Proposal 3: Speed Up Street Safety Projects, Disposition of Unused City Property, and Office Leasing

The law today

Before a "major transportation project" (over four consecutive blocks or 1,000 feet of roadway realignment, or any bike lane added or removed) the agency, usually DOT, must notify officials and the Community Board, present on request, and consult the Police Department, Fire Department, Department of Small Business Services and the Mayor's Office for People with Disabilities (the Fire Department must also confer with affected firehouses) and certify this. Most sales or leases of City property go through the seven-month Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (community board and borough president advice, then City Planning Commission and City Council votes); an expedited procedure with no Council review applies only to certain undevelopable lots sold to adjacent owners, an exception that expires in 2030. Acquiring office space for City workers requires notifying the Community Board and borough presidents, a City Planning Commission hearing and vote, and a possible Council disapproval by a two-thirds vote.[4][6]

Official fiscal estimate

No official fiscal impact statement was published for this charter amendment. The Commission's final report estimates it would speed street safety projects by at least 33 percent, cut the time to get authorization to sell certain small unused City lots from seven months to 90 days, cut office-lease time by up to 50 days, and unlock more than $200 million in revenue from sales of small surplus lots and transferable development rights; these are the Commission's own estimates.[5]

Arguments made for

• "We're particularly excited about ballot proposals one and three, to speed up outdoor dining permitting and fast-track the installation of street infrastructure that will both save lives and save commuters a great deal of time ... These proposals will save lives," said Ben Furnas, Executive Director of Transportation Alternatives.[2]
• "Fast buses can't get here fast enough. By cutting red tape, the Mamdani administration's charter revision will help save riders lots more time even sooner," said Betsy Plum, Executive Director of Riders Alliance.[2]
• "An amendment to speed up street safety projects by 33% will save time -- and save lives," said Catherine Vaughan, Executive Director of Abundance New York.[2]
• "As a former NYCDOT borough commissioner, I am very excited about COGE's proposals to streamline the approval process for street safety projects. Cutting unnecessary delays will help advance the Mamdani Administration's vision of safer, more livable streets for all New Yorkers, whether they walk, bike, drive, or rely on public transit," said Nivardo Lopez, Former NYC DOT Bronx Borough Commissioner.[2]

Arguments made against

• A spokesperson for City Council Speaker Julie Menin, Henry Robins, said of COGE's ballot package: "In just a few weeks, the commission developed a series of sweeping changes to city government with far-reaching implications for oversight, transparency, and public accountability" -- a concern that applies directly to this proposal's removal of Council approval over City property dispositions and office leases.[3]
• Municipal Art Society of New York, in a statement to the NYC Campaign Finance Board, as quoted in the Board's summary: "merging these three distinct issues into one measure does not give voters the chance to effectively voice their preferences."[6]
• Long Island City Partnership, in a statement to the NYC Campaign Finance Board, as quoted in the Board's summary, on the street-safety provision: "faster timelines should not come at the cost of losing input from the businesses and workers most affected by design choices."[6]

On record in support

• Commission on Government Efficiency (COGE), the Charter Revision Commission convened by Mayor Zohran Mamdani (sponsor of the proposal)[2][5]
• Citizens Union (recommends a Yes vote, while objecting that the question bundles unrelated issues)[7]
• Riders Alliance (submitted a statement in support)[6]
• Transportation Alternatives (submitted a statement in support)[6]
• Open New York (submitted a statement in support)[6]
• Regional Plan Association (submitted a statement in support)[6]

On record in opposition

• Municipal Art Society of New York (submitted a statement opposed)[6]
• Long Island City Partnership (submitted a statement opposed)[6]
• D9 Harlem Votes (submitted a statement opposed)[6]