This autumn, residents of New York City will have the opportunity to vote on four housing-related ballot measures aimed at tackling two major contributors to the city’s housing crisis: prolonged construction timelines and the ease of impeding development. These measures, drafted by the Charter Revision Commission, seek to expedite the process of approving affordable housing and ensure citywide distribution, as opposed to being limited to specific areas.

The highlight of these measures is Question 2, which proposes a rapid approval process for city-sponsored affordable housing. It suggests that projects necessitating rezonings bypass the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) — the existing extensive review process — and go directly to the Board of Standards and Appeals.

Moreover, in the 12 Community Board districts with the lowest production of affordable housing over the last five years, projects would proceed with approval from the City Planning Commission, ensuring progress without waiting for further Council action.

The magnitude of the issue is substantial. From 2014 to 2024, ULURP processed nearly 20,000 affordable housing units. Many of these developments took several years to navigate before even starting construction. Throughout this period, rent prices soared, building costs increased, and New Yorkers were left without affordable housing options, which is unacceptable.

Question 2 aims to end this pattern of delays and inactivity by establishing definitive deadlines and minimizing political obstacles. This would enable affordable housing to be provided when most needed rather than years too late or, worse yet, not at all.

The proposed changes also address the persistent imbalance due to “member deference,” a City Council practice of deferring to local representatives on land use matters. While it allows for valuable community input, it has also led to highly inconsistent outcomes.

Over the past 11 years, 10 Council districts have each delivered more than 4,000 affordable homes, with three exceeding 7,000. Yet, 10 other districts produced fewer than 300 units, and five produced fewer than 100. In total, just 10 districts accounted for more than half of the city’s affordable housing. Question 2 would help ensure that every neighborhood contributes to meeting the citywide housing need by more equitably distributing affordable homes across the five boroughs.

Question 4 adds another safeguard by creating an Affordable Housing Appeals Board, made up of the mayor, a borough president, and a City Council member. With two votes, the board could overturn Council decisions that block or significantly weaken affordable housing projects. This keeps the Council in the process, while ensuring that local politics do not stand in the way of homes New Yorkers urgently need.

Additionally, Question 3 would accelerate approvals for smaller housing and infrastructure projects, cutting red tape that too often slows even modest developments. And Question 5 would modernize city planning by requiring a comprehensive digital mapping system. Together, Questions 2 through 5 form a balanced reform package that would make housing approvals faster and fairer at a time when they’re needed most.

It’s important to note that while they would make critical improvements to the current housing system, these reforms would not dismantle it. The approval process for large neighborhood rezonings, like Gowanus or Midtown South, and for most market-rate development would remain unchanged. What Question 4 introduces is a necessary backstop. The Council would still be able to negotiate improvements and secure community benefits, but it would no longer stall affordable housing indefinitely.

These measures also do not diminish the Council’s broader role in advancing affordability. In recent years, the Council has pushed beyond the mayor’s agenda by passing the Fair Housing Framework, increasing capital funding for housing, expanding CityFHEPS rental assistance, and supporting the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity zoning changes. These legislative and budgetary powers remain untouched.

Ultimately, the problem lies squarely in land use. When the 1989 Charter Commission gave the Council a role in ULURP, it was intended to be the exception — not the rule. Over time, it has become a chokepoint where projects are delayed, watered down, or blocked outright. That obstruction is one reason New York now faces a historically low rental vacancy rate of just 1.4% and why working class families are increasingly priced out of their neighborhoods.

If New York is serious about solving its housing crisis, we must modernize our approval process. New Yorkers can stop delays and spread affordable housing more equitably throughout the city by voting “yes” on Questions 2, 3, 4, and 5.

It’s time to choose progress over gridlock.

Fee is the executive director of the New York Housing Conference.