The City Council is seeking to maintain its control over land use decisions as it challenges three ballot questions set for the November election. These questions, approved by the mayor’s Charter Revision Commission, would shift some authority over rezonings and related land use matters away from the Council.
Council Speaker Adrienne Adams, Deputy Speaker Diana Ayala, Majority Leader Amanda Farías, and Minority Leader Joann Ariola have formally requested that the Board of Elections remove the three questions from the ballot. In a letter to commissioners, they described the proposals as a “cynical political ploy to mislead voters” and argued that they would transfer power from elected City Council members to mayoral appointees such as the Board of Standards and Appeals and the City Planning Commission.
During a recent Board of Elections meeting, President Frederic Umane raised doubts about whether the board has authority to reject ballot questions originating from the Charter Revision Commission. “If we have the power, as far as I know, we haven’t used it,” he said. He also questioned if this issue should instead be resolved in court.
Jason Otaño, general counsel for the City Council, stated his belief that the board can reject these questions but indicated that all other options would be considered before pursuing legal action. “I don’t know if you’ve seen lately, but we’re not shy about suing our partners in government across the hall,” he said.
One contested question proposes replacing the mayoral veto in certain land use reviews with a three-member appeals board consisting of the mayor, City Council speaker, and relevant borough president. This body could overturn City Council decisions on some projects involving affordable housing within a single borough.
Another question asks voters if an expedited review process should be created for modest housing and infrastructure projects. This process could bypass either City Council or City Planning Commission review depending on project specifics.
A third question concerns allowing zoning waivers for publicly funded affordable housing projects via the Board of Standards and Appeals. Affordable housing developments in districts with low construction rates could undergo a faster review process ending with a City Planning Commission vote rather than full Council scrutiny.
The Council argues that these proposals are worded in ways that obscure their true impact on public oversight: “fail to inform voters that the ballot proposals will completely eliminate the City Council’s existing authority on behalf of the public to approve or modify a wide range of land use proposals—including many projects made up almost entirely of luxury housing.”
A source familiar with Charter Revision Commission deliberations dismissed these claims as “borderline absurd,” noting state law restricts how much information can be included in each ballot question—limiting titles to 15 words and summaries to 30 words each.
A spokesperson for the Charter Revision Commission defended their approach: “We are confident in the rigor and legal basis for the Commission’s important work to address the city’s housing crisis.”
The debate reflects ongoing tensions between Mayor Eric Adams’ administration and members of City Council regarding responsibility for New York’s persistent housing shortages. Speaker Adrienne Adams criticized what she views as attempts to blame her chamber for those issues while citing more than 120,000 approved units since 2022.
Developers often withdraw applications when local council members object—a practice known as member deference—which has led at least 45 applications begun over ten years to be abandoned during public review processes.
Other cities such as Chicago, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles also allow local officials significant influence over land use decisions. In Chicago specifically, federal investigations examined whether aldermanic prerogative contributed to racial segregation by limiting affordable housing opportunities; two such probes were dropped this month.
