NEW YORK CITY 2025 Voter Guide
New York is in crisis. Our rents are rising, our infrastructure is crumbling, and our streets and subways feel less safe.
On November 4th, New Yorkers will vote to elect a new mayor and comptroller, and will decide whether to approve ballot questions to amend the city charter (NYC’s constitution). These decisions will shape how safe, affordable, and livable New York is. But voter turnout is low, and high-quality information is hard to come by.
This Voter Guide describes these important choices. It is meant to empower readers to make informed decisions and recommends the path most likely to move the city forward.
Early Voting
October 25 to November 2
Election Day
Tuesday, November 4
NYC Voter Guide: Recommendations
Charter Amendments
Housing Affordability
Question 2
Fast-Track Affordable Housing Approvals Process
Question 3
Simplify Review of Small Housing and Infrastructure Projects
Question 4
Create Affordable Housing Appeals Board
City Modernization
Question 5
Create a Digital City Map
Voter Turnout
Question 6
Allow Moving City Elections to Higher-Turnout Even Years
Charter Amendments
What are charter amendments? The City Charter is essentially the constitution for New York City, and so charter amendments are voters’ way of updating the mechanics of city government. In a four-hundred-year-old city, the way we’ve done things before isn’t necessarily the best way to do things today. (Indeed, the current city government itself—including our modern City Council—was created via charter amendment in 1989.)
In recent years, voters have amended the charter to bring term limits to Community Boards (2018), to introduce ranked choice voting into our primaries (2019), to expand the jurisdiction of the sanitation department (2024), and more. This November, we’ll be voting on amendments to address the housing crisis, modernize the city map, and increase voter turnout.
What’s the deal with this commission? While all city voters get to decide whether to approve or reject proposed amendments—requiring just a simple majority to pass—the amendments themselves come from Charter Revision Commissions (CRCs). CRCs are convened by either the mayor or the City Council, and they have the right to propose changes to any element of the charter. However, they are often convened with a particular focus in mind. This year’s commission was convened by the mayor to focus on housing affordability.
After they’re called, the commissions act independently. This commission was chaired by Robin Hood Foundation CEO Richard Buery and was composed of other nonprofit leaders, housing experts, and homelessness advocates. CRCs collect public testimony over many months—with in-person hearings across the city—and perform extensive research into the charter’s strengths and shortcomings. Their findings are collected in a written report justifying proposed amendments. Below, find more detail about this year’s five questions and recommendations for how to vote on them.
Housing Affordability
Every New Yorker knows that we’re facing a profound housing affordability crisis. Over half of city households are rent-burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their income on housing costs. A third of households spend over half of their money on housing. And that’s just the families that stay in the city. Many others end up pushed out (we’ve lost 9% of our Black population since 2000), pushed into the shelter system (over 100,000 people sleep in a shelter each night), or pushed onto the street (over 4,500 New Yorkers are living outside).
We don’t have enough homes, especially affordable homes, for residents. Three of the five ballot questions are designed to solve that. Today, New York has a fifty-year low 1.4% vacancy rate, which means countless renters are competing for the same few apartments and landlords can jack up rents—now rising seven times faster than wages. New York City adds new homes much more slowly than other big cities, and we’re feeling the consequences.
Why are we doing so poorly? Our system for approving new homes under the current charter is onerous, long, and expensive. The “Uniform Land Use Review Process” (or ULURP) requires new homes to go through reviews from Community Boards to Borough Presidents to the City Planning Commission to the City Council—delaying them, inflating costs, and providing many potential veto points.
Most challenging is “member deference,” a custom leading the full City Council to reject new homes if the local council member is opposed. It doesn’t matter what the neighborhood or city needs—just what the local council member thinks. That’s a big problem when political incentives make it much harder to say yes than no: residents who already have good housing are more likely to oppose new neighbors, and they’re the ones already living and voting in a district. (The equivalent system in Chicago was charged by the Biden Justice Department as violating fair housing laws that target racial segregation; if the Trump administration hadn’t dropped that case, New York could have come under the same scrutiny.)
The Housing Affordability ballot questions each tackle one part of this major challenge. All of them should be approved, so that the city can start delivering the affordable housing all New Yorkers need and deserve.
Fast-Track Affordable Housing Approvals Process
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.
Why did they propose this amendment? Some parts of the city build new affordable housing; other parts of the city do nothing. That’s not because those areas can’t accommodate new homes: it’s because local political leaders don’t want to do their part. Of the city’s 59 Community Districts, the top 12 produced more new affordable housing over the last decade than the bottom 47 put together. This ballot question would address that by providing a “fast track” for projects in the 12 lowest-producing Community Districts, as well as any 100% affordable, publicly financed housing.
Why vote yes? The community districts that would be included in this process are now adding almost no new affordable homes—or literally zero homes. They should be doing their part. Not only would this amendment deliver more affordable housing through the new fast tracks created, but it would make sure that homes renting for under market prices are more equitably distributed throughout the city. New Yorkers who make less than the median income should be able to live everywhere—including the many high-opportunity, politically powerful neighborhoods that have typically rejected new homes.
Simplify Review of Small 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.
Why did they propose this amendment? When New Yorkers see developers proposing big buildings, they often wonder why we can’t see new apartments that are more similar to the buildings around them. Right now, the city doesn’t get applications for modest new housing projects because they aren’t cost-effective given how long, onerous, and expensive the ULURP process is: only large developments are worth the hassle. This amendment says that smaller buildings should have a shorter, easier process, so that it’s cost-effective for builders to propose the kinds of homes New Yorkers most want to see. It’s not just modest new housing that would get access to this process. It would also fast-track small renewable energy and resiliency projects (e.g. arrays of solar panels) that New York needs more of to combat climate change.
Why vote yes? The current ULURP process discourages modest developments and other critical infrastructure—we need a parallel process designed just for them. Without one, New York only adds large-scale developments and not the kind of apartments this amendment would allow, like buildings under 45 feet. These modest buildings have long been the source of homes that are naturally affordable to New Yorkers of all stripes—new arrivals, kids coming back to the city in adulthood who don’t want to live with their parents, downsizing seniors, and more. Further, as temperatures, rainfall, and sea levels rise due to climate change, we need a process that makes it easier to reduce emissions and protect New Yorkers from flooding.
Create Affordable Housing Appeals Board
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.
Why did they propose this amendment? Because of “member deference.” Today, when new housing is proposed, the full City Council defers to whichever local member represents the district the housing would be in. It seems sensible: who knows the district better than the area’s representative? However, proposals for new affordable housing are often loudly opposed by local homeowners who don’t want new neighbors. As a result, member deference means that the choice to add new homes is left to the one person most likely to be punished for approving them. Local opponents are the ones who might vote against the council member in the next election; the New Yorkers who could live in the not-yet-built affordable homes aren’t heard. (Indeed, member deference contributes to persistent racial segregation of city neighborhoods, likely running afoul of federal fair housing laws—though the current federal administration isn’t interested in enforcing those.)
Why vote yes? It is a very good idea for New York City to have one more chance to say yes to desperately needed affordable housing. Amendments 2 and 3 will mean we get housing that currently never gets built or even proposed; this amendment is more relevant to the big projects that do get proposed today. Right now, due to member deference, homes don’t get proposed in districts that have anti-housing representatives. The fact that the appeals board could approve new homes itself will end this segregation-perpetuating status quo. It will give the full City Council a reason to negotiate and get to yes even if the local council member is someone opposed to new homes (as too many council members are today!).
City Modernization
Question 5
Create a Digital City Map
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.
Why did they propose this amendment? Under the city charter, official city maps are kept on paper across each borough. There are now over 8,000 different paper maps. This is an incredibly inefficient and complicated 20th-century system. When new homes are going to be built, these paper maps have to be consulted and amended—slowing everything down. This amendment was introduced to bring us into the 21st century and reduce the burden of making updates.
Why vote yes? There’s no good reason to keep our maps on 8,000 pieces of paper, and to have them managed by separate offices. This change will allow easier management of the city map and will speed new home creation. It will also reduce the burdens on borough offices so they can focus more on providing real benefits to constituents.
Voter Turnout
Question 6
Allow Moving City Elections to Higher-Turnout Even Years
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.
Why this amendment? New York City has dismally low voter turnout. In the last mayoral election in 2021 (when the whole City Council was also up for a vote), only 23% of registered voters came out to make their voices heard. That means fewer than one in seven total New Yorkers decided who should govern all of us. Compare that turnout to presidential years: in 2024, over 60% of registered voters turned out. New York’s state constitution currently requires city elections to be in odd years, a century-old requirement that was put in by old party machine bosses to reduce turnout and protect incumbents. This amendment was introduced to say that we should have city elections in even years if and when the state constitution is amended to allow it.
Why vote yes? Increasing turnout is good for democracy. The more people who participate in an election, the more our choices reflect the voters’ will—and not the preferences of special interest groups and big spenders. Opponents of this measure argue that staggering city and non-city elections allows voters to focus more on a smaller set of races each year. That’s true for the highly engaged New Yorkers who never miss an election. But for New Yorkers with multiple jobs, childcare and eldercare obligations, and other reasons not to be local-politics obsessives, having to vote in a primary and a general election every year often means not voting at all. That excludes the voices of hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers who should have more of a say in our governance.
Mayor
Vote For
Zohran
Mamdani
New York’s mayor determines the direction of the city and whether the gears of government work: that trash gets picked up, that crimes are stopped or solved, that our kids are educated. After four years of chaos and corruption—and against the backdrop of turmoil in Washington—New Yorkers are looking for steady leadership. But after decades of being stuck, as rents have gone up and quality of life has gone down, we also need vision. We need transformative change for the city and its politics.
Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani’s joyful, energetic campaign enthralled a generation of New Yorkers and delivered the 33-year-old assemblymember a shocking, decisive primary election victory. His slogans—“freeze the rent,” “fast, free buses”—are clear, simple, and appealing to a city hit hard by rising costs. Mamdani is charismatically leading a movement, a talent that could translate to leadership of the city at large.
Of course, a Mamdani mayoralty could also give way to the mismanagement of inexperience—or to the privileging of close allies over the best people for the job, a tendency that proved fatal to the Adams administration. Encouragingly, Mamdani appears attuned to concerns about executive management and bridge-building across divides. His outreach to communities outside his core DSA allies, his persistent evocation of service delivery and outcomes-oriented governance, his tempering of more extreme past plans on public safety and education, and his enlarging of his inner circle with respected civic leaders are all promising signs of a candidate hoping to lead with seriousness.
On policy, Mamdani is right to point to affordability as the critical crisis facing New Yorkers—and to the role that the government can play in solving it. Unfortunately, his policy prescriptions often miss the mark. Most seriously, his housing plan cannot solve our affordability problems. A rent freeze for rent stabilized tenants may be a short-term balm, but it is not sustainable—and there are real negative impacts of rent freezes on the availability and quality of rent-stabilized homes.
Additionally, a rent freeze for stabilized units does nothing for tenants in the rest of the city’s apartments. Mamdani’s proposal to invest $70 billion in 200,000 new rent-stabilized units is financially untenable. It will not happen, and it is also ideologically rigid—minimizing market-rate development that New York can pursue, and which would much more broadly address supply shortages and increase affordability for everyone.
More broadly, while Mamdani frequently pairs service delivery and subsidy in his policy proposals, his emphasis falls squarely on the latter. He decries red tape hampering small business owners, then proposes fee discounts and a liaison to help them navigate the red tape—instead of removing the red tape altogether. He talks about “fast, free buses,” but is far more interested in using political capital to make them free rather than to increase speeds and service quality. Mamdani is properly diagnosing the problems—but he’s deprioritizing the best solutions.
However, Mamdani is open to ideas that challenge his worldview and is conversant in policy details, indicating an adaptability he will need to be successful. For example, on housing, he told the New York Times that the most important issue he has changed his mind about is the necessity of market-rate housing development to combat the affordability crisis. Unlike his opponents, he has been clear about the need to build on the recent City of Yes for Housing Opportunity rezoning to legalize more homes throughout the city. He points to up-zoning high-opportunity neighborhoods, building near transit, and eliminating parking mandates as steps he will embrace.
In this moment, New York needs big ideas; but those big ideas should offer the right answers to our problems, and they should be ideas that can become reality. Many of Mamdani’s ideas are far from realistic. But, while his main rival is calcified in his worldview and offers more of the same kind of politics that led to our current crises, Mamdani has the potential to grow.
Ultimately, it is clear that the Democratic nominee appreciates the scale of New York’s challenges and wants to use the power of the office to benefit all New Yorkers—not just himself. For New Yorkers looking for idealistic, transformative change—but also for the candidate most likely to lead with seriousness and open-mindedness—Zohran Mamdani is the wisest choice to make.
Andrew Cuomo
Former governor Andrew Cuomo is the only candidate who appears to have any chance of catching up to the frontrunner, and so he deserves the most careful consideration as an alternative.
Talking to voters who chose him in the primary or who are planning to vote for him now, the reasons are straightforward: his decade as governor is remembered with fondness, as Cuomo spent most of those years appearing solidly in control of what had previously been an ungovernable state capital. Cuomo delivered budgets on time, signed into law many groundbreaking bills, and oversaw pre-pandemic years when New York felt more affordable, safer, and more vibrant.
However, a closer review of his record and disposition suggest that he is not well-positioned to deliver on the promises of that fond recollection—and that New Yorkers hoping for a rejuvenation of the city’s fortunes should look elsewhere.
Cuomo did not address the housing shortage as governor and does not appear committed to solving it now; his proposals set a headline goal of 500,000 units but without serious engagement with how to get there. (To his credit, his team did call the charter amendments to speed affordable housing creation "no brainers.")
On transit, Cuomo oversaw the MTA’s 2017 “Summer of Hell” service problems, deflected blame to Mayor Bill de Blasio, and ran widely respected NYC Transit President Andy Byford out of town. Cuomo signed congestion pricing into law but distanced himself when the program appeared unpopular before its launch.
Cuomo did not address the housing shortage as governor and does not appear committed to solving it now; his proposals set a headline goal of 500,000 units but without serious engagement with how to get there. (To his credit, his team did call the charter amendments to speed affordable housing creation "no brainers.")
On transit, Cuomo oversaw the MTA’s 2017 “Summer of Hell” service problems, deflected blame to Mayor Bill de Blasio, and ran widely respected NYC Transit President Andy Byford out of town. Cuomo signed congestion pricing into law but distanced himself when the program appeared unpopular before its launch.
Cuomo helped prop up Republican control of the State Senate even though Democrats held a majority of seats; landmark bills on reproductive freedom, climate emissions, and voting rights only passed after that split control ended. Helping Republicans keep control undermined the will of the people, an undemocratic outcome consistent with other Cuomo actions—from weakening an ethics commission to the pattern of harassment requiring his resignation.
During the primary, he avoided the press, threatened his critics and accusers with legal action, and missed out on matching funds due to illegal coordination with his Super PAC. Instead of taking responsibility for past missteps, he has rejected accountability and falsely claimed exoneration. Increasing closeness to Donald Trump, and to Trump donors, is out of step with the city’s rejection of MAGA politics in a moment of national distress.
The ex-governor has a reputation for effectiveness. In some cases, such as same-sex marriage and large-scale infrastructure projects, it is earned. In others, like Covid management, it seems more superficial than real. Ultimately, it is misguided to entrust the future of New York City to the ex-governor in the belief that “he is a bully, but he will be a bully for us.” It is far more likely he will be a bully on behalf of his primary career-long constituent—himself.
Curtis Sliwa
Perennial candidate and New York personality Curtis Sliwa is increasingly seen without his signature red beret these days, a sign of an attempted seriousness in his latest pursuit of the mayoralty. Long known to city residents as the vigilante founder of the Guardian Angels, as a noted cat person, and as a bombastic television personality, Sliwa is attempting to remake himself as the “adult in the room” beside the frustrated ex-governor and telegenic Democratic nominee.
Sliwa lost decisively to Eric Adams in the last general election, but this year he has outlasted the current mayor in the race. Even Democratic elected officials who do not want to see a Mamdani mayoralty have compared Sliwa favorably to Andrew Cuomo, noting that Sliwa is actually a major-party nominee without a record of disappointing moderate New Yorkers.
Even without the beret, however, Sliwa is not a serious alternative. His policy proposals reflect the worst of GOP opposition to cities—unacceptable for a candidate who wants to lead the country’s largest. His primary housing commitment is to reverse the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity plan to legalize 80,000 new homes citywide amidst a generational housing shortage. Reverting the zoning code to its exclusionary 1961 status quo would undermine affordability while perpetuating segregation. Further, Sliwa is vociferous about ending congestion pricing—a landmark achievement to fund public transit, speed buses, cut down carbon emissions, and reduce traffic violence.
Overall, Sliwa is committed to protecting the interests of homeowners and car owners over the majority of the city’s renters and riders. Moreover, he has no new innovative ideas for addressing New York’s most profound and persistent problems—from affordability to street homelessness to social disorder to climate change.
He is better relegated to talking head appearances than to Gracie Mansion.
Comptroller
Vote For
Mark
Levine
Most people don’t know what the comptroller does, and those who do disagree about how to pronounce it. Those in the know agree that it’s the second-most important elected office in the city, after the mayor. The comptroller is essentially the chief financial officer of the city, overseeing pension fund investments totaling about $280 billion.
Additionally, the comptroller audits agencies—be it the New York City Housing Authority, the New York Police Department, or any other—to ensure efficiency and accountability from the mayoral administration. The comptroller must also approve city contracts, another important check on irresponsible mayoral decision-making.
Additionally, the comptroller audits agencies—be it the New York City Housing Authority, the New York Police Department, or any other—to ensure efficiency and accountability from the mayoral administration. The comptroller must also approve city contracts, another important check on irresponsible mayoral decision-making.
Current comptroller Brad Lander ran for mayor, leaving the office up for grabs. The Democratic nominee is Mark Levine, the current Manhattan borough president, who won a tough primary against Council Member Justin Brannan.
Levine's résumé is impressive. A former council member, he previously worked as a public school teacher and started a credit union for underbanked New Yorkers. He has been exemplary as BP. In the role, Levine’s focus has been on housing affordability. He championed the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity plan to legalize a little more housing in every neighborhood and proactively identified locations for new homes across the borough. This focus on housing is motivating his comptroller run; his “Affordability Fund” plan will leverage $2.5 billion in support of 75,000 affordable homes.
Republican nominee Peter Kefalas is a newcomer to politics without relevant experience for the office. He is a founder of QNS Voice, a MAGA-aligned media outlet, and points to false narratives about “defunding the police” and “illegal criminal aliens” as behind New York’s challenges. Without a proper diagnosis of the serious challenges facing the city, Kefalas does not offer a compelling reason to bet on him.
Mark Levine is a clear choice—and will be a valuable addition to citywide leadership.