How New Housing Ballot Measures Will Change NYC Development

7 November 2025

Long considered a linear slog, developing affordable housing just became a little more choose-your-own-adventure.

Builders of a 100 percent, publicly-funded project can seek approval from the Board of Standards and Appeals, rather than going through the city’s land use review process.

A rezoning that would add 30 percent more residential space in a medium-density district can go through a speedier review that bypasses the City Council.

And the prospect of facing off with a City Council member who is sure to reject a project doesn’t automatically mean a developer should abandon all hope.

The passage this week of three housing ballot measures that create different avenues for approving housing projects and, in some cases, bypass or challenge the City Council’s authority, significantly shifts the power dynamics around land-use decisions. Their effectiveness will hinge on several factors, including staffing levels at housing agencies, capital available for housing and the relationship between the next mayor and City Council leaders.

But developers, attorneys and officials are already thinking about what these changes mean for housing construction in the near- and long-term.

Take it to the board

One of the measures replaces the mayoral veto with a three-person appeals board that can reverse City Council rejections. The board can only act on projects that add affordable housing and that only affect one borough.

Typically, the City Council aligns with the local member on land-use issues, a tradition known as member deference. Mayors rarely veto land-use decisions, knowing that a Council supermajority will likely overturn them.

The appeals board disrupts this dynamic, potentially encouraging developers to pursue projects in districts hostile to development.

But proponents say the appeals board doesn’t mean developers will go from trying to win over local Council members to sidestepping them entirely.

“Who says it is easier to get three people to say yes?” asked lobbyist Suri Kasirer.

The goal will remain trying to figure out how to get the City Council to a “yes” on a project, she said. Dismissing the local Council member and community concerns entirely also likely won’t endear a developer to the mayor, borough president or City Council speaker. They too have to consider threats to reelection and maintaining a relationship with the Council.

“Anybody would be stupid not to take the local Council member seriously,” she said.

Rachel Fee, executive director of the New York Housing Conference, agreed that the appeals board likely won’t be called upon very often. She believes it will instead push City Council members to reach a deal with developers before it gets to that point.

Ken Fisher, a land-use attorney with Cozen O’Connor, said one of the biggest impacts of the appeals board is that it makes borough presidents more important to the process. Under the city’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure, borough presidents serve an advisory role; their opinions on projects, while they may be influential, are not binding.

Borough presidents may rejoice at this shift — in fact, most of them supported it. Their inclusion on the appeals board restores some of the authority these officials once had as part of the land use review process, when Ulurp ended with the city Board of Estimates. In 1989, that board was disbanded, and the City Council was given the final word on projects that go through Ulurp.

Fisher sees the borough president as the board’s swing vote. If the City Planning Commission signs off on a rezoning, presumably, the proposal has the mayor’s support. The City Council speaker, meanwhile, is going to be reluctant to overrule a local Council member, he said.

This might mean that developers who think they can win over the borough president will be more emboldened to move forward with a project.

“I think that there’s a universe of projects that are stillborn because either the developers think they can never get it past the local Council member, or they met with the council member and learned that they won’t support it,” he said. “Those projects may now have life.”

City Council leaders have called the measures a power grab that will prove dangerous beyond the next mayor, when the city “inevitably” has a mayor that is “bad on housing, equity, and justice for communities,” a spokesperson said. They, along with 32BJ SEIU and city construction unions, have argued that the measures deny Council members the ability to negotiate for deeper affordability and investments in their communities.

“This will leave our city without the checks and balances of democracy to protect New Yorkers and ensure outcomes that prioritize them, not simply profits,” a Council spokesperson said in a statement after the election.

Developer David Kramer, president of Hudson Companies, said the appeals board may cause developers to take a second look at projects they thought unworkable, either because the local member opposed it or was likely to try to squeeze as much as possible out of the developer as a condition of approval.

“The situation set up the developer to be tortured and extorted,” he said. “The whole process will be less fraught.”

Need for speed

One of the measures creates two “fast-track” options for affordable housing. The first option allows the Board of Standards and Appeals to sign off on zoning changes for publicly funded affordable housing. Such projects would not have to go through Ulurp.

The other applies to affordable housing projects proposed in the 12 community districts that have permitted the least amount of affordable housing in the previous five years. Starting in October 2026, the city will release a report every five years identifying these districts.

Projects in these areas will be eligible for a condensed Ulurp, which will end with City Planning Commission review, rather than the City Council.

Another measure creates the Expedited Land Use Review Procedure — or Elurp — for “modest” housing projects. Such projects are defined as those in medium- or high-density districts that increase residential capacity by no more than 30 percent, or in low-density districts that are no taller than 45 feet and have a maximum floor area ratio of two.

Elurp follows a similar shortened review timeline as the “fast-track” and skips either City Council or City Planning review.

“This is just the HOV lane in development,” said Joy Construction’s Eli Weiss, referring to carpool lanes. “The fast track is really just a response to getting costs down.”

Just like a carpool lane, the effectiveness of these ballot measures will depend on a number of factors, including availability of city subsidies and the ability of the city’s housing agencies to move these projects along.

The future Mamdani administration will be tasked with implementing these measures and determining how to ensure their effectiveness. The mayor-elect has said that he plans to increase staffing at the city’s housing agencies, and some saw his appointment of former First Deputy Mayor Maria Torres-Springer as co-chair of his transition team as an encouraging sign that he will staff his administration with people dedicated to making these measures work.

Myriad other factors outside this process also threaten the pace of construction, including the high costs of building, access to capital and litigation. Not to mention the measures do not shave time off of environmental review, which, along with pre-certification, can add years to a project’s timeline.

The ballot measures, with the exception of the fast-track option for projects built in the 12 community districts that have produced the least amount of housing, will go into effect once the election results have been certified. The Department of City Planning and the BSA will also need to draft rules for implementing various aspects of the ballot measures.

It’s not clear how many projects currently in the pipeline will try to take advantage of the ballot measures. Developers who have already sunk time and money into going through Ulurp and are nearing the end may decide these alternative paths aren’t worth abandoning their current track. Others may try to switch lanes.

Longer term, some see the changes as potential boosts for smaller developers.

Monadnock Development’s Kirk Goodrich said the fast-track and Elurp options create an easier path for smaller or less-established developers to pursue affordable housing projects, by providing a faster timeline and, potentially, a clearer path to approval.

“I used to say to my team, ‘Small isn’t easy. Small is just small. So go big,’” he said. “[The fast-track] creates a scale that might be manageable for smaller developers.”