STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. — Staten Island elected officials are pushing back against a ballot proposal that would allow New York City to fast-track affordable housing projects in certain neighborhoods without the approval of the City Council.
In November, New Yorkers will vote on five ballot questions from Mayor Eric Adams’ Charter Revision Commission, one of which would add two new fast-track mechanisms for affordable housing projects in the five boroughs.
“The ballot proposals before voters this year would dramatically alter how local land use decisions are made in New York City. They would strip authority from communities and their elected representatives, leaving Staten Islanders with less say in how and where housing is built,” said Councilmember Kamillah Hanks, a Democrat who represents the North Shore.
The first mechanism, the Fast Track Zoning Action, would allow publicly-financed affordable housing developments to seek zoning relief through the Board of Standards and Appeals as opposed to going through the traditional Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, which can be a months-long process with input from the mayor, City Council, borough presidents and community boards.
In order to approve any zoning actions, the Board of Standards and Appeals would need to determine that the development would fit into the existing character of the neighborhood for which it’s proposed.
“It provides assurance that an approved project will not clash with a neighborhood’s existing built context. In a low-density neighborhood where buildings have a modest maximum height of 35 feet, for instance, a four-story, 45 foot affordable housing development is a far better candidate for this action than an out-of-place 14-story affordable housing development,” according to a Charter Revision Commission report.
The second mechanism, the Affordable Housing Fast Track, would create a shortened public review process for affordable housing developments in the city’s community districts that produce the least affordable housing.
Starting in October 2026, the city would release a report every five years on the rate of affordable housing permitted in each of New York City’s 59 community districts.
In the 12 districts found to have permitted the least affordable housing, rezoning applications that are required to deliver affordable housing under the City’s Mandatory Inclusionary Housing program could opt for the abbreviated Affordable Housing Fast Track as opposed to the traditional ULURP process.
While it’s still unclear which community districts would fall within the bottom-12 in affordable housing production as the analysis would not take place for another year, a City Limits report found that two Staten Island districts, Mid-Island and the South Shore, would be included if the analysis were conducted today.
Given that there is currently a very slim margin for being included in the bottom-12 in terms of affordable housing production, it’s possible that districts that would be included if the analysis were conducted today could potentially build their way out by approving affordable housing projects over the next year.
The primary point of contention regarding these proposals stems from the fact that both would remove the City Council from the decision-making process.
Under ULURP, final say on zoning approvals rests with the City Council. With these new fast track mechanisms, that power would be transferred to the Board of Standards and Appeals for the Fast Track Zoning Action and the City Planning Commission for the Affordable Housing Fast Track.
A Charter Revision Commission spokesperson told the Advance/SILive.com that the Affordable Housing Fast Track would not change anything about what developers can apply for in terms of zoning changes, nor would it mean an automatic approval.
The only change would be which party has the final vote on approval.
For example, developers can already apply for zoning changes that would allow for large, multi-story apartment buildings in low-density areas like Mid-Island or the South Shore.
However, they’re unlikely to be approved, as the City Council often defers to the local councilmember who may oppose the project due to constituent concerns regarding its impact on the character of the neighborhood.
If the ballot question were to pass, the City Planning Commission would be able to approve the zoning change without input from the City Council; a change that local elected officials have said will strip away power from the community.
“These changes would weaken the ability of local officials to ensure that projects meet neighborhood needs and include the necessary infrastructure. Without meaningful oversight, transparency, or accountability, developments could be pushed through with little regard for the communities they affect,” said Hanks.
Councilmember Frank Morano, a Republican who represents the South Shore, said he opposes this ballot question, and several others, as their primary objective appears to be allowing the city to increase housing density, something many Staten Islanders have long opposed in an effort to maintain the character of the borough’s predominantly low-density neighborhoods.
“These ballot questions are being sold as ‘housing reform,’ but what they really do is take power away from Staten Islanders and hand it to developers and bureaucrats in Manhattan. I’m voting no on 2, 3, 4, and 5 because once you lose your voice in what gets built on your block, you don’t get it back,” Morano said.
“My office will be spreading the word on these proposals and how they will affect our city. And if these pass, please don’t call my office six months from now asking why they’re building 10 houses where there used to be one — because that’s exactly what these proposals would allow,” he continued.
Councilmember David Carr, a Republican who represents Mid-Island, also stands in opposition to the ballot questions, arguing that the commission did not conduct and share the necessary research to know the true extent of the proposals’ impact.
“The voters have a right to know the potential environmental consequences of these ballot proposals, but they can’t possibly have that information because the commission violated state and city environmental law by neglecting to provide or even conduct any analysis. This is particularly dangerous because these proposals would take away the local representative’s ability to mitigate the hazards of unchecked development,” Carr said.
If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.