Mamdani's Five Ballot Questions Pass, But Arts Groups Remain Skeptical
Concerns over landmark sites and lack of public input have dampened trust in Proposal 3, in particular.
Two arts organizations remain concerned that one of New York City's approved ballot measures could weaken review processes over public land usage, leaving areas such as landmark sites vulnerable to hasty sales and without sufficient community input.
All five ballot measures passed with strong support in yesterday's midterms, though the Municipal Art Society (MAS) of New York and the New York Landmarks Conservancy objected to parts of Proposal 3, which expedites the review of eligible projects in three areas: street safety construction, the sale or leasing of city-owned property, and the acquisition of office space for city employees.
Both groups, along with organizations such as the League of Women's Voters, have expressed varying levels of agreement with its three bundled target areas and called for them to be considered separately for independent review.
The measure is one of five put forth by the Commission on Government Efficiency, a 15-member panel assembled by Mayor Zohran Mamdani. All items aim to streamline city operations through revising the City Charter, such as reducing city contractor paperwork and setting aside a rainy-day fund in case of emergency.
"New York has had a strong tradition of public participation and robust debate, and over time, that's been chipped away," Andrea Goldwyn, the director of public policy at New York Landmarks Conservancy, told Hyperallergic.
Goldwyn's primary concern is with the second prong of Proposal 3, which reduces public review when the city sells or transfers unused development rights at landmark sites. Originally, most sales or leases of city-owned property underwent a seven-month review process called the Uniform Land Use Review Process (ULURP) and required City Council's final approval.
Proposal 3 allows projects not believed to have a sizeable impact on the surrounding environment to bypass final City Council approval and go through a 90-day fast lane called the Expedited Land Use Review Procedure (ELURP). Projects approved for ELURP can be concurrently reviewed by community boards and borough presidents, and city-owned landmarked property can be sold without City Council approval. Undevelopable land can additionally be sold to owners of adjacent properties without a public auction.
The proposal also excuses the Department of Transportation (DOT) from notifying elected officials and community boards before starting major projects deemed necessary for safety, and can instead notify those stakeholders when construction commences. Consultations with the Police Department, Fire Department, the Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities, and the Department of Small Business Services remain mandatory.
"We've gotten calls from people who see new projects going up in their neighborhoods that they didn't know about," Goldwyn continued. "I think we're going to be seeing more of that because people aren't going to have the kind of notification they're used to having."
The final part of the proposal removes hearing requirements and approvals from the City Council and the City Planning Commission about acquiring or leasing office space for city employees, instead leaving it solely to Yume Kitasei, the commissioner for the Department of Citywide Administrative Services. Local community boards and all five borough presidents must still be notified of each proposal.
In an earlier statement, MAS stated that trimming down these review processes "could make it easier to sell or transfer valuable public land and development rights without sufficient safeguards to ensure lasting public benefits."
MAS called for a stronger framework that determines how public lands can be used. Such recommendations include prioritizing land for parks, affordable housing, and other projects that serve the public, rather than selling or leasing land to parties with unclear interests.
"Streamlining government processes should not come at the expense of public accountability or lasting community benefits," the statement adds.
