New York City voters face four critical ballot proposals in the 2025 election that could reshape how affordable housing gets built in the five boroughs. At a time when the city faces an acute housing shortage and skyrocketing rents, these measures aim to streamline development processes that have frequently stalled projects—even those with substantial affordable housing components. If you agree that we need more Affordable Housing, and more housing that is affordable for the majority of New Yorkers, vote Yes on proposals 2, 3, 4 and 5.
962 Pacific Street, Crown Heights - June 2022. This lot remains vacant in late 2025 despite approved plans for 148 units including 38 affordable apartments.
The Four Proposals
Proposal 2: Fast-Tracking Affordable Housing
This proposal would create an expedited approval process for projects that meet specific affordability thresholds. Rather than navigating the often-lengthy Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP)—NYC’s multi-month approval process—qualifying developments could move forward more quickly, reducing the time and cost associated with bringing affordable units to market.
Proposal 3: Simplifying Review of Modest Projects
Proposal 3 targets smaller-scale developments that currently get caught in the same bureaucratic processes as major projects. By establishing a simplified review pathway for modest projects, the city could encourage more contextual, neighborhood-scale development that adds housing incrementally rather than only through massive towers.
Proposal 4: Establishing an Affordable Housing Appeals Board
Perhaps the most significant structural change, this proposal would create a dedicated appeals board with the authority to override local objections to affordable housing projects. The board would serve as a backstop when community opposition—regardless of merit—threatens to kill housing that the city desperately needs. The board would consist of the Mayor, Borough President, and Council Speaker.
Proposal 5: Creating a Digital City Map
While less dramatic than the other proposals, this measure would modernize the city’s zoning and land use data by creating a comprehensive digital mapping system. Better information accessibility could reduce confusion, speed up the review process, and make it easier for smaller developers to navigate city regulations.
When Local Opposition Blocks Affordable Housing
These proposals emerge from years of frustration as city officials have watched affordable housing projects collapse under the weight of local opposition—even when that opposition comes from progressive elected officials in neighborhoods crying out for affordability.
Harlem’s Lost Opportunity
In one of the most striking examples, then-Council Member Kristin Richardson Jordan blocked a 1,000-unit development in Harlem that would have been 50% affordable in 2022. The project would have brought 500 affordable apartments to a neighborhood, and was supposed to house a civil rights museum. As of 2025, Jordan is no longer representing the district and a new plan from the same developer with less than 50% affordable units has just been approved by the Council.
Brooklyn’s Stalled Projects
In Crown Heights, Council Member Crystal Hudson opposed the development at 962 Pacific Street, a commercial lot used for truck parking. The plan was to build 148 units, 38 of them affordable. The project was in the last stages of a multiyear approval process when Hudson was newly elected in early 2024, and Hudson blocked it to assert control over development in her district and come up with a grand plan for rezoning the area. As of late 2025 it remains an empty lot, while adjacent buildings have been completed on either side of the lot with certificates of occupancy issued this year. Meanwhile, in Sunset Park, former Council Member Carlos Menchaca helped kill the Industry City rezoning plan, which would have developed 6,000,000 SF, an estimated $100 million in tax revenue annually, and created up to 20,000 jobs and included commitments to affordable housing and local hiring. After it was blocked in 2019, the plan was withdrawn in 2020. Menchaca left office in 2021.
The Elizabeth Street Garden Battle
In Nolita, a prolonged campaign to preserve the Elizabeth Street Garden has blocked development of a site that could accommodate affordable senior housing. The garden, while cherished by local residents, sits on city-owned land in one of Manhattan’s most expensive neighborhoods—where affordable housing is virtually nonexistent. The developer promised to include a public plaza to help compensate for the lost garden.
These cases illustrate a troubling pattern: well-organized opposition in affluent or gentrifying neighborhoods repeatedly blocks housing development, even when projects include substantial affordability components. The result is fewer homes built overall and less affordable housing than the city desperately needs. In 2025, Mayor Adams agreed to a compromise that would save the garden and develop housing on other sites instead. However, he is not up for re-election and the next mayor will have a say in the ultimate outcome.
Why Voters Should Support These Proposals
1. The Housing Crisis Demands Action
New York City’s vacancy rate hovers near historic lows while rents continue to climb. The city needs to build more housing, period—and especially more affordable housing, but also housing across the board. By one measure the city’s total housing units have only increased by 9% since 2010, about 0.6% per year despite all of the perceived development around us. Every time a building is blocked or delayed, we likely fall further behind in meeting demand for housing.
2. Process Reform Isn’t Anti-Community
Streamlining approvals doesn’t mean eliminating community input. It means preventing well-resourced opposition groups from exploiting procedural delays to kill projects that serve the broader public interest. The appeals board, in particular, would ensure that citywide housing needs aren’t always subordinated to hyperlocal concerns.
3. Current Procedures Enable Bad-Faith Opposition
The existing system allows opponents to delay projects for years, driving up costs and sometimes forcing developers to abandon plans entirely. Some opposition is legitimate, but the current process doesn’t distinguish between good-faith concerns and NIMBYism dressed up in progressive language.
4. Affordability Requirements Provide Protections
The fast-track provisions apply only to projects meeting specific affordability thresholds. This ensures that streamlining benefits developments that actually serve housing needs rather than luxury construction.
5. Small Developers Get a Fairer Shot
The simplified review process for modest projects would particularly benefit smaller developers who lack the resources to navigate lengthy approval processes. This could diversify the development landscape beyond major firms and enable more community-scale building.
6. Digital Infrastructure Reduces Barriers
A comprehensive digital mapping system would demystify zoning regulations and make information accessible to everyone—not just those who can afford expensive land use attorneys. Transparency benefits all stakeholders.
7. The Status Quo Isn’t Working
Decades of increasing process complexity haven’t produced more affordable housing or better development outcomes. Instead, they’ve created a system where building anything takes years and costs far more than in comparable cities. These proposals offer a different approach.
The Path Forward
New York City cannot address its housing crisis without building significantly more homes. These four ballot proposals won’t solve every problem with the city’s development process, but they represent meaningful reforms that could accelerate affordable housing production while maintaining important protections.
The cases of blocked developments in Harlem, Crown Heights, Sunset Park, and Nolita demonstrate what’s at stake. When even projects with substantial affordability components face insurmountable local opposition, the result is less housing for everyone—and the most harm falls on those who need affordable options most urgently.
Voters who care about affordable housing and want to see the city build its way toward more accessible rents should carefully consider supporting Proposals 2, 3, 4, and 5. The alternative is more of the same: too little housing, and it’s too expensive even on a relatively high income.
