Sa w ap wè sou bilten vòt la
Senplifye egzamen montan modès pwojè lojman ak enfrastrikti minè adisyonèl yo, sa ki ap redwi tan an yon fason siyifikatif. Kenbe Egzamen Komisyon Kominotè a, kote desizyon final la se Komisyon Planifikasyon Minisipal la k ap pran l.
“Wi” senplifye egzamen pou chanjman limite itilizasyon teren yo, ki enkli pwojè lojman modès ak enfrastrikti minè.
“Non” soumèt chanjman sa yo anba yon egzamen ki pi long, ak desizyon final Konsèy Minisipal la.
Kisa pwopozisyon sa a di
Pwopozisyon sa a ap kreye yon pwosesis egzamen ki pi rapid pou sèten pwojè itilizasyon teren, tankou pwojè ki pi piti yo pou chanje fason yo itilize teren yo pou prepare vil la pou kondisyon meteyowolojik ekstrèm oswa lòt defi alavni. Pou pifò pwojè sa yo, pwosesis ki pwopoze a ta dwe retire egzamen final la nan men Konsèy Minisipal la.
Kisa pwopozisyon sa a vle di
Aktyèlman, pifò pwojè itilizasyon teren 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 yon Pwosedi Akseslere pou Egzamen Itilizasyon Teren yo (Expedited Land Use Review Procedure, ELURP) pou pwojè ki pi piti yo pou chanje fason yo itilize teren yo pou prepare vil la pou tanperati ekstrèm oswa lòt defi alavni. Pwosesis sa a t ap gen ladan yon peryòd egzamen 60 jou pou Komisyon Kominotè lokal la ak Prezidan Awondisman lokal la, apresa ap gen yon egzamen 30 jou epi desizyon final nan men Komisyon Planifikasyon Minisipal (City Planning Commission, CPC) la.
Yon vòt “wi” kreye yon pwosesis ki pi rapid pou chajman zonaj ki pi piti ak lòt aksyon itilizasyon teren yo. Li retire egzamen Konsèy Minisipal la pou pifò pwojè yo.
Yon vòt “non” kontinye pwosesis egzamen piblik 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 3
Supporters of Proposal 3 discuss two key reasons to create a new process to review modest land use changes: building more housing and preparing the city for extreme weather and climate impacts. Respondents focused on housing reference “red tape” and believe the new process would increase housing production significantly by differentiating the process to approve “modestly-sized” housing development from “large, complex, and sometimes controversial proposals” (Citizens Housing and Planning Council) to incentivize more housing development at different scales. They argue that under the current system, “only large-scale projects, which can generate more profit, are proposed” (Abundance New York), and subjecting smaller proposals to the same process “slows them, makes them more costly, and very often prevents them from happening at all” (Citizens Housing and Planning Council). Respondents focused on climate resilience cite increased flooding, heat waves, electrical grid brownouts, and the need for renewable energy projects like solar panels. Several mention the importance of not letting bureaucratic process slow down measures to prepare the city and its residents for the impacts of extreme weather and climate change. Nearly all respondents in support of the proposal feel positive developments have been stymied under ULURP (the current process), and that the city should be able to respond more quickly and nimbly to emerging needs.
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Regional Plan Association
- Abundance New York
- Citizens Budget Commission
- The Health & Housing Consortium
- Citizens Housing and Planning Council
- Dattner Architects
- Climate Changemakers Brooklyn
- Climate Changemakers
- Open New York
Number of statements: 25
Summary of Statements – Vote No on Proposal 3
Respondents who oppose Proposal 3 think it removes power from the City Council and reduces community input while using misleading and overly broad language (such as “modest”), which developers could take advantage of. Council Member Robert Holden writes, “ Modest can become a loophole.” Respondents express concern that the proposal would shift decision-making power away from everyday New Yorkers, undermining communities' say in what gets built in their neighborhoods. Manhattan Community Board 3 “is adamant about preserving the already limited ability of the community boards to provide input.” Critics warn of negative impacts like displacement, continued affordability issues, disinvestment in neighborhoods, and pushed-through zoning changes that primarily benefit developers.
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Council Member Robert Holden
- Manhattan Community Board 3
Number of statements: 5
