New York Voters Pass Mamdani's Five Ballot Measures, Arts Groups Warn of Landmark Risk

All five ballot measures backed by Mayor Zohran Mamdani's Commission on Government Efficiency passed with strong support in yesterday's midterms. But two of New York's leading arts and preservation organizations say one of them, Proposal 3, could weaken public review over the use of city-owned land and leave landmark sites vulnerable to hasty sales.

The Municipal Art Society (MAS) of New York and the New York Landmarks Conservancy both objected to parts of Proposal 3, which expedites review of eligible projects in three areas: street safety construction, the sale or leasing of city-owned property, and the acquisition of office space for city employees.

The measures came from a 15-member panel assembled by Mamdani. All five items aim to streamline city operations through revisions to the City Charter, including reducing city contractor paperwork and setting aside a rainy-day fund for emergencies.

What does Proposal 3 actually change?

The most consequential change concerns the second prong of the proposal, which reduces public review when the city sells or transfers unused development rights at landmark sites. Previously, most sales or leases of city-owned property went through a seven-month review process known as the Uniform Land Use Review Process (ULURP) and required final approval from the City Council.

Under Proposal 3, projects not believed to have a sizeable impact on the surrounding environment can now bypass City Council approval and enter a 90-day fast lane called the Expedited Land Use Review Procedure (ELURP). Projects approved for ELURP can be reviewed concurrently by community boards and borough presidents. City-owned landmarked property can be sold without City Council approval, and undevelopable land can be sold to owners of adjacent properties without a public auction.

The proposal also excuses the Department of Transportation from notifying elected officials and community boards before starting major projects deemed necessary for safety. Notification can instead occur when construction commences. Consultations with the Police Department, the Fire Department, the Mayor's Office for People with Disabilities, and the Department of Small Business Services remain mandatory.

The final part of the proposal removes hearing requirements and approvals from the City Council and the City Planning Commission for acquiring or leasing office space for city employees, leaving those decisions solely to Yume Kitasei, commissioner for the Department of Citywide Administrative Services. Local community boards and all five borough presidents must still be notified of each proposal.

Why do preservation groups object?

Andrea Goldwyn, director of public policy at the New York Landmarks Conservancy, said the city's tradition of civic participation is eroding.

"New York has had a strong tradition of public participation and robust debate, and over time, that's been chipped away," Goldwyn told Hyperallergic.

She warned that reduced notification requirements will leave residents in the dark about construction in their own neighborhoods.

"We've gotten calls from people who see new projects going up in their neighborhoods that they didn't know about," Goldwyn continued. "I think we're going to be seeing more of that because people aren't going to have the kind of notification they're used to having."

Both groups, along with the League of Women Voters, expressed varying levels of agreement with the proposal's three bundled target areas and had called for them to be considered separately, each with independent review.

In an earlier statement, MAS said that trimming down these review processes "could make it easier to sell or transfer valuable public land and development rights without sufficient safeguards to ensure lasting public benefits."

What comes next for public land?

MAS has called for a stronger framework governing how public lands can be used. Its recommendations include prioritizing land for parks, affordable housing, and other projects that serve the public, rather than selling or leasing land to parties with unclear interests.

"Streamlining government processes should not come at the expense of public accountability or lasting community benefits," the organization's statement adds.

The proposal is now law, and its 90-day expedited review lanes will operate alongside the seven-month ULURP process. For preservation advocates, the question shifts from the ballot box to implementation: how the city decides which projects qualify for the fast lane, and whether landmarked properties change hands before communities can weigh in.