New York City voters will weigh in on the future of the Big Apple on Election Day, Tuesday Nov. 4. 

Voters will be electing the next mayor, public advocate, city comptroller, as well as borough presidents and members of the city council. 

In addition to those, there are also six ballot proposals New Yorkers will be deciding. Three of them have to do with the City Council’s role in land use decision making. 

Here’s a breakdown of the various ballot proposals. 

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

This proposal is related to Mount Van Hoevenberg Winter Sports Complex in Lake Placid. This amendment would authorize new ski trails and facilities to be built on 323 acres in the Adirondack forest preserve. The proposal also requires the state to add 2,500 acres of protected forest to Adirondack Park. 

This is a statewide ballot proposal because in order to pass it, the constitution of the state has to be changed. 

This is the only statewide ballot proposal voters in New York will be deciding. The rest of the ballot proposals are specific to New York City. 

Ballot Proposal 2: Fast Track Affordable Housing to Build More Across the City

Under current law, most housing projects need to go through the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, or ULURP, which takes seven months. The City Council is involved in the process, having to give sign off. If this proposal is enacted, the City Council approval component for certain affordable housing projects would be removed. 

This proposal would create two processes to fast-track certain sorts of affordable housing projects. That includes publicly financed affordable housing projects, and affordable housing projects in 12 community districts with the lowest rates of affordable housing development. 

If this measure is passed, publicly financed affordable housing projects would instead go through a 30 day review by the Board of Standards and Appeals after a 60 day review by the local community board. The other process would allow community board in the 12 districts with the lowest rates of affordable housing developments to review the project at the same time as the borough president, to be followed by 30-45 day review the City Planning Commission. 

That means that these proposals would be able to circumvent the seven month ULURP process in favor of a process that might take half that time, or less. 

In a letter to the Board of Elections, City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams and the council majority and minority leaders objected to this proposal, and another two voters will be deciding on. The council speaker and leadership said the way proposals 2, 3, and 4 are written on the ballot, they “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 council’s voting power, and would remove the ability of communities to negotiate investments and public benefits into their neighborhood through the council’s power.” 

Ballot Proposal 3: Simplify Review of Modest Housing and Infrastructure Projects 

This proposal would eliminate final City Council review of certain land use projects, such as certain resiliency projects the city is considering to combat climate change. 

As with Ballot Proposal 2, most land use project undergo the seven month ULURP process. This proposal would create an “ELURP” process, meaning Expedited Land Use Review Procedure, for smaller-scale projects. The ELURP process would look to cut that review time roughly in half by having it go through a local community board, borough president, and then a 30-day review by the City Planning Commission. 

As with the previous proposal, leadership in the City Council objected to this proposal saying it “would completely eliminate the council’s authority to approve or modify a vast swath of development projects, shifting voting power entirely to unelected appointees primarily made by the mayor, on the City Planning Commission and Boards of Standards and Appeals.” 

Ballot Proposal 4: Establish an Affordable Housing Appeals Board with Council, Borough and Citywide Representation 

This again relates to the ULURP process and the City Council’s involvement in it. After the ULURP process concludes, affordable housing projects go to the City Council for a vote to approve. The mayor can veto the council’s vote, and the council can overturn the mayor’s veto. 

Under this proposal, if the City Council rejects or changes an affordable housing project, a new appeals board consisting of the City Council speaker, the borough president, and the mayor, who could override the Council’s decision with two-to-one vote. 

As with Proposals 2 and 3, City Council leadership opposes this proposal. 

“The council’s authority to provide the final decision in the land use process, with a required two-thirds vote, would be eliminated. This new structure would effectively undermine the ability of the council to negotiate greater affordability of housing and other needed public benefits on behalf of communities during consideration of these applications,” City Council Speaker Adams wrote. 

Ballot Proposal 5: Create a Digital City Map to Modernize City Operations

This is a fairly straightforward proposal to create a centralized digital map of the city at the Department of City Planning. 

As things stand now, the official city map in its current form is made up of 8,000 paper maps. They’re spread around in each borough president’s office across the five boroughs. 

The city map is important because it defines street names, the width of streets, and so on. 

This proposal would require the City Planning department to create a centralized digital map. 

Ballot Proposal 6: Move Local Elections to Presidential Election Years to Increase Voter Participation

Voter turnout has long been discussed as an issue, and so-called “off year” elections contribute to lower turnout. Under the current system, citywide elections are held on odd-numbered years, and federal elections take place during even numbered years. 

This proposal would unify city elections with presidential election years. Mayor, public advocate, comptroller, borough president and city council elections would all take place in the same year as presidential elections if this proposal passes.