Sa w ap wè sou bilten vòt la
Akselere konstriksyon lojman ki abòdab fon piblik la finanse. Akselere demann ki fèt pou founi lojman ki abòdab nan distri kominotè ki ofri mwens lojman ki abòdab yo, sa ki ap redwi tan analiz la konsiderableman. Kenbe Egzamen Komisyon Kominotè a.
“Wi” pou akselere aplikasyon yo nan Komisyon Nòm ak Apèl ak oswa Komisyon Planifikasyon Minisipal la.
“Non” soumèt lojman abòdab la anba yon revizyon ki pi long ak desizyon final la nan Konsèy Minisipal la.
Kisa pwopozisyon sa a di
Pwopozisyon sa a ap kreye de nouvo pwosesis pou akselere sèten pwojè lojman abòdab. Premye pwosesis la se pou pwojè lojman abòdab fon piblik la finanse. Dezyèm pwosesis la se pou pwojè lojman abòdab ki nan 12 distri kominotè yo ak tarif devlòpman lojman abòdab ki pi ba.
Kisa pwopozisyon sa a vle di
Pifò pwojè lojman yo dwe pase atravè Pwosedi Inifòm pou Egzaminasyon Itilizasyon Teren yo (Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, ULURP), yon pwosesis egzamen ki dire sèt mwa. Pwopozisyon sa a ap kreye de nouvo pwosesis pou sèten pwojè lojman abòdab.
Premye an ap pèmèt Komisyon Nòm ak Apèl (Board of Standards and Appeals, BSA) la apwouve pwojè lojman abòdab fon piblik la finanse, apre yon egzamen 60 jou Komisyon Kominotè lokal la fè ak yon egzamen 30 jou BSA fè.
Dezyèm pwosesis la ap kreye yon egzaminasyon pi rapid pou pwojè yo nan 12 distri kominotè yo ak tarif devlòpman lojman abòdab ki pi ba. Pwosesis sa a ap pèmèt Komisyon Kominotè a ak Prezidan Awondisman lokal la fè egzamen an menm tan, apresa gen yon egzamen 30 jiska 45 jou Komisyon Planifikasyon Minisipal (City Planning Commission, CPC) la fè. Se CPC a ki ta gen apwobasyon final la olyede Konsèy Minisipal la.
Yon vòt “wi” fè de pwosesis yo akselere pwojè lojman abòdab yo.
Yon vòt “non” kontinye pwosesis egzamen sèt mwa a avèk kontribisyon Komisyon Kominotè lokal la, Prezidan Awondisman lokal la, CPC a, Konsèy Minisipal la ak Majistra a.
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
