Sa w ap wè sou bilten vòt la
Konsolide kat jeyografik awondisman yo epi adrese asiyasyon fonksyon yo, epi kreye yon Kat Jeyografik Minisipal nimerik nan Depatman Planifikasyon Minisipa la. Jodi a, Kat Jeyografik Minisipal la gen ladan l kat jeyografik an papye ki repati nan senk biwo.
“Wi” kreye yon Kat Jeyografik Minisipal nimerik byen konsolide.
“Non” kite an plas senk kat jeyografik separe epi adrese asiyasyon fonksyon yo, Biwo Prezidan Awondisman yo ap jere.
Kisa pwopozisyon sa a di
Pwopozisyon sa a ta dwe rann Depatman Planifikasyon Minisipal (Department of City Planning, DCP) la responsab pou li kreye, konsève epi nimerize yon sèl Kat Jeyografik Minisipal.
Kisa pwopozisyon sa a vle di
Kat Jeyografik Minisipal la defini non ri yo, lajè yo ak trasaj yo. Aktyèlman, se senk Biwo Topografik k ap jere Kat Jeyografik Minisipal la, nan chak biwo Prezidan Awondisman yo. Kat Jewografik Minisipal la gen ladan l 8,000 kat jewografik an papye. Pwopozisyon sa a ta dwe egzije Depatman Planifikasyon Minisipal la (Department of City Planning, DCP) pou konsolide kat jeyografik an papye yo ki konsève separeman nan yon sèl Kat Jeyografik Minisipal santralize e nimerize.
Yon vòt “wi” kreye yon Kat Jeyografik Minisipal nimerik santralize Depatman Planifikasyon Minisipal la konsève.
Yon vòt “non” kite kat jeyografik papye chak awondisman yo separe epi sou kontwòl biwo Prezidan Awondisman an.
Summary of Statements – Vote Yes on Proposal 5
Supporters of Proposal 5 see the creation of a unified digital City Map as an important step toward speeding up months- or years-long processes that depend on city maps, such as infrastructure and housing projects. Supporters think this proposal would make public information more readily available, especially to New Yorkers with disabilities. “Modernizing administration of the City Map would increase the efficiency and effectiveness of government operations and speed up the time needed to advance public and private projects that involve changes to the public realm” (Citizens Budget Commission). The Center for Independence of the Disabled, New York (CIDNY) writes that the current system of 8,000 paper maps in five different borough offices present challenges for people with mobility or vision disabilities, and “a digitized map will provide clearer, more consistent information on street names and layouts, while allowing residents to access this information from home.”
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Citizens Budget Commission
- Center for Independence of the Disabled, New York (CIDNY)
- Climate Changemakers
- Open New York
Number of statements: 6
Summary of Statements – Vote No on Proposal 5
Those who oppose Proposal 5 range in their reasoning, from concerns about the vagueness of the proposal and doubts about its value, to belief in the value of paper maps, to warnings that the Department of City Planning is ill-equipped to take on the work of each borough’s Topographical Bureau. Staten Island Borough President Vito J. Fossella writes, “By design, the Topographical Bureaus are kept local and close to the expertise of both their workers, who maintain highly technical maps, and to the professionals and Borough residents who often need and use these maps,” and when Staten Islanders need help resolving a land use or property issue, “because the Topographical Bureau is managed by staff who understand their community, they deliver fast, direct service to residents.” Fossella continues, “this move would put these functions in an agency that lacks the genuine human interaction that is needed for results. DCP is also notorious for being overburdened, with long backlogs and inaccuracies. This move has the potential to slow processes, create further service backlogs, weaken accountability and make it harder for everyday New Yorkers to get help.” Council Member Robert Holden adds, “A single digital map sounds helpful, but this measure is vague on cost, privacy, and who gets to change it.”
Institutional and elected respondents:
- Staten Island Borough President Vito J. Fossella
- Council Member Robert Holden
Number of statements: 5
