What ballot measures will NYC voters be deciding on Nov. 4?
New York City voters will be deciding one statewide measure and five local ballot measures on Nov. 4, 2025.
The one statewide measure, Proposal 1, is a constitutional amendment placed on the ballot by the New York State Legislature. All New York voters will be deciding Proposal 1. Meanwhile, New York City voters will be deciding five local charter amendments that were placed on the ballot by the New York City Charter Revision Commission.
Here is a roundup of all measures New York City voters will be deciding on Nov. 4.
Type: Statewide legislatively referred constitutional amendment
What will this measure do? This measure would allow for 323 acres of land within the Adirondack Park Forest Preserve at the Mount Van Hoevenberg Olympic Sports Complex to be used for international-standard Nordic skiing and biathlon trails and related infrastructure and facilities. In exchange, the state would be required to acquire and add at least 2,500 acres of new forest land of equal or greater value to the Adirondack Park Forest Preserve.
Who supports it? The amendment is supported by the Adirondack Council and Protect the Adirondacks. New York State Sens. Peter Harckham (D) and Dan Stec (R), as well as State Asm. D. Billy Jones (D) spoke in support of the amendment.
Who opposes it? New York City Councilmember Robert Holden (D) has spoken out against it.
Argument for measure: Protect the Adirondacks put out a statement, saying, “Even though this Constitutional Amendment is being passed ‘after-the-fact’, it remedies the past violations of Article 14, Section 1, and it lays out the parameters for future management of Mount Van Hoevenberg ... At all three of these ski areas, the state is allowed to build and operate facilities that would otherwise be prohibited on the Forest Preserve, subject to specific limits in the constitutional amendments. Since taking over the management of these facilities, ORDA has successfully operated them within the bounds set by these amendments. However, the nonconforming state facilities at Mt. Van Hoevenberg are not expressly authorized, nor are they subject to constitutional limits, like the other three facilities. This proposed amendment would help to right historical wrongs.”
Argument against measure: New York City Councilmember Robert Holden (D) said, “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.”
Question 2: Expedited Public Process for Affordable Housing Charter Amendment
Type: Local charter amendment
What will this measure do? This measure would add two new pathways in the City Charter to expedite the approval of affordable housing projects. First, it would enable publicly financed affordable housing to be approved by the Board of Standards and Appeals after review by the affected Community Board. Then, it would establish an expedited land use review process for zoning changes that deliver affordable housing in the 12 community districts with the lowest rate of affordable housing production.
Who supports it? Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) has endorsed the measure. The Citizens Budget Commission, the League of Women Voters of the City of New York, and the New York Housing Conference are also organizations that endorsed the measure.
Who opposes it? Members of the New York City Council, including Speaker of the Council Adrienne Adams (D), have spoken out against the measure. Unions 32BJ SEIU, the District Council of Carpenters, and the Hotel and Gaming Trades Council also spoke out against it.
Argument for measure: The New York City Charter Revision Commission, which put the measure on the ballot, said, “In the bottom 12 neighborhoods that have built the least affordable housing, applications that will deliver permanently affordable housing would have access to the fast track. This fast track would include the same 60-day opportunity for Community Board review as exists today, including the extended time for applications that come over the summer. To speed review, the Borough President’s advisory review period would run concurrent with the Community Board. Following the Community Board and Borough President, the review process would conclude with the final vote by the City Planning Commission, rather than the City Council. From start to finish, this process would be twice as fast as the existing process helping to ensure more affordable housing across the city.”
Argument against measure: In a statement, four members of the New York City Council, including Speaker Adrienne Adams (D) said, “Questions 2, 3 and 4 fail to inform voters that, if enacted, they would put a wide range of land use decisions in the hands of mayoral appointees. This would eliminate the City Council’s voting power, and would remove the ability of communities to negotiate investments and public benefits into their neighborhoods through the Council’s power.”
Question 3: Expedited Land Use Review Procedure Charter Amendment
Type: Local charter amendment
What will this measure do? This measure would create an Expedited Land Use Review Procedure (ELURP) in the New York City Charter for modest amounts of additional housing, affordable housing, and infrastructure projects. A land use procedure is the formal process a city uses to review, approve, or deny proposed changes to how land can be used or developed for housing. Under the city’s current process, the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP), all projects follow the same multi-month timeline regardless of size. ELURP would establish a shorter review while maintaining requirements for environmental review, historic district protections, and public participation.
Who supports it? Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) supports the measure, along with the Citizens Budget Commission, Citizens Housing and Planning Council, League of Women Voters of the City of New York, and the Health & Housing Consortium.
Who opposes it? Several members of the New York City Council, including Speaker of the Council Adrienne Adams (D), have spoken out against the measure. Unions 32BJ SEIU, the District Council of Carpenters, and the Hotel and Gaming Trades Council also spoke out against it.
Argument for measure: The League of Women Voters of the City of New York said, in support of the measure, “Creating an expedited land use review process for modest housing changes would reduce costs, make a simpler and more predictable process which would allow builders to maximize resources. It would create greater equity empowering smaller builders (family and minority owned) who may not have the capital, time and understanding as wealthy developers to navigate the complex land use review system. And it would create more affordable housing in lower density neighborhoods that want to make modest housing additions. The expedited process would still allow for adequate review from the Community Board, Borough President and the public.”
Argument against measure: New York City Councilmember Robert Holden (D) said, “Modest can become a loophole,” when referring to the measure’s language.
Question 4: Affordable Housing Appeals Board Charter Amendment
Type: Local charter amendment
What will this measure do? This measure would create an Affordable Housing Appeals Board, consisting of the borough president, speaker of the city council, and mayor, which would have the power to review and reverse decisions by the city council that disapprove and modify land-use applications that directly facilitate the creation of affordable housing.
Who supports it? Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) supports the measure. The Citizens Budget Commission, Citizens Housing and Planning Council, the Regional Plan Association, and the Anti-Discrimination Center support the amendment.
Who opposes it? Members of the New York City Council, including Speaker of the Council Adrienne Adams (D), have spoken out against the measure. Unions 32BJ SEIU, the District Council of Carpenters, and the Hotel and Gaming Trades Council also spoke out against it.
Argument for measure: In a statement supporting the measure, the Citizens Budget Commission said, “Adding an appeals process to ULURP would maintain the important role of the City Council in the land use decision-making process, while encouraging greater balance of citywide needs and neighborhood concerns. The City Council’s tradition of member deference has sometimes resulted in local concerns, especially local resistance to development, overriding citywide need to build more housing for everyone in all neighborhoods. The appeal process might encourage the City Council to bring more projects to a vote rather than allow them to be withdrawn in the face of defeat due to member deference. More projects coming to a vote at the City Council could encourage more applications to come forward, since in some cases, well-considered projects are never proposed due to member deference.”
Argument against measure: New York City Councilmember Robert Holden (D) said, “New York needs housing built with trust, transparency, and strong conflict of interest rules, not another venue to rubber stamp bad projects.”
Question 5: Digital City Map Charter Amendment
Type: Local charter amendment
What will this measure do? This measure would require the city to consolidate and digitize the City Map, and replace the existing, decentralized paper City Map.
Who supports it? Gov. Kathy Hochul (D) spoke out in support of the measure. The Citizens Budget Commission, the League of Women Voters of the City of New York, and the Center for Independence of the Disabled New York have also spoken out in support of the measure.
Who opposes it? Staten Island Borough Pres. Vito J. Fossella (R) spoke out in opposition to the measure.
Argument for measure: In a statement supporting the measure, the League of Women Voters of the City of New York said, “Consolidating borough map offices and digitizing 8,000 paper maps into one digital City Map will centralize administration and provide increased government efficiency. It will also reduce costs and time, provide greater access and equity to all New Yorkers needing to refer to and use the City Map.”
Argument against measure: Staten Island Borough President Vito J. Fossella said, “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 ... 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.”
Question 6: Move City Elections to Even-Numbered Years Charter Amendment
Type: Local charter amendment
What will this measure do? This measure would change city elections from odd-numbered years to even-numbered years, coinciding with federal presidential election years.
Who supports it? The Citizens Union of the City of New York, League of Women Voters of the City of New York, Brennan Center for Justice, and Center for Independence of the Disabled New York support the measure.
Who opposes it? New York City mayoral candidate Curtis Sliwa (R) said he opposes the measure.
Argument for measure: In a statement supporting the measure, the Brennan Center for Justice said, “The average voter turnout in New York City mayoral elections over the past twenty years is just 29.5 percent – a far lower rate than the turnout for gubernatorial and federal elections in that same period. Even fewer New York City voters turn out for non-mayoral elections in odd years despite competitive races across the boroughs and statewide ballot measures on the ballot. Such dismal turnout frustrates the full potential of an inclusive democracy in New York City. Aligning low-turnout city elections to even-numbered years can help address this problem. Given the experience of other jurisdictions that have aligned their elections, we know this policy can increase voter turnout, promote a more representative electorate, and reduce election administration costs.”
Argument against measure: In an argument against the measure, Diane Savino, a commissioner of the Charter Revision Commission said, “I have serious concerns, as having been a down-ballot candidate, that in a presidential year, local candidates, who are the closest people to their community, will not get the type of attention in their election year, which will be drowned out by the top of the ticket. They buy up all the air time, they buy up all the campaign time. And if you are a local elected official, a council person running in the same year as the president, it’s very possible the drop-off from the top of the ticket to the bottom would do a serious disservice to local governments.”