RMCommunityCalendar
Events happening today
-
ALL
DAY
04 November 2026
This event began 11/04/2025 and repeats every year forever
I have said the following so many times, it sickens me. What matters isn't winning the election. What matters is what you do once elected.
Obama/Olhan/Ocasio Cortez are all the same. They were elected based on demographic changes and their party of andrew jackson (POAJ) peers not realizing the demographic changes or underestimating the ability to generate a large voting output.
Mamdani is the same, as the three mentioned. But, the key is after you win what will you do?
Obama gave the banking industry a pass and didn't demand from the health industry and the results were negative. Olhan + Ocasico Cortez tried a green new deal that was dysfunctional. Now Mamdani promises to lower the cost of living while being a mayor who doesn't have the ability to. Do people really think Eric Adams/Bill DeBlasio/ even Bloomberg wouldn't have liked to make NYC more affordable while doing all of what they did. It isn't because they didn't care or know, it is because it is not about the mayor alone. And the governor has a whole state to deal with who will not accept favors for NYC absent favors for albany and all others in the state.
Mamdani as I said a long time ago will be mayor of NYC, the first asian/muslim/even one of the generation names as he is 34 but he will have a terrible time at it, and what happens next?
The key to me is will the voters who vote now vote four years from now with the same gusto. I think many will. Not because of Mamdani but demographic shifts. It isn't an accident that Mamdani is in his 30s and Sliwa and Cuomo are in their 60s. The 40s and 50s are the non believers. But the 30s and youngers in the city are the children of immigrants in a city now mostly of immigrant stock. The native american is dead. The old whites have moved out or died lessening their population. The Black Descended of Enslaved have moved out or died lessening their population. Leaving Immigrants and their children. PEople who came to a USA much different than before founded or when founded or during the war between the states or during the great white european imperial war. The modern immigrant came to the USA built by FDR/MLK and company. A USA full of biases but safe, secure, allowing for individualism unlike any country in humanity. and so, in 2025, the modern immigrant populace starting in 1965, has become large enough to stake a claim. It is a claim of ideals. A claim of the USA. Not the USA that murdered the First Peoples. Not the USA designed by White Europeans for their sole benefit. Not the USA built on enslaved Black folk. The USA with the potential to be a human country. And while every reformation has a counterreformation, and the fifty states are not the same, and no city in the USA is like NYC. I think in NYC the claim of the immigrant populace, a true rainbow of individuals bound to the allowance of individualism over religion/phenotype/gender/language/....maybe age/individual allowance will be a different voting block. Will it mean Mamdani does great as mayor? no. Being great in a bureaucracy like any team activity isn't about one person. Schrumpft will make it very hard. But, a claim will be made and two USA's I argue are officially born.
Mamdani on one side/SCrumpft on the other.
mamdani legislation
https://aalbc.com/tc/events/event/363-zohran-mamdani-legislation/
problem with legislators in the usa
https://aalbc.com/tc/events/event/499-the-problem-with-legislators-in-the-usa/
bernie sanders
https://aalbc.com/tc/events/event/504-bernie-sanders-is-a-fiscal-capitalistic-opportunist/
The latest Economic Corner
https://aalbc.com/tc/events/event/569-economic-corner-25/
Fran Lebowitz joins ‘On Stage’ for a sharp and unfiltered conversation
https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/on-stage-episodes/2025/10/31/fran-lebowitz-joins--on-stage--for-a-sharp-and-unfiltered-conversation
Some thoughts
She found it interesting, that people in Stockhom Sweden were interested in the mayoral race in New York City.
I concur that people like new faces. Obama/Schrumpt/Mamdani all used the position of one who .
She didn't vote for Mamdani though praised him. She admitted what I said, you can't make free buses. Mamdani's stated positions don't fit.
She made an interesting point on New York City, she likes NYC because this is the only city where all are able to live in it. She is correct. NYC has become this city of mostly individuals devoutly or modestly within a country of hardcore tribes.
PROPOSITIONS 1/2/3/4/5
MY THOUGHTS
1 New York City is not part of Essex county, I don't comprehend why NYC is voting on Essex county which is at the northernmost part of the state.
2+3+4 I have lived through the Real Estate industry of NYC and I can say with 100% surety that the real estate industry is the most wicked or ugly thing I have ever seen. I really despise the real estate industry in NYC and these three propositions don't lower the damn rent, nor do they punish the real estate industry for the crimes it has done.
5 No one explains how the DEpartment of City Planning will consider all the boroughs... the reason why each Borouch has its own mapping plan is the boroughs aren't the same, they have different peoples, different situations...
6 I think instead of changing the date of elections it is better for the elected officials of NEw York City to simply get results, which 99% of them never do. They make a ton of laws and make a ton of speeches.
SHORT EXPLANATION
Ballot proposal No. 1 Amendment to allow Olympics sports complex in Essex County on state forest preserve land. This proposal, to be voted on across New York state, would allow the expansion of new ski trails in the Olympic Sports Complex in Essex County, New York. The Olympic Sport Complex is in state forest preserve land. This proposal would also require New York State to add 2,500 acres of protected forest land to Adirondack Park. Ballot proposal No. 2 Fast-track affordable housing to building more affordable housing across the city. This proposal would create two new processes to fast-track certain affordable housing projects. The first process is for publicly financed affordable housing projects. The second process is for affordable housing projects in the 12 community districts with the lowest rates of affordable housing development. A “yes” vote creates two processes to fast-track affordable housing projects. A “no” vote keeps the seven-month review process, with input from the local Community Board, local Borough President, CPC, City Council, and mayor. Ballot proposal No. 3 Simplify review of modest housing and infrastructure projects. This proposal would create a faster review process for certain land use projects, like smaller projects to change how land is used and to prepare the city for extreme weather or other future challenges. For most of these projects, the proposed process would remove final review by the City Council. Ballot proposal No. 4 Establish an Affordable Housing Appeals Board with City Council, borough, and citywide representation. NYCVotes says this proposal would change the current land use review process when the City Council rejects or changes an affordable housing project. The proposal would create an Affordable Housing Appeals Board comprised of the local Borough President, Speaker of the City Council, and mayor. The proposal would allow the Appeals Board to reverse the City Council’s decision with a two-to-one vote. Ballot proposal No. 5 Create a digital city map to modernize city operations. This proposal would make the Department of City Planning (DCP) responsible for creating, maintaining, and digitizing a single city map. Ballot proposal No. 6 Move local elections to presidential election years to increase voter participation. This proposal would move election dates for city offices to the same year as federal presidential elections.
DETAILS
2025 General Election BALLOT PROPOSALS ABSTRACT OF PROPOSAL NUMBER ONE, AN AMENDMENT Amendment to Allow Olympic Sports Complex In Essex County on State Forest Preserve Land The proposal amends the State Constitution. It permits new Nordic ski and biathlon trails in the forest preserve. Development there requires Constitutional permission. That is because the facility is in the Adirondack forest preserve. It is part of an Olympic Sports Complex in North Elba. North Elba is in Essex County, New York. The project touches up to 323 acres. The facility covers 1,039 acres. This use is offset. 2,500 new acres are added to the forest preserve. The New York Legislature must approve the offset. If not, the project will not happen. FORM OF SUBMISSION OF PROPOSAL NUMBER ONE, AN AMENDMENT Amendment to Allow Olympic Sports Complex In Essex County on State Forest Preserve Land Allows skiing and related trail facilities on state forest preserve land. The site is 1,039 acres. Requires State to add 2,500 acres of new forest land in Adirondack Park. A yes vote authorizes new ski trails and related facilities in the Adirondack forest preserve. A no vote does not authorize this use. 1 Question 2 Proposed Charter Amendment: Fast Track Affordable Housing to Build More Affordable Housing Across the City Fast track publicly financed affordable housing. Fast track applications delivering affordable housing in the community districts that produce the least affordable housing, significantly reducing review time. Maintain Community Board review. “Yes” fast tracks applications at the Board of Standards and Appeals or City Planning Commission. “No” leaves affordable housing subject to longer review and final decision at City Council. 2 Ballot Question 2 Proposed Charter Amendment: Fast Track Affordable Housing to Build More Affordable Housing Across the City Abstract This proposal would create two new fast-track public processes for affordable housing: the Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) Zoning Action for Affordable Housing Projects and the Affordable Housing Fast Track. First, the proposal would enable publicly financed affordable housing to be approved by the BSA after review by the affected Community Board. BSA would be required to make findings relating to neighborhood character and programmatic necessity. Second, the amendment would establish an expedited land use review process with review by the affected Community Board, affected Borough President, and the City Planning Commission– for zoning changes that deliver affordable housing in the 12 community districts with the lowest rate of affordable housing production. BSA Zoning Action for Affordable Housing Projects How it works: Currently, the BSA has the power to waive zoning requirements to facilitate certain affordable housing developments, but that authority is limited to projects that can meet stringent standards relating to hardship, uniqueness, and economic infeasibility. Projects that cannot meet these standards instead must go through the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) – a seven-month review process that begins with advisory opinions from the affected Community Board and Borough President, followed by review and votes at the City Planning Commission and City Council. This proposal would empower the BSA to issue project-specific approvals for publicly financed affordable housing that meet the required findings after a 60-day review by the affected Community Board and a 30-day review with a public hearing held by the BSA. Projects that do not meet the findings may receive one 60-day extension for additional studies or project modifications to seek approval at a second hearing. What types of housing are eligible: This new action would be available to companies organized exclusively to develop housing projects for persons of low 3 income, including Housing Development Fund Companies– the legal vehicle for virtually all publicly financed affordable housing projects in New York City. What factors must the Board of Standards and Appeals consider: In order to approve affordable housing pursuant to the fast-track process, the BSA would be required to make findings related to neighborhood character and programmatic necessity. The first finding ensures the project does not clash with the surrounding neighborhood character. The second finding establishes that a project requires zoning waivers in order to proceed and that the City or another governmental entity intends to provide financial backing. Affordable Housing Fast-Track How it works: Currently, affordable housing is produced unevenly throughout the City, with 12 community districts adding as much housing as the other 47 combined over the course of the last 10 years. To address this, the Affordable Housing Fast Track proposal creates an expedited approval process for projects that deliver affordable housing in the community districts that produce the least affordable housing. Under the proposal, the City would assess the rate of affordable housing production in each community district every five years, and then fast-track projects that include permanently affordable housing in the 12 Community Districts with the lowest such rates. These 12 Community Districts would be calculated by measuring the total number of affordable dwelling units created over the past five years divided by the total number of all dwelling units at the start of the five-year period. This formula measures the growth rate of affordable housing. Those twelve community districts would be determined by the Department of City Planning every five years. What types of applications are eligible: To be eligible for this fast-track procedure, an application must include permanent affordable housing under the City’s Mandatory Inclusionary Housing program and must be located in one of the twelve community districts with the lowest rate of affordable housing production. The Department of City Planning would be required to confirm that a primary purpose of the application is to facilitate additional housing and affordable housing. What is the new process for reviewing these affordable housing rezoning applications: 4 Today, rezoning applications typically go through ULURP– a seven-month review process that begins with successive advisory opinions from the affected Community Board and Borough President, followed by review and votes at the City Planning Commission and City Council. The proposed amendment would include the same opportunity for Community Board review as exists today, but with Borough President review occurring concurrently. The City Planning Commission would have 30 days to review– or 45 days for applications that require more extensive environmental review – and hold a final vote. (This element of the proposal would become effective if this ballot question is approved, regardless of whether ballot question 3, which also proposes an expedited land use review procedure, is approved.) In determining whether to approve such a rezoning application, the City Planning Commission would be required to make findings regarding the adequacy of existing transportation, sewer and other infrastructure, as well as consistency with the City’s fair housing plan (the Charter already requires the City to develop such a plan to analyze citywide data relating to fair housing). The proposal would also require the Department of City Planning and the Office of Management and Budget to consider the list of the 12 Community Districts that produce the least affordable housing and the fair housing plan in the preparation of the City’s preliminary 10-year capital strategy. Implementation: This proposed amendment would take effect immediately. 5 Question 3 Proposed Charter Amendment: Simplify Review of Modest Housing and Infrastructure Projects Simplify review of modest amounts of additional housing and minor infrastructure projects, significantly reducing review time. Maintain Community Board review, with final decision by the City Planning Commission. “Yes” simplifies review for limited land-use changes, including modest housing and minor infrastructure projects. “No” leaves these changes subject to longer review, with final decision by City Council. 6 Ballot Question 3 Proposed Charter Amendment: Simplify Review of Modest Housing and Infrastructure Projects Abstract This proposal would create an Expedited Land Use Review Procedure (ELURP) for certain land use changes and projects, including modest increases in housing capacity; acquisitions, dispositions, and certain City Map changes related to affordable housing; and infrastructure and resiliency projects, like raising the grade of a street and adding solar panels on public property. How it works: Currently, rezoning applications and other land use actions, regardless of size, must go through the City’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP)– a seven-month review process that begins with advisory opinions from the affected Community Board and Borough President, followed by review and votes at the City Planning Commission and City Council. This proposal would create an alternative procedure for certain rezoning applications and other land-use actions. This new process would retain the same 60-day review period for the Community Boards and a public hearing, with concurrent Borough President review. The City Planning Commission would then have 30 days to hold a public hearing and vote on the application. The City Planning Commission’s decision would be final, with no subsequent review by the City Council. For dispositions of City property to Housing Development Fund Companies – the entity for virtually all publicly financed affordable housing projects in New York City – final approval would be made by the City Council instead of the City Planning Commission. What types of projects are eligible for this expedited procedure? This expedited review procedure is reserved for specifically enumerated applications. These generally include applications relating to modest zoning changes for housing (rezoning to districts with a standard height of not more than 45 feet in lower density areas and increases in housing capacity up to 30% in medium- and high density areas); dispositions, acquisitions, and certain City Map changes for affordable housing; acquisitions and site selections for resiliency projects and open 7 space; sale of City property that is undevelopable and unusable; acquisitions for voluntary flood buyouts; and leases for solar energy on public land. Only projects that categorically lack potential significant adverse environmental impacts on communities are eligible for the expedited procedure described in this ballot question. If a project by its size or nature requires an environmental impact statement under state and local law, it will remain subject to the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure in order to receive a more extensive public and environmental review. Implementation: This proposed amendment would take effect immediately. However, it would not apply to applications that have been filed with the Department of City Planning pursuant to the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure and certified as complete before the effective date. 8 Question 4 Proposed Charter Amendment: Establish an Affordable Housing Appeals Board with Council, Borough, and Citywide Representation Establish an Affordable Housing Appeals Board with the Council Speaker, local Borough President, and Mayor to review Council actions that reject or change applications creating affordable housing. “Yes” creates the three-member Affordable Housing Appeals Board to reflect Council, borough, and citywide perspectives. “No” leaves affordable housing subject to the Mayor’s veto and final decision by City Council. 9 Ballot Question 4 Proposed Charter Amendment: Establish an Affordable Housing Appeals Board with Council, Borough, and Citywide Representation Abstract This proposal would create an Affordable Housing Appeals Board, consisting of the affected Borough President, the Speaker of the City Council, and the Mayor. This new Appeals Board would have the power to review and reverse decisions by the City Council that disapprove or modify land-use applications that directly facilitate the creation of affordable housing. The Appeals Board would replace the existing Mayoral veto, and the Council override of that veto, for these types of land-use applications. This new Appeals Board aims to strike a balance between local, boroughwide and citywide perspectives on the production of affordable housing. It does so by empowering the Speaker, affected Borough President and Mayor to review and reverse City Council decisions on land use matters affecting the development of affordable housing — but only if two out of the three members agree. How it works: Currently, certain land use actions, including rezoning applications, special permits, and others, must go through the City’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP)– a seven-month process that begins with advisory opinions from the affected Community Board and Borough President, followed by review and votes at the City Planning Commission and City Council. The Mayor may veto the Council’s action, and that veto is subject to an override by the Council. Under the proposal, the Affordable Housing Appeals Board would have the power to review and reverse actions of the City Council that disapprove or modify applications that directly facilitate the development of affordable housing. While much of ULURP – from the community board through City Council – would remain unchanged, the Appeals Board would be empowered to conduct a final review of these land-use applications. Land-use applications that do not relate to the development of affordable housing are not subject to the Appeals Board. The Appeals Board would consist of three members: the Speaker of the Council, the affected Borough President, and the Mayor (or a designee of each member). If at least two of the three members agree, the Board would be empowered to reverse 10 a Council disapproval or modification of a land-use application that would directly facilitate the development of additional affordable housing. Which land-use actions would be subject to the Affordable Housing Appeals Board? The Affordable Housing Appeals Board would come into play only for ULURP applications and zoning text amendments that would directly facilitate the creation of affordable housing. These include rezoning applications that are required to deliver affordable housing under the City’s Mandatory Inclusionary Housing program, as well as related actions that directly facilitate the creation of affordable housing, such as parking special permits that reduce or remove off street parking requirements that can hinder the development of affordable housing. In addition, the Appeals Board may review only applications where the land included in the application is located in a single borough. Changes not affecting affordable housing or affecting more than one borough, including citywide changes, would continue to receive the same review as they do today. When could the Affordable Housing Appeals Board act? Only applications that facilitate the creation of affordable housing that are disapproved or approved with modifications are eligible for review by the Affordable Housing Appeals Board. If an application is approved by the Council absent modifications, the Board would lack jurisdiction to review an application. In addition, no land use action would automatically go to the Appeals Board. Instead, an applicant must either appeal the Council’s decision or the Appeals Board can “call up” – or request review of – an application. The Appeals Board would be empowered to approve an application or reverse one or more of the modifications made by the Council only with the agreement of at least two of the three members. Implementation: The proposed Charter amendments establishing the Affordable Housing Appeals Board would take effect immediately. 11 Question 5 Proposed Charter Amendment: Create a Digital City Map to Modernize City Operations Consolidate borough map office and address assignment functions, and create one digital City Map at Department of City Planning. Today, the City Map consists of paper maps across five offices. “Yes” creates a consolidated, digital City Map. “No” leaves in place five separate map and address assignment functions, administered by Borough President Offices. 12 Ballot Question 5 Proposed Charter Amendment: Create a Digital City Map to Modernize City Operations Abstract This proposal would require the City to consolidate and digitize the City Map. Currently, the Charter assigns administration of the City Map, which consists of many separate paper maps, to five separate Borough President Topographical Bureaus. This proposal would replace the existing, decentralized paper City Map with a single City Map administered by the Department of City Planning (DCP) and would also provide for the digitization of the City Map. Under the proposal, DCPwould also assume responsibility for address assignment. What is the City Map: The City Map establishes the legally defined locations of street lines, widths, names, and legal grades, as well as the locations of mapped parkland and public places. Today, the City Map consists of five different sets, one for each borough, totaling over 8,000 individual paper maps. Certain housing, infrastructure, and other projects require confirmation of public jurisdiction as represented on the City Map before they can move forward, a process that can take months or years when it relies on paper maps. How it works: The proposal would centralize administration of the City Map at DCPand mandate a single City Map that covers the entire City, rather than paper maps limited to each borough. The proposal would also require the City Map to be digitized. It would also centralize administration of address assignment with the Department of City Planning, instead of leaving address assignment to the five Borough President Topographical Bureaus. Implementation: The transfer of address assignment from the Borough President Topographical Bureaus to the Department of City Planning would take effect on January 1, 2027. The City Map would be consolidated into one single document by January 1, 2028, or a later feasible date to be determined by the City Planning Commission. The City Map would be digitized by January 1, 2029, or a later feasible date to be determined by the Department of City Planning. 13 Question 6 Proposed Charter Amendment: Move Local Elections to Presidential Election Years to Increase Voter Participation Move the City’s primary and general election dates so that City elections are held in the same year as Federal Presidential elections, when permitted by state law. “Yes” moves City elections to the same year as Federal Presidential elections, when permitted by state law. “No” leaves laws unchanged. 14 Ballot Question 6 Proposed Charter Amendment: Move Local Elections to Presidential Election Years to Increase Voter Participation Abstract This proposal would make changes to the timing of elections held for the offices of Mayor, Public Advocate, Comptroller, Borough President, and City Council Members to move the City’s primary and general election dates to even-numbered years, upon a required change to State law. How it works: Currently, elections for City office are held in odd-numbered years. This proposal would provide for even-year elections that coincide with the federal presidential elections. A Charter amendment is required to move the election calendar to even years and to provide for a one-time transition in which elected officials would serve a term of three years (as opposed to the usual four years). A change to the State Constitution, which requires that all city officers be elected in odd-numbered years, is also necessary before New York City may shift its local elections to even years. If the necessary changes to state law occur, elections for City office would occur in the same year as the federal presidential elections. One-time transition from odd-year to even-year elections: A shift to even-year elections on the presidential cycle would, when it goes into effect, require a one time transition in which elected officials would serve a term of three years, instead of the typical four years. The timing of this one-time transition cycle would depend on whether and when a State law is enacted to permit New York City to move its elections to even years. Councilmember two-year terms: Currently, the Charter provides for a shortened two-year term every 20 years for City Councilmembers in order to coordinate City Council terms after a redistricting, which is required after every decennial census. As a result, every two decades, the City holds elections for City Council but not for citywide or boroughwide elected officials. Under the proposed system, these periodic two-year terms would be eliminated, so that Councilmembers serve only four-year terms. As a consequence, there will sometimes be a longer delay in the use of new district lines following a redistricting than there is today, but this change ensures that elections for City Council occur during cycles with the higher 15 turnout that is expected to be associated with elections held in even-numbered years. If a State law authorizing the City to hold elections for City office in even numbered years takes effect during a two-year term, that term would be either shortened to one year or extended to three years, depending on the precise timing of the State law. This one-time transition would enable the switch to holding elections for City office in even-numbered years. Implementation: This proposal would take effect upon the effective date of a State law authorizing the City to hold elections for City office to occur in even numbered years. 16
DETAILS REFERRAL
https://vote.nyc/sites/default/files/pdf/Ballot_Proposals/GE2025/Ballot_Proposals_2025_English_r1a_WEB.pdf
REFERRAL
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/politics/nyc-ballot-questions-what-are-they/6413813/
forum post
https://aalbc.com/tc/topic/12023-nyc-mayral-thoughts-a-conclusion/
RMCommunityCalendar 0 Comments · 0 Reviews
