Voters Guide

2025 General Election

Our Endorsements

This fall, New Yorkers will vote in the general election for New York City Mayor, Comptroller, Public Advocate, Borough Presidents, City Council, and other offices. In addition, residents will be asked to vote on six ballot proposals, one of which CU spearheaded and can dramatically increase voter turnout for local offices, and others that will put New York on the right path to addressing its housing crisis. To help New Yorkers prepare to vote, Citizens Union is publishing its positions on all six ballot questions, views on the race for New York City Mayor, and endorsements in three competitive elections for the New York City Council.

Since 1910, Citizens Union has evaluated local candidates for elected office and backed those who strongly support and can advance our agenda for reform. This year, in both the primary and general elections, our members interviewed dozens of candidates across all five boroughs. We’re proud to support individuals committed to fair and open elections and honest and accountable government.

We will announce our picks for the 2025 General Election soon, along with a writeup on each candidate. For now, click the next tab over above to read our positions on the six ballot questions.

Citizens Union announced its support for the six ballot questions that New York City voters will consider in the November general election. The measures include four City Charter amendments on land use and housing, one Charter amendment to move local elections to even years, and one statewide constitutional amendment involving the Adirondack forest preserve.

After a rigorous review process, Citizens Union encouraged voters to support all six proposals.

Proposal 1:
VOTE Yes

Question 1: Lake Placid Olympic Sports Complex Expansion

What you’ll see on your ballot

Proposal Number 1, an Amendment: Amendment to Allow Olympic Sports Complex In Essex County on State Forest Preserve Land

Allows skiing and related trail facilities on state forest preserve land. The site is 1,039 acres. Requires State to add 2,500 acres of new forest land in Adirondack Park. A yes vote authorizes new ski trails and related facilities in the Adirondack forest preserve. A no vote does not authorize this use.

Why we support this proposal

The entire Adirondack Forest Preserve is protected under the NYS constitution.  That means whenever there is any proposed change in the use of acreage for other than forest preserve purposes, the proposal must go to the voters.  This is true despite the many land uses within the Preserve that are not strictly forest.  One example are Olympic facilities.  Lake Placid, surrounded by the Preserve, has hosted two Winter Olympics and many other international competitions.

The proposal on the ballot involves one of the facilities that hosts Olympic-level events and other competitions, Mount Van Hoevenberg.  Though most of this sports complex is on public land not specifically in the Preserve, some of the facilities and utilities are now in Preserve land, and there is a proposal to use a further couple of hundred acres to upgrade the facilities so they can remain as hosts of competitions.  The proposed amendment would remove the portion of the Preserve now used for the complex from the Preserve, along with other acreage needed for facilities and infrastructure, for a total of 323 acres.  In exchange, the amendment requires that the state purchase at least 2500 acres of land to add to the preserve, with the Legislature to determine that such lands are equal to or greater in value than the land released from the Preserve.

Both the Adirondack Council and Protect the Adirondacks recommend a Yes vote, as does Citizens Union. The change would recognize what has already occurred, and allow the area to maintain its position as one of the world’s major competitive winter sports facilities while providing an economic boost to an area in need of such activity.  It should also result in a net gain of over 2000 acres to the Preserve without damaging the character of the Preserve.

Proposal 2:
VOTE Yes

Question 2: Fast Tracking Affordable Housing

What you’ll see on your ballot

Proposal Number 2, a Question: Proposed Charter Amendment: Fast Track Affordable Housing to Build More Affordable Housing Across the City

Fast track publicly financed affordable housing. Fast track applications delivering affordable housing in the community districts that produce the least affordable housing, significantly reducing review time. Maintain Community Board review. “Yes” fast tracks applications at the Board of Standards and Appeals or City Planning Commission. “No” leaves affordable housing subject to longer review and final decision at City Council.

Why we support this proposal

Nearly all zoning changes currently go through the lengthy Uniform Land Use Review Process (ULURP), which grants final approval authority to the City Council.  This amendment would create two new zoning review processes for certain affordable housing projects, expediting approval timelines and removing the Council’s final say.

First, the proposal would allow publicly financed affordable housing developers to seek zoning approvals from the Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) instead of the City Planning Commission and City Council, as is currently done under ULURP.

These projects would undergo Community Board review and a BSA public hearing, and could only be approved if consistent with neighborhood character and otherwise unbuildable under current zoning. While Citizens Union has some concerns about expanding the BSA’s policymaking role in substantive land-use decisions, we believe on balance this expedited option should be supported, as it is appropriately targeted to projects for low-income residents, which are urgently needed.

Separately, projects that participate in the City’s Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) program and are in the community districts that produce the least affordable housing would also be fast-tracked. Community board and borough president reviews would occur simultaneously, the City Planning Commission review would be limited to 30 days, and the City Council would no longer have final approval. This change could spur much-needed affordable housing development in areas where it is currently lacking and greatly needed. Given that MIH would now be codified in the Charter as part of this review process, the program’s effectiveness should be closely monitored.

Proposal 3:
VOTE Yes

Question 3: Expedited Land Use Procedure

What you’ll see on your ballot

Proposal Number 3, a Question: Proposed Charter Amendment: Simplify Review of Modest Housing and Infrastructure Projects

Simplify review of modest amounts of additional housing and minor infrastructure projects, significantly reducing review time. Maintain Community Board review, with final decision by the City Planning Commission. “Yes” simplifies review for limited land-use changes, including modest housing and minor infrastructure projects. “No” leaves these changes subject to longer review, with final decision by City Council.

Why we support this proposal

This amendment would create an Expedited Land Use Review Procedure (ELURP) for certain land use changes. Instead of the regular ULURP timeline, reviews by community boards and borough presidents would occur simultaneously, the City Planning Commission review would be limited to 30 days, and its decision would be final – removing the City Council from the process.

The expedited process would apply to certain categories of housing, resiliency, and infrastructure projects, including increases in residential capacity up to 30%.

If the faster tracking procedures in Questions 2 and 3 incentivize more construction, City Planning will be under added pressure to handle an increased number of applications and will face tighter deadlines to complete its reviews. It is essential that expedited process not come at the expense of substantive deliberation by planning commissioners, who would need to be supported by an adequately staffed department.

Proposal 4:
VOTE Yes

Question 4: Affordable Housing Appeals Board

What you’ll see on your ballot

Proposal Number 4, a Question: Proposed Charter Amendment: Establish an Affordable Housing Appeals Board with Council, Borough, and Citywide Representation

Establish an Affordable Housing Appeals Board with the Council Speaker, local Borough President, and Mayor to review Council actions that reject or change applications creating affordable housing. “Yes” creates the three-member Affordable Housing Appeals Board to reflect Council, borough, and citywide perspectives. “No” leaves affordable housing subject to the Mayor’s veto and final decision by City Council.

Why we support this proposal

One impediment to New York City’s ability to achieve citywide housing objectives has been the City Council’s practice of “member deference.” In approving or disapproving zoning proposals, the Council has generally deferred to the one or two member(s) representing these sites, whose positions are often (and somewhat understandably) strongly focused on the particular interests of their specific community rather than on citywide needs. Citizens Union supports this proposal to ensure that a single council member can’t derail a housing project crucial for the future of the city, restoring a better balance between the interests of individual communities and those of the city as a whole.

This amendment would create a three-member Affordable Housing Appeals Board -comprised of the Mayor, the Council Speaker, and the relevant Borough President – that could override Council decisions that rejected or changed projects that directly facilitate the development of affordable housing. This would replace the rarely used mayoral veto and Council override process.

Citizens Union recognizes risks in this approach. The borough president would often serve as the swing vote, elevating the office’s power substantially. While borough presidents represent larger constituencies than individual Council members and have a history of involvement in land use decisions, the old Board of Estimate shows how the role can be vulnerable to misuse. Increased borough president powers would likely draw heavy special interest lobbying and campaign spending. Ethics, transparency, and pay-to-play safeguards should accompany this change to protect the integrity of the new board. We note that the Council’s member deference system, by effectively concentrating power in a single representative with veto power over developments, has also opened the door to ethical misconduct in the past.

We also recognize that the borough president might often reflect the community wishes, but we have seen instances where borough presidents have shown a broader perspective than local Council members in considering projects, and we believe that, for the focused category of affordable housing, this proposal provides an appropriate balance that allows for broader perspectives to shape policymaking.

Proposal 5:
VOTE Yes

Question 5: City Map Modernization

What you’ll see on your ballot

Proposal Number 5, a Question: Proposed Charter Amendment: Create a Digital City Map to Modernize City Operations

Consolidate borough map office and address assignment functions, and create one digital City Map at Department of City Planning. Today, the City Map consists of paper maps across five offices. “Yes” creates a consolidated, digital City Map. “No” leaves in place five separate map and address assignment functions, administered by Borough President Offices.

Why we support this proposal

The City Map defines streets, grades, parkland, and public places. Today, it exists as over 8,000 individual paper maps spread across five borough offices. This outdated system delays many housing and infrastructure projects that require map confirmation or alterations. The proposal would centralize administration of the City Map at the Department of City Planning, and require it to be digitized within a number of years. Citizens Union supports this modernization as a sensible improvement to a basic but essential city service.

Proposal 6:
VOTE Yes

Question 6: Even Year City Elections

What you’ll see on your ballot

Proposal Number 6, a Question: Proposed Charter Amendment: Move Local Elections to Presidential Election Years to Increase Voter Participation

Move the City’s primary and general election dates so that City elections are held in the same year as Federal Presidential elections, when permitted by state law. “Yes” moves City elections to the same year as Federal Presidential elections, when permitted by state law.  “No” leaves laws unchanged.

Why we support this proposal

Despite significant efforts to improve our elections in recent years, voter participation in New York City’s municipal elections has continued to decline, with the most recent election suffering from record-low turnout of just 23%. Such low participation poses a serious challenge to the long-term democratic legitimacy of our local government. This problem is compounded by the uneven nature of turnout: our local electorate is substantially older, whiter, and wealthier than the city’s overall voting-age population.

A key reason for this low participation is that New York City holds its elections off-cycle. During odd-year elections, less information is available, resources for voter engagement are limited, and voter fatigue is higher – leading most voters to stay home. In contrast, turnout in even-year presidential elections has remained steady for decades at around 60%. For every New Yorker who votes for mayor, nearly three vote for president. While the off-cycle election calendar may have had noble intentions when introduced over 130 years ago, today it serves primarily to depress voter participation.

Citizens Union is a driving force in the efforts to align the timing of municipal elections with high-profile, high-turnout federal or statewide elections, and we strongly support this proposal by the Charter Revision Commission. Moving local elections to coincide with presidential elections would dramatically increase voter turnout for offices from Mayor to City Council. It would also help close participation gaps, particularly among young voters and voters of color, drawing an electorate that is more representative of our city. Additionally, this change would save the City tens of millions of dollars annually, according to the Independent Budget Office. New York City should join the many states and cities—including Los Angeles, Baltimore, Phoenix, Austin, El Paso, and Las Vegas—that have successfully moved their local elections to even years.

To implement this change, New York State must take action. The state has already begun moving in this direction by passing a law to shift county and town elections to even years and proposing a constitutional amendment to do the same for cities. This Charter amendment positions New York City to make the transition as soon as the State allows so and signals to Albany lawmakers that New Yorkers want to strengthen their democracy

Citizens Union urges a YES vote on Proposal #6.