
投票「反對」將維持現行的平價住房專案審核流程，市議會具有最終決定權。
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
您在選票上會看到什麼
整合各行政區地圖辦公室和地址分配職能，並在紐約市城市規劃局創作統一的數位化城市地圖。 當今的城市地圖由五個辦公室分別管理的紙質地圖組成。
投票「贊成」將創作統一的數位化城市地圖。
投票「反對」將繼續維持由各行政區區長辦公室分別管理的五套獨立地圖和地址分配職能。
這項提案的內容如下
這項提案將使紐約市城市規劃局 (Department of City Planning, DCP) 負責創作、維護與數位化單一一張紐約市地圖 (City Map)。
這項提議的含義
城市地圖在法律層面界定街道名稱、寬度及邊界線。目前，城市地圖由各行政區區長辦公室下屬的五個地形局管理。城市地圖由 8000 張紙質地圖組成。這項提案要求紐約市城市規劃局 (Department of City Planning, DCP) 將這些分別管理的紙質地圖整合為統一的數位化城市地圖。
投票「贊成」將創作由紐約市城市規劃局維護的集中數位化城市地圖。
投票「反對」將維持由各行政區區長辦公室獨立管理的行政區紙質地圖。
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
您在選票上會看到什麼
若獲得州法律的許可，將調整紐約市初選和大選日期，使市政選舉與聯邦總統選舉同年舉行。
投票「贊成」將在獲得州法律許可時，將市政選舉改為與聯邦總統選舉同年舉行。
投票「反對」將維持法律不變。
這項提案的內容如下
這項提案將市政公職選舉日期改為與聯邦總統選舉同年舉行。
這項提議的含義
目前，市政選舉在奇數年舉行，而聯邦總統選舉在偶數年舉行，兩者週期皆為四年。這項提案將使市政選舉與聯邦總統選舉同年舉行。這意味著市政公職（市長、公共議政員、審計長、行政區區長以及市議員）的選舉將與聯邦總統選舉同年舉行。還需要修改紐約州法律，這項提案才能生效。
投票「贊成」表示若州法律修改通過，市政選舉將改為與聯邦選舉同年舉行。
投票「反對」維持市政選舉在奇數年舉行，保持與聯邦總統選舉不同的週期。
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
不保證會一定發佈《選民指南》中的聲明。競選財務委員會/NYC Votes 保留編輯《選民指南》的控制權，並可編輯、總結或拒絕發佈任何公開聲明。
