![\"Election](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/us-ny\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/10\/20241105CityLimitsElections-2733Dim1920X1371.jpg\")
A voter completes a ballot in the Bronx during the 2024 general election. (Adi Talwar\/City Limits)<\/p>\nThe five questions this year range from what to do with small, publicly-owned properties to how the city should plan for its financial future via the rainy day fund.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
A voter completes a ballot in the Bronx during the 2024 general election. (Adi Talwar\/City Limits)<\/p>\n
Early voting is underway in New York City, which will continue through Sunday, Nov. 1, and residents will have their final opportunity to vote on Election Day Tuesday.\u00a0<\/p>\n
In addition to races for governor,<\/a> State Senate and State Assembly, the backs of New Yorkers\u2019 ballots will give them a chance to approve or reject several proposed changes to New York City\u2019s Charter.\u00a0<\/p>\n The five questions this year range from what to do with small, city-owned properties to how the city should plan for its financial future via the rainy day fund.\u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n Several bundle multiple changes into a single question. The Mamdani administration\u2014which convened a Commission on Government Efficiency (COGE) earlier this year to draft the measures\u2014is pushing<\/a> them as a way to a \u201cfaster government<\/a>\u201d and to remove bureaucratic red tape. But critics have raised concerns with some of the proposals.<\/p>\n City Limits put together this guide detailing each question, which hundreds of thousands of voters<\/a> have weighed in on already.\u00a0<\/p>\n Proposal 1: Revocable consents and public space<\/p>\n When a business wants to construct, operate, or maintain \u201ca structure on, over, or under New York City\u2019s public streets and sidewalks,\u201d it needs to have a revocable consent<\/a>, approved by the city\u2019s Department of Transportation<\/a> (DOT).<\/p>\n A revocable consent is a\u00a0permit to use public spaces, such as sidewalks or roadways, for a long list of structures<\/a>, like accessibility ramps and lifts, benches, utility poles, planters, bike racks or kiosks, the city\u2019s Commission on Government Efficiency (COGE) explained.<\/p>\n Proposal 1<\/a> asks voters if they want to include applications for outdoor dining sheds<\/a> and sidewalk cafes in the standard revocable-consent process. These currently require a separate, longer approval process with extra steps.<\/p>\n \u201cRestaurants can wait many months, sometimes losing an entire outdoor dining season and the revenue and jobs that come with it,\u201d said Andrew Rigie, executive director of the NYC Hospitality Alliance<\/a>, a not-for-profit trade association that represents bars and restaurants and supports the ballot measure.<\/p>\n According to COGE, the proposal would replace the required public hearing and newspaper advertisements for revocable consent applications with an online portal, where the public could review and comment on pending applications.<\/p>\n The Center for Independence of the Disabled in New York<\/a> (CIDNY) and Common Cause New York<\/a>, a nonprofit watchdog, criticized this element of the plan, saying it comes at the expense of \u201cpublic participation and legislative oversight.\u201d<\/p>\n But Rigie counters that the streamlined process still preserves \u201copportunities for community and elected official input,\u201d calling it \u201ca commonsense reform.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cNew York City can protect the public interest while making it easier for neighborhood restaurants to open outdoor caf\u00e9s and serve their customers,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n Under the proposal, the city could still revoke a permit if it needs to regain the public space. Community boards could still hold hearings, and DOT could decide a hearing is needed when public comments demand it.<\/p>\n \u201cIf it passes, it would cut the outdoor dining application process by about 75 percent from eight months to two months, saving small businesses time and money,\u201d COGE\u2019s Executive Director Ann Cheng said.<\/p>\n \u201cIt would also cut down the process for building accessible ramps, like ADA accessible ramps, by about two months, and similarly save time and money,\u201d Cheng added.<\/p>\n Proposal 2: Changes to city contracting\u00a0<\/p>\n Proposal 2<\/a> combines several elements. It would authorize the Procurement Policy Board<\/a> (PPB), which sets rules for city contracting and procurement, to come up with a new pre-contracting form for certain businesses and nonprofits that provide goods and services to city agencies.<\/p>\n It addresses one of the city\u2019s conundrums: that city agencies often find it very difficult to make purchases, while contractors face a complicated system<\/a> that can cause delays.<\/p>\n The ballot proposal would authorize the PPB to amend the pre-contracting questionnaire\u2014which both small and large companies seeking city contracts must complete, no matter the sum involved in the deal\u2014for efficiency. It would require the board to meet regularly (at least once every three months) to develop the new form.\u00a0<\/p>\n If this measure passes, PPB could adapt the questionnaire to better reflect the type or size of the contracts in question, COGE explained, and as in any new rule, the public would be able to comment on the proposed changes.\u00a0<\/p>\n The city estimates that streamlining the questionnaire requirements would save up to 30 days<\/a> in the contracting process, from its current average of roughly 13 months.<\/p>\n The measure would also reduce the workload for city agencies when it comes to annual reporting requirements on planned client-services contracts.\u00a0<\/p>\n Instead of having to write a preliminary report, hold a hearing, and then write a final report, as the current process requires, agencies would just issue their reports each year, giving a heads-up to the vendor community about what contracts they plan to issue, the Mayor\u2019s Office of Contract Services explained. Other provisions would allow the mayor to delegate certain approvals for noncompetitive contracts over $5 million to agencies, with the approval of the agency\u2019s commissioner.<\/p>\n Proposal 3: Street safety projects, city-owned small lots, and office leasing<\/p>\n Proposal 3<\/a> combines three different measures: street safety, city-owned property, and office leasing.<\/p>\n This proposal tries to streamline the city\u2019s process for building new street safety infrastructure,\u00a0while keeping community input and engagement requirements in place.<\/p>\n Currently, when the Department of Transportation (DOT) is planning \u201cmajor transportation projects<\/a>\u201c\u2014like bike and bus lanes that affect four consecutive blocks or 1,000 feet, whichever is less\u2014it is required to consult with four other agencies: the NYPD, Fire Department, Department of Small Business Services, and the Mayor\u2019s Office for People with Disabilities. Certain subunits within those agencies have to sign off on the plans, in very specific ways.<\/p>\n If Proposal 3 passes, DOT would still have to consult with those four agencies, but without the requirement for sub-agencies to weigh in. Instead, it would be up to each agency\u2019s leaders to decide which of their own units or subunits to consult, COGE explained.<\/p>\n The Center for Independence of the Disabled in New York<\/a> (CIDNY) said they support this ballot proposal, calling it \u201ccommon-sense efficiency reforms.\u201d<\/p>\n The measure would also allow the DOT to move forward on projects at the same time that it notifies local community boards and elected officials, instead of after, when there\u2019s a situation of immediate need, like street changes made in response to crash and safety data. Supporters say it would protect new bike and bus lane plans from being delayed or blocked by lawsuits<\/a>, saying opponents often take advantage of mistakes and technical errors in the interagency consultation process to lodge legal challenges.\u00a0<\/p>\n The city has 1,500 surplus lots, according to the Department of Citywide Administrative Services (DCAS), and City Hall says about 6 percent of them would fall under the 10,000-square-feet category that could be sold.<\/p>\n Under Proposal 3, plans for these lots would no longer undergo the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP), the city\u2019s public approval process for certain development projects, and instead go through the new Expedited Land Use Review Procedure (ELURP)<\/a>, which compresses the seven-month review timeline to 90 days.<\/p>\n The Municipal Art Society<\/a> (MAS) of New York criticized the measure, not only for sausaging \u201cthree loosely connected proposals\u201d into one ballot question, but because they say it fails to address \u201ctwo of the city\u2019s essential needs: open space and affordable housing.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cNew York City\u2019s public land is one of its most valuable\u2014and finite\u2014resources,\u201d MAS Communication Manager Viviane Eng said via email sent to City Limits. \u201cOnce sold or transferred, it can be difficult or impossible to reclaim. Decisions about its future must be guided by a comprehensive, long-term vision for the public good, not simply by short-term revenue opportunities.\u201d<\/p>\n A spokesperson for COGE, Jimmy Wyderko, said the proposal would still maintain two key steps of the process for selling city-owned land. The \u201cproposal does not change the public auction requirement nor the land use requirements on the new purchaser (i.e., if the new purchaser wants to build something beyond as-of-right, they would need to go through a ULURP),\u201d Wyderko said in an email.\u00a0<\/p>\n Marcel Negret, Regional Plan Association\u2019s director of land, said the current rules make\u00a0 these small lots less attractive to potential developers, at a time when the city is trying to facilitate as many new apartments as possible<\/a> to address the housing shortage. \u201cOne way to look at it is like putting them [these lots] in a better market position,\u201d Negret said.<\/p>\n COGE officials said the measure would reduce the administrative burden to sell small lots.<\/p>\n Another part of this ballot proposal would remove City Council and the City Planning Commission approvals when the city leases office space for government employees. Currently, the city notifies the local community board and the borough president about such leases, followed by a public hearing and a vote at the City Planning Commission, and then the City Council.\u00a0<\/p>\n Instead, the Department of Citywide Administrative Services commissioner would provide the community board, local council member, and borough president with a notice of intent to acquire the new office space ahead of time. Then the city would need to notify the Council and comptroller.<\/p>\n Proposal 4: Moving waterfront permitting and building permitting<\/p>\n Proposal 4<\/a> would create a one-stop, centralized online construction permitting hub, overseen by the Department of Buildings<\/a> (DOB), for applicants looking to do construction on an apartment or storefront, or to build affordable housing. COGE says this would give applicants an easier route to getting construction permits than the current process, which requires the involvement of dozens of different city agencies.\u00a0<\/p>\n The DOB would have until 2030 to get the hub running. If passed by voters, it would also allow additional DOB staff to approve certificates of occupancy.\u00a0<\/p>\n Another point of this proposal would transfer responsibility for waterfront construction permits from the Department of Small Business Services to the Department of Buildings, where the expertise lies, officials and advocates explained.<\/p>\n \u201cRight now, the process can be confusing,\u201d said Tyler Taba, Waterfront Alliance director of policy and government affairs. \u201cMoving that responsibility to DOB is a practical step toward reducing confusion, delays, and unnecessary costs for waterfront projects.\u201d<\/p>\n Proposal 5: Setting a goal for the city\u2019s rainy-day fund<\/p>\n Through a 2019 ballot proposal<\/a>, New Yorkers took the first steps toward creating a \u201crainy day\u201d fund to help the city fill budget gaps during economic downturns.<\/p>\n The city\u2019s existing fund, formally known as the Revenue Stabilization Fund<\/a>, has nearly $1.7 billion in it<\/a>. But there are no specific goals for how much the city should be saving with it.\u00a0<\/p>\n If Proposal 5<\/a> is approved, the city would set a savings target for the fund at 12 percent of prior-year tax revenue. But that doesn\u2019t mean the city will contribute that 12 percent all at once: the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in consultation with the comptroller and the public, would be required to develop a plan by May 2027 that would outline when the city needs to contribute and if so, how much in a given year.<\/p>\n The city will contribute every year as long as that criteria is met, until the 12 percent threshold is reached. Once it hits that goal, the city no longer has to contribute to the fund, but still could if officials choose to. \u201cThat is like the city\u2019s savings account, and so it would establish a target of 12 percent of the city\u2019s prior year tax revenue, in order to work towards long-term fiscal stability,\u201d Cheng said.<\/p>\n Good government groups like Reinvent Albany and The Citizens Budget Commission (CBC) are urging people to vote \u201cno,\u201d on Proposal 5, saying it doesn\u2019t do enough to force the city to beef up its financial reserves.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cVoting no on Proposal 5 does not oppose strengthening the Rainy Day Fund. It is a vote declaring the status quo is not good enough, and the city should do better,\u201d CBC President Andrew Rein<\/a> wrote in an Op-Ed in October<\/a>.<\/p>\n Comptroller Mark Levine\u2019s office put out a report in April<\/a> suggesting that a 16 percent reserves target would suffice to help the city weather an \u201centire below-trend period\u201d like a recession.\u00a0<\/p>\n You can read the five ballot proposals in full here<\/a>.<\/p>\n To reach the reporter behind this story, contact [email\u00a0protected]<\/a>. To reach the editor, contact [email\u00a0protected]<\/a><\/p>\n![\"outdoor](\"https:\/\/citylimits.org\/wp-content\/plugins\/trx_addons\/components\/lazy-load\/images\/placeholder.png\")
Customers enjoy outdoor seating at a cafe in Manhattan in the summer of 2024. (Maya Wierciszewski\/City Limits)<\/p>\n
\u00a0
An additional subsegment in this proposal would make permanent a state provision (expected to sunset in 2030) that allows the city to provide online public notice and collect public comments on contracts<\/a>.<\/p>\nDepartment of Transportation crews installing a bike lane on Queens Boulevard in 2022. (Michael Appleton\/Mayoral Photography Office)<\/p>\nMayor Mamdani and Deputy Mayor Bozorg in July, leading a sight-seeing tour of city-owned lots being eyed for new housing. ( Kara McCurdy. Mayoral Photography Office)<\/p>\n