NYC General Election 2025: What’s on the ballot? 

By Georgia Good

In New York City, the general election is coming up. Election day is November 4, and early voting runs from October 25- November 2. 

This year, there are six proposals on the ballot. Ballot proposals are suggested changes to the New York State Constitution and the City Charter, the State and City’s governing documents. Ballot Proposal 1 would change the State Constitution, and Proposals 2 to 6 would change the NYC Charter. 

Here, we’re outlining each of the proposals, so you can decide what changes you want to see happen.

• Prop 1: Amendment to Allow Olympic Sports Complex in Essex County on State Forest Preserve Land 

This would allow the construction of new ski and biathlon trails in the Olympic Sports Complex, which is in the Adirondack forest preserve in Essex County (upstate New York). The proposal also requires the State to add another 2,500 acres of forest land to the preserve. 

Right now, there are strict rules around construction on state-owned and protected land. This is a statewide ballot proposal because it would change the State Constitution to allow for this construction. 

Supporters say: This would bring current land use at the Sports Complex under compliance, and would adequately protect forest land. It would prohibit tourist attractions at Mount Van Hoevenberg (e.g. zip lines, hotels, condominiums, off-road vehicle rentals) and ban commercial buildings above 2,200 feet.

Opponents say: New York’s ‘forever wild’ protections should not be a suggestion. Once we weaken these constitutional safeguards, making exceptions to allow new construction on protected lands, it becomes easier to do it again. 

• Prop 2 (NYC only): Fast Track Affordable Housing to Build More Affordable Housing Across the City

This would roll out two new processes to fast-track affordable housing: the Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) Zoning Action for Affordable Housing Projects, and the Affordable Housing Fast Track. Right now, most housing projects must go through a seven-month review process, Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP). This requires input from the local Community Board, Borough President, City Planning Commission (CPC), City Council, and the Mayor.

The first process would empower the BSA to issue project-specific approvals for publicly financed affordable housing that meet the required findings after a 60-day review by the affected Community Board and a 30-day review with a public hearing held by the BSA. Projects that do not meet the findings may receive one 60-day extension for additional studies or project modifications to seek approval at a second hearing.

The second process would speed up the review process for projects that deliver affordable housing in the 12 community districts with the lowest rates of affordable housing development. The Community Board and local Borough President would be able to review projects at the same time. This would be followed by a 30- to 45-day review by the CPC. The CPC would have final project approval, not the City Council. Under the proposal, the City would assess the rate of affordable housing production in each community district every five years, and then fast-track projects that include permanently affordable housing in the 12 Community Districts with the lowest such rates.

Supporters say: This is a solution to New York’s housing crisis. It’s a necessary, common-sense reform – it would accelerate the construction of affordable housing, reduce politicized barriers, and expand access to homes for low- and moderate-income residents. 

Opponents say: This would weaken public oversight in housing decisions – taking the City Council out of the process reduces opportunities for community input. Alternative, clearer policies would ensure truly affordable housing that prioritizes people over the real estate industry.

• Prop 3 (NYC only): Simplify Review of Modest Housing and Infrastructure Projects

Similar to Proposal 2, this would create a faster review process for certain land use projects. Right now, most land use projects must also go through the seven-month-long ULURP. The proposal would create an Expedited Land Use Review Procedure (ELURP) for smaller projects, to prepare New York for future challenges like extreme weather.

This would involve a 60-day review period for the local Community Board and Borough President, then a 30-day review and final decision by the CPC, not the City Council. This expedited review procedure is reserved for specifically enumerated applications. These generally include applications relating to modest zoning changes for housing; acquisitions and site selections for resiliency projects and open space; sale of City property that is undevelopable and unusable; acquisitions for voluntary flood buyouts; and leases for solar energy on public land. Only projects that categorically lack potential significant adverse environmental impacts on communities are eligible for the expedited procedure described in this ballot question.

Supporters say: While the current system favors large, controversial, profit-focused developments, this would make it easier for modest housing developments to be built. It would also speed up climate resilience projects – helping prepare the city for increased flooding, heatwaves, electrical grid brownouts and the need for clean energy projects. 

Opponents say: This removes power from the City Council and reduces community decision-making power, while using misleading and overly broad language, like “modest”, which developers could take advantage of. 

• Prop 4 (NYC only): Establish an Affordable Housing Appeals Board with Council, Borough, and Citywide Representation 

The proposal would create an Affordable Housing Appeals Board that would include the Mayor, Speaker of the City Council, and local Borough President to review Council actions that reject or change certain applications creating affordable housing. If two of the three members agree, the Appeals Board Projects would have the power to reverse the City Council’s decision if the City Council rejects or changes an affordable housing project.

Right now, most of these projects must go through ULURP, which ends with a City Council vote. The mayor can veto this decision, and the City Council can overturn the veto. This new Appeals Board aims to strike a balance between local, boroughwide and citywide perspectives on the production of affordable housing. It does so by empowering the Speaker, affected Borough President and Mayor to review and reverse City Council decisions that disapprove or modify land-use applications that directly facilitate the creation of affordable housing.

Supporters say: This is a step to build more affordable housing across New York. Through the current City Council practice of “member deference,” council members can veto housing projects even in the face of widespread support and clear benefits to the city, with no accountability. Shifting decision-making responsibility would increase housing affordability and equity. 

Opponents say: By centralizing power to a few city leaders, community members would lose their power to influence development decisions. Council members should be able to represent their neighborhoods’ interests; this change risks catering to developers’ interests, government corruption, gentrification and displacement, without leading to the housing that residents need. 

• Prop 5 (NYC only): Create a Digital City Map to Modernize City Operations

New York City’s Map legally defines street names, widths, and lines. Right now, it’s managed by five Topographical Bureaus in each Borough President’s office. The City Map consists of 8,000 separately maintained paper maps. 

This proposal would require the Department of City Planning (DCP) to consolidate these paper maps into one centralized, digitized City Map.

Supporters say: This would speed up months- or years-long processes that depend on city maps, like infrastructure and housing projects. It would make public information more readily available, especially to New Yorkers with mobility or vision disabilities.

Opponents say: The Topographical Bureaus are managed by staff who understand their community, delivering fast, direct service to residents, based on real expertise and human interaction. DCP is ill-equipped to take on this work – it could create further service backlogs, weaken accountability and make it harder for New Yorkers to get help.

• Prop 6 (NYC only): Move Local Elections to Presidential Years to Increase Voter Participation

This would move election dates for city offices (for Mayor, Public Advocate, Comptroller, Borough President, and City Council) to the same year as federal presidential elections. 

Right now, city elections are held on odd-numbered years and federal presidential elections are held on even-numbered years, every four years. Aligning the election cycles is intended to increase voter awareness and engagement. It would require a change to New York State law, too, before it could be implemented. 

Supporters say: This would significantly increase voter turnout and representation, so voters are more reflective of the city. Local voters need a stronger voice: presidential election turnout was 60% in 2020, versus 23% for local elections in 2021. Other cities that have enacted this change (Los Angeles, Baltimore, Phoenix, El Paso and Austin) are now more inclusive, representative democracies. 

Opponents say: Local issues deserve the focused attention of an election year distinct from presidential elections. The calendar is not the issue: rebuilding trust and strengthening civic engagement would better address the issue of low voter turnout.

Interested in learning more? 

Watch our webinar: What’s on my ballot in NYC? And read more about each proposal from NYC Votes, and even more about Proposals 2-6 from the NYC Charter Commission. 

You can read this blog from our sister organization, NYLCV, to learn which of these proposals they support.  

Register to vote by October 25.

Georgia Good has been Communications Fellow at the New York League of Conservation Voters since February 2025. She’s a Steinhardt Graduate Scholar in Environmental Conservation Education at NYU, with a focus on climate communications and advocacy. She’s had comms roles at Climate Arc, the Cambridge Centre for Climate Engagement, and Mercy Corps, and has a BA in English from UCL, UK.