Sa w ap wè sou bilten vòt la
Etabli yon Komisyon Apèl pou Lojman Abòdab ansanm ak Prezidan Konsèy la, Prezidan Awondisman lokal la epi Majistra a pou egzamnie aksyon Konsèy la ki rejte oswa chanje aplikasyon ki pou kreye lojman abòdab yo.
“Wi” kreye Komisyon Apèl pou Lojman Abòdab ki gen twa manm ladan l pou reflete vizyon Konsèy Minisipal la, Awondisman an ak Tout Vil la annantye.
“Non” soumèt lojman abòdab la a veto Majistra a ak desizyon final Konsèy Minisipal la.
Kisa pwopozisyon sa a di
Pwopozisyon sa a ta dwe chanje pwosesis egzamen itilizasyon teren aktyèl la lè Konsèy Minisipal la rejte oswa chanje yon pwojè lojman abòdab. Pwopozisyon sa a ta dwe kreye yon Komisyon Apèl pou Lojman Abòdab (Affordable Housing Appeals Board), ki gen ladann Prezidan Awondisman lokal la, Prezidan Konsèy Minisipal la epi Majistra a. Pwopozisyon an ta dwe pèmèt Komisyon Apèl la ranvèse desizyon Konsèy Minisipal la nan yon vòt de kont youn.
Kisa pwopozisyon sa a vle di
Aktyèlman, pifò pwojè lojman abòdab yo dwe pase atravè Pwosedi Inifòm pou Egzaminasyon Itilizasyon Teren yo (Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, ULURP), yon pwosesis egzamen ki dire sèt mwa ki fini ak yon vòt final Konsèy Minisipal la. Majistra a gen pouvwa pou li mete veto sou desizyon sa a, epi Konsèy Minisipal la ka ranvèse veto a.
Pwopozisyon sa a ta dwe aplike ak pwojè lojman abòdab Konsèy Minisipal la rejte oswa chanje yo. Pwopozisyon sa a ta dwe kreye yon Komisyon Apèl pou Lojman Abòdab ki ta dwe gen pouvwa pou ranvèse desizyon Konsèy Minisipal la. Komisyon Apèl la ta dwe gen ladan l Prezidan Awondisman lokal la, Prezidan Konsèy Minisipal la epi Majistra a. Yo ta dwe adopte pwojè yo si de nan twa manm yo bay apwobasyon yo.
Yon vòt “wi” kreye Komisyon Apèl pou Lojman Abòdab ki ta dwe kapab ranvèse desizyon Konsèy Minisipal la sou pwojè lojman abòdab yo ak yon vòt de kont youn. Komisyon Apèl la ta dwe gen ladan Prezidan Awondisman lokal la, Prezidan Konsèy Minisipal la epi Majistra a.
Yon vòt “non” kenbe pwosesis egzamen pou pwojè lojman abòdab yo, ki gen ladan l yon desizyon final, nan men Konsèy Minisipal la.
Summary of Statements – Vote Yes on Proposal 4
Supporters argue Proposal 4 represents a step to build more affordable housing across the city. They criticize the current City Council practice of “member deference,” in which the Council member who represents the district in which a given housing development is being proposed can effectively veto it. They argue that member deference prevents affordable housing from being built and contributes to inequity. The Anti-Discrimination Center writes that member deference is “is a process without accountability, one shared by some of the most segregated major cities in the U.S., and one which helps explain why we produce so much less housing per 1,000 residents than some other parts of the metro area.” Abundance New York says with a vacancy rate for apartments at 1.4%, landlords have outsized power to jack up rents, and this is because “it is far easier for the city to say ‘no’ to new affordable housing than to say 'yes.’” Altogether, respondents reject the current system in which council members can block housing projects even in the face of widespread support and clear benefits to the city, and they embrace the proposal to balance neighborhood and citywide priorities by shifting decision-making to the Council Speaker, Mayor, and local Borough President.
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Regional Plan Association
- Abundance New York
- Citizens Budget Commission
- Anti-Discrimination Center
- Citizens Housing and Planning Council
- Dattner Architects
- Climate Changemakers
- Open New York
Number of statements: 14
Summary of Statements – Vote No on Proposal 4
Those who submitted statements in opposition to Proposal 4 warn it would strip community members of their power to influence development decisions in their neighborhoods by shifting toward centralized power held by a few city leaders. They warn the proposal will not actually lead to housing that addresses residents’ needs, with concerns about catering to developers’ interests, government corruption, gentrification and displacement. Respondents believe council members (and community boards) should be able to represent the interests of the neighborhoods they represent, and that the people deserve a seat at the table for decision-making to ensure transparency, trust, and accountability. Council Member Robert Holden says, “New York needs housing built with trust, transparency, and strong conflict of interest rules, not another venue to rubber stamp bad projects.”
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Council Member Robert Holden
- Manhattan Community Board 3
Number of statements: 8
