When voters head to the polls – early voting started October 24 and Election Day is November 3 – they won’t only be choosing candidates for office. New York City voters have the chance to weigh in on five proposals to change the City Charter with a yes-or-no vote.
Because proposal language can sometimes be confusing, here’s what awaits you on the back of your ballot – as well as how I’ll be voting on each, and why. There are pros and cons to each proposal, and I encourage each voter to make their own decisions, but want to make sure you know how I, as a citywide official, am thinking about these changes to how our city is governed.
Proposal 1: Simplifying Approvals for Use of Public Space
Approving this proposal would remove requirements for business owners seeking to use sidewalks and street corner space for structures like ramps, benches, bus shelters, electrical poles, and street cafes. It would make public hearings prior to approval optional, eliminate the requirement to buy advertisements about the proposals, and the City Council would no longer have the ability to veto sidewalk cafe approvals.
Public review and community input are important – I served both on a Community Board and in the City Council, and know that their voices should be heard in community design decisions. At the same time, as a former small business owner, I know that red tape and the cost burdens that come with them often delay or prevent helpful infrastructure. I’ll be voting in favor of the proposal to lessen the red tape that inhibits our small businesses, with an understanding that we must maintain strong community engagement.
Proposal 2: Streamlining the City’s Contracting Processes
City contracting and procurement is an immense operation by design – and it's important to have rules that prioritize fairness and equity, along with checks for efficiency and accountability when spending New York taxpayers' money. At the same time, procurement processes should not be so convoluted and lengthy that it harms vendors, whether they be small businesses or non-profit organizations. This only weakens the ability of city entities to meet public needs.
This proposal allows contract questionnaires to be customized to the need, gives the Mayor contract approvals in additional lower-value situations, codifies public comment processes rather than mandating live hearings, and requires regular meetings of the Procurement Policy Board. I’ll be voting yes on expediting and improving procurement procedures.
Proposal 3: Speeding Up Street Safety Projects, Fast-Tracking the Sale of City Property, and Expediting Leasing of Offices for City Use
This proposal aims to accelerate timelines in three distinct processes – construction of street safety infrastructure, sale or lease of unused city property, and the acquisition of office space for city employees. While the principle of each goal is the same, the mechanisms are very different.
For street safety, this proposal would allow the Department of Transportation discretion to begin work on certain projects where immediate action is deemed necessary for public safety – based on data – prior to notifying Community Boards and local elected officials, as is currently required ahead of work. It also removes technical errors as causes to cease work on a project.
Under this proposal, the City would be able to bypass a seven-month land use process known as ULURP in order to sell or lease relatively small lots or grant development rights on City landmark sites. Instead, a shorter process could be used that makes Community Board and Borough President reviews simultaneous, and grants final authority to the City Planning Commission rather than the City Council. The proposal also codifies a program to more easily sell unused land to adjacent property owners, and removes public hearing requirements when two years pass following approval of a sale.
Lastly, this proposal removes hearing and approval requirements from the process of acquiring office space for city employees, and limits notification to the relevant Community Board, Council Member, and Borough President ahead of acquisition. There would no longer be a Council or City Planning commission vote on these uses.
This is complicated. In my view, each of these proposals should have been considered separately, as they cover very different areas of city administration and agencies. I also have concerns about reducing the opportunity for community leaders to weigh in on street safety and land use projects. However, at their core, these initiatives will mean we can take more essential actions, more quickly, and I will vote in favor.
Proposal 4: Simplify and Consolidate Building Permitting
This proposal aims to simplify permitting processes by creating a centralized hub, placing approvals under the Department of Buildings and authorizing more officials to grant approval of construction permits. Currently, waterfront proposals go through the Department of Small Business Services for approval – this proposal shifts them to the Department of Buildings as well.
I believe this is a common-sense way to streamline bureaucracy and reduce confusion around proposals while retaining similarly stringent requirements within those permits, and I will support it.
Proposal 5: Strengthen and Safeguard the ‘Rainy Day Fund’
Since 2019 the city has had a “Rainy Day Fund” in place to reserve funds for use in emergencies or economic crises. While each budget has aimed to add to that fund, there is no set target or requirement for levels to increase or maintain.
Under this proposal, the city would have a goal for the minimum balance in the Rainy Day Fund at 12% of the previous year's tax revenue, and require a plan for how to refill the fund when it is below target. The normal budget process would still be used to propose and approve these allocations each year. In addition, the proposal adds a baseline maximum for withdrawals from the fund to 50% barring a certified “compelling fiscal reason” to withdraw further.
My view is that the targets for this Rainy Day investment are too low and the withdrawal limitations too high, but I do feel we should put them in place. At the same time, we cannot allow action this year to prevent further adjustments and improvements, in Charter or in law, in the years to come.
Flip Ballots, Change the City
Ballot proposals don’t get the same attention that candidates do – a question can’t give interviews or make social media videos or face a scandal – but their impact is often as far reaching and even longer lasting than the representatives we elect.
This year, the process for developing the proposals was especially and concerningly expedited, which means fewer people may have made their voice heard in their creation. Given where we stand in the process now, though, casting an informed vote is the best way to weigh in. I encourage New Yorkers to research beyond this blog post, and no matter how or when you vote, be sure to flip your ballot!
Don't miss the latest from the Office of the Public Advocate. Subscribe to the Advocate Bulletin newsletter.
Image: Hands Off Our Vote Rally, October 2026, Caroll Andrewsk for the Office the Public Advocate