On Election Day, New Yorkers will be voting on five proposals that aren’t ready for the ballot. These proposals reduce City Council oversight of our budget, seek to override existing local law, provide confusing directives regarding issues that should be addressed through the legislative process or mayoral action, and create the potential for sweetheart giveaways to developers.
Ballot question #5 asks New Yorkers to approve establishing a roughly $10 billion rainy day reserve fund. Except that, it also effectively asks New Yorkers to exclude the Council from setting policies governing the fund.
Some parts of the ballot questions are misleading, such as the proposal to speed up disposition of city-owned land in ballot question #3. While there are valid reasons why the city cannot develop all of its lots, this is clearly nothing but a giveaway to landlords and developers.
Ballot question #4 asks voters whether a centralized construction permits hub should be created. This should be achieved through an executive order or a memorandum of understanding among the agencies involved.
Ballot question #3 asks whether the review of street safety projects should be simplified. It would do so in part by allowing the Department of Transportation Commissioner to confer only with agency heads, rather than the agency subunits, when consulting on projects. This change directly conflicts with existing local law in §19-101.2. J, which requires the DOT Commissioner to consult with firehouses and with FDNY executives.
Ballot question #2 asks voters to require the Procurement Policy Board to meet quarterly. It’s unclear why the Mayor and the Comptroller cannot achieve this through executive direction. They control the board.
Ballot question #1 eliminates public hearings and ends the Council’s authority to reject licensing for street cafes. It also overrides reforms enacted by the Council in 2023 to street cafe licensing, which are currently law in §19-160 – 19-160.7.
The proposed language for the Charter amendments is not always consistent with the ballot questions and abstracts. In other words, New Yorkers might be voting on amendments that aren’t properly explained on the ballot.
A striking example of this incongruence is found in ballot question #4. If approved by voters and the proposed language for the Charter amendment is not revised, the Department of Buildings Commissioner will be authorized to hire an unlimited number of Deputy Commissioners and Borough Deputy Commissioners.
The City Charter is our municipal constitution. It defines the organization, powers, purposes, and processes of our municipal government. When we revise it, we should take the process seriously. In 1989, the City Charter was extensively revised after a two-year process.
This year’s most recent two-month effort is more political football than good governance. The Commission on Government Efficiency (COGE) was hastily conceived to neuter another Charter Revision Commission appointed in late 2025. Much of COGE’s purpose – to identify waste and reduce government spending – was more suited to a mayoral task force.
A Charter Revision Commission is supposed to make governance better for the long term. And that takes more time and must allow for more voices than COGE could have tolerated. Vote no on all five proposals.
Cheryl Pahaham is chair of Inwood Legal Action, which advocates on land use and housing issues affecting Northern Manhattan.
