Lo que verá en la papeleta
Agilizar la construcción de viviendas asequibles financiadas con fondos públicos. Agilizar las solicitudes para viviendas asequibles en los distritos comunitarios que generan menos viviendas asequibles, lo que reduce significativamente el tiempo de revisión. Mantener la revisión de la Junta Comunitaria.
El "sí" agiliza las solicitudes en la Junta de Normas y Apelaciones o la Comisión de Planificación Urbana.
El "no" deja la vivienda asequible sujeta a una revisión más prolongada y a la decisión final del Concejo Municipal.
Lo que dice esta propuesta
Esta propuesta crearía dos nuevos procesos para acelerar ciertos proyectos de vivienda asequible. El primer proceso es para proyectos de vivienda asequible financiados con fondos públicos. El segundo proceso es para proyectos de vivienda asequible en los 12 distritos comunitarios con las tasas más bajas de desarrollo de vivienda asequible.
Lo que significa esta propuesta
La mayoría de los proyectos de vivienda deben pasar por el Procedimiento Uniforme de Revisión del Uso del Suelo (Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, ULURP), un proceso de revisión de siete meses. Esta propuesta establecería dos nuevos procesos para determinados proyectos de vivienda asequible.
El primer proceso permitiría a la Junta de Normas y Apelaciones (Board of Standards and Appeals, BSA) aprobar proyectos de vivienda asequible financiados con fondos públicos, tras un período de revisión de 60 días por parte de la Junta Comunitaria local y otro de 30 días por parte de la BSA.
El segundo proceso agilizaría la revisión de los proyectos en los 12 distritos comunitarios con las tasas más bajas de vivienda asequible. Este proceso permitiría que la Junta Comunitaria y el presidente del condado realizaran una revisión al mismo tiempo, seguida de una revisión de entre 30 y 45 días por parte de la Comisión de Planificación Urbana (City Planning Commission, CPC). La CPC tendría la aprobación final en lugar del Concejo Municipal.
Votar "sí" crea dos procesos para agilizar los proyectos de vivienda asequible.
Votar "no" mantiene el proceso de revisión de siete meses con la participación de la Junta Comunitaria local, el presidente del condado local, la CPC, el Concejo Municipal y el alcalde.
Summary of Statements – Vote Yes on Proposal 2
Those who support Proposal 2 see it as a solution to New York City’s housing shortage and affordability crisis. Multiple respondents referred to the proposal as a set of “common-sense reforms” and argued there should be a distinct process to approve and build modest housing developments as opposed to skyscrapers and large developments. Supporters believe the measure would help accelerate the construction of affordable housing, reduce bureaucratic or “politicized” barriers, and expand access to homes for low- and moderate-income residents. Many discuss rising rents and the limited supply of affordable units, emphasizing that without reforms, working and middle-class New Yorkers will continue to struggle to remain in their communities. Several argue the proposal would compel all neighborhoods to build their fair share of affordable housing. New York Housing Conference points out that according to their research, “Over the past decade, the top 10 producing City Council districts added nearly 540 affordable apartments per year on average, while the bottom 10 districts added just 11.” Regarding concerns that the City Council would not be included in the new approval processes, Citizens Budget Commission writes, “With its members appointed by the Mayor, Borough Presidents, and Public Advocate, the City Planning Commission can readily balance the whole city’s housing needs with various neighborhoods’ concerns. Importantly, Community Board and Borough President reviews continue to provide neighborhoods with a critical voice.”
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Habitat for Humanity New York City and Westchester County
- Association for Neighborhood & Housing Development (ANHD)
- Regional Plan Association
- Abundance New York
- New York Housing Conference
- Citizens Budget Commission
Number of statements: 8
Summary of Statements – Vote No on Proposal 2
Those who submitted statements in opposition to Proposal 2 believe it would weaken public oversight in housing decisions by taking the City Council out of the process and reducing opportunities for community input by making the Borough President and Community Board review proposals happen at the same time. Manhattan Community Board 3 writes, “The role of the community board is to provide a place for the community to have a voice in planning. The Borough President should be hearing input from the community through the community board before taking action.” Respondents also argue the proposed method to fast-track development would risk prioritizing real estate profit over genuine affordability, with several pointing out the proposal is favorable to developers. They call for clearer policies to ensure truly affordable housing and solutions that center the needs of people who require affordable housing over those of the real estate industry, such as by minimizing market-rate or luxury housing and promoting holistic community investment.
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Council Member Robert Holden
- Manhattan Community Board 3
Number of statements: 9
