For New York City residents, there’s more on the chopping block than Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump on Nov. 5. When entering the voting booth, New Yorkers will face six crucial ballot proposals that can shape the future of city governance, services and civil rights. While these measures are innocently named and seemingly straightforward, much of the wording is purposefully misleading. Because of that, it is crucial to make sure you truly understand their implications before you step into the ballot box.
Proposal 1
How It Appears on the Ballot: Amendment to Protect Against Unequal Treatment
This proposal would protect against unequal treatment based on ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, and sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy. It also protects against unequal treatment based on reproductive healthcare and autonomy.
A “YES” vote puts these protections in the New York State Constitution.
A “NO” vote leaves these protections out of the State Constitution.
Ballot Proposal 1 will add certain protections to the New York Bill of Rights. These protections prohibit discrimination based on ethnicity, origin, age, disability and sex — including sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes, and protects those who seek access to reproductive health care from discrimination on that basis. By adding this to the New York Bill of Rights, citizens’ abortion rights are further protected, and minorities are protected from government decisions. This proposal warrants a “yes” vote.
Proposal 2 – Cleaning Public Property
How It Appears on the Ballot: This proposal would amend the City Charter to expand and clarify the Department of Sanitation’s power to clean streets and other City property and require disposal of waste in containers.
Voting “Yes” will expand and clarify the Department of Sanitation’s power to clean streets and other City property and require disposal of waste in containers.
Voting “No” leaves laws unchanged.
If this proposal is passed, the New York City Department of Sanitation would have increased authority over city property cleanliness. The DSNY could regulate how New Yorkers put out their garbage for collection and further regulate street vendors. While this may seem like a path toward cleaner streets, this innocent wording is very misleading. This measure has the potential for excessive regulation and enforcement that could disproportionately affect vulnerable communities, especially small businesses and street vendors.
Sanitation is already moving forward on containerization — the practice of making sure all trash is secured in a trash bin rather than left out on the street in bags — which is simply an attack on small businesses that are already over-policed. The expanded authority of the DSNY to impose stricter regulations on how residents dispose of their garbage may lead to increased fines and penalties for those unable to comply due to a lack of resources or understanding of the new rules. Street vendors — who should be supported and celebrated for their vital role in the city’s economy and culture — may face punitive measures that criminalize their livelihoods rather than receiving the support and guidance they may need to operate within the public health framework. Vote “no” on Proposal 2.
Proposal 3 – Fiscal Responsibility
How It Appears on the Ballot: Additional Estimates of the Cost of Proposed Laws and Updates to Budget Deadlines
This proposal would amend the City Charter to require fiscal analysis from the Council before hearings and votes on laws, authorize fiscal analysis from the Mayor, and update budget deadlines.
Voting “Yes” would amend the City Charter to require additional fiscal analysis prior to hearings and votes on local laws and update budget deadlines.
Voting “No” leaves laws unchanged.
This proposal suggests that the city council provide cost estimates for proposed laws prior to voting, and that the council formally notify the mayor’s office before holding public hearings or votes on proposed laws. From how it is written on the ballot, this proposal may seem like a sensible move toward transparency. However, it carries potential risks that could be exploited to undermine democratic processes by eroding the separation of powers. By requiring cost estimates before any legislative vote, mayors could use this process to delay or block legislation they oppose. For instance, if there is a proposal for affordable housing or childcare funding, Mayor Eric Adams could refuse to support it by claiming a lack of precise cost estimates or by presenting overly inflated or pessimistic estimates, making it easier to argue against the bill.
This selective presentation of costs could mislead council members and the public. Proposals that align with the mayor’s agenda get favorable estimates, while progressive initiatives get buried under bureaucratic red tape. It also makes the city budget process less transparent by delaying budget deadlines for the mayor, which gives the public and oversight bodies less time to analyze and respond to the mayor’s budget proposals, such as library budget cuts. Vote “no” on Proposal 3.
Proposal 4 – Public Safety
How It Appears on the Ballot: More Notice and Time Before Votes on Public Safety Legislation
This proposal would require additional public notice and time before the City Council votes on laws respecting the public safety operations of the Police, Correction, or Fire Departments.
Voting “Yes” will require additional notice and time before the Council votes on laws respecting public safety operations of the Police, Correction, or Fire Departments.
Voting “No” leaves laws unchanged.
This measure proposed that the New York City Council be required to give 30 days notice before voting on public safety laws that impact the New York City Police Department, the New York City Department of Correction or the New York City Fire Department. During this 30-day period, the mayor and affected city agencies may hold public hearings to hear any input. This phrasing suggests this proposal will be a step towards keeping the public informed about changing laws and giving them an avenue to voice their concerns. However, this proposal creates dangerous loopholes in public safety oversight, primarily by fundamentally changing how laws regulating the NYPD, Department of Correction and FDNY — and only these agencies — are passed by the City Council.
Firstly, this false sense of public participation is more performative than it is substantive. The notice period and hearings are meant to appease the public, not to create greater accountability. Public safety is an area where timely decisions can be a necessity, especially in light of an emergency or public health concern. The month-long waiting period stops the City Council from responding swiftly to such concerns by adding this layer of bureaucracy that complicates the legislative process without any significant benefit to the public. This rigidity could prevent the council from passing necessary laws, even with a firm consensus. Additionally, these agencies have great political influence and vast resources, and this waiting period gives them more time to prepare responses and lobby against proposed reforms that could skew the legislative process in their favor. Vote “no” on Proposal 4.
Proposal 5 – Capital Planning
How it Appears on the Ballot: This proposal would amend the City Charter to require more detail in the annual assessment of City facilities, mandate that facility needs inform capital planning, and update capital planning deadlines.
Voting “Yes” would require more detail when assessing maintenance needs of City facilities, mandate that facility needs inform capital planning, and update capital planning deadlines.
Voting “No” leaves laws unchanged.
Proposal 5, if passed, will require that the city assess the cost of maintaining city facilities, infrastructure and investments, and then publish these assessments in capital planning reports. These measures seemingly allow for greater financial transparency with the public regarding government spending for various projects. However, Proposal 5 is misleading and was created in bad faith. The mayor’s charter commission claimed that the proposal was based on a recommendation from the city’s comptroller — the city’s top financial executive. However, the comptroller issued a statement saying that this was false and that “the proposals released by the Charter Revision Commission are meaningless in their impact, a cynical effort to distract New Yorkers, and an affront to the tenets of good government in the New York City Charter that they were supposed to heed and improve.” This proposal will do next to nothing in terms of transparency, covering “less than 1% of the city’s infrastructure.” Vote “no” on Proposal 5.
Proposal 6 – Minority- and Women-Owned Business and Modernization of City Operations
How It Appears on the Ballot: This proposal would amend the City Charter to establish the Chief Business Diversity Officer (CBDO), authorize the Mayor to designate the office that issues film permits and combine archive boards.
Voting “Yes” would establish the CBDO to support MWBEs, authorize the Mayor to designate the office that issues film permits, and combine two boards.
Voting “No” leaves laws unchanged.
This proposal is a collection of three unrelated items — improving support for minority and women-owned businesses, streamlining film permitting and simplifying records management. It creates a new position to aid Minority and Women-Owned Business Enterprises, gives the mayor authority to choose which city department handles film permits and merges two boards overseeing city records into one. It claims to support MWBEs, but really only renames and largely restates the role of a mayoral office. This gives the illusion of change without additional concrete support for MWBEs. Vote “no” on Proposal 6.
While some of these proposals carry the potential to significantly alter New York City’s governance and the quality of life for all its residents, others are opaque attempts to claim that progress is being made with no real action being taken. It is crucial to grasp the implications of each proposal and make an informed decision on Nov. 5. If you are not a voter in New York, talk to your friends and family who are to ensure they are aware of these six proposals. Prioritize civil rights and social justice by voting yes on Proposal 1. Though the other proposals may seem appealing, they are riddled with hidden pitfalls that could undermine our community. Vote “no” on Proposals 2-6.
To learn more about the 2024 New York City ballot measures, click here.
Join the New York Civil Liberties Union, No Power Grab NYC and so many others in their calls to vote “no” on Proposals 2-6.
WSN’s Opinion section strives to publish ideas worth discussing. The views presented in the Opinion section are solely the views of the writer.
Contact Mehr Kotval at [email protected].
