A Voter’s Guide to NYC’s 2024 Ballot Proposals

Say “Yes” to Proposals 1 and 2, but “No” to the rest

In November 2024, New Yorkers won’t just be voting for our elected officials — we’ll also have the chance to shape our city’s future through six ballot proposals. These proposals will appear on the back of your ballot paper.

Proposal 1 is an amendment to the New York State constitution, proposed by the State Legislature. Proposals 2 through 6 are amendments to the New York City Charter, the city’s constitutional document.

Here’s how I recommend voting on these proposals:

• Yes on Proposal 1 to add protections to the State Bill of Rights

• Yes on Proposal 2 to clarify the role of the Department of Sanitation

• No on Proposal 3, which adjusts the lawmaking and budget process

• No on Proposal 4, which adjusts the lawmaking process

• No on Proposal 5, which adjusts the capital planning process

• No on Proposal 6, which combines three unrelated administrative issues

Let’s break down each proposal, explain what’s at stake, and review my voting recommendations.

Proposal 1: Adds Protections to the State Bill of Rights

I recommend you vote yes on Proposal 1, also known as the Equal Rights Amendment.

What It Is: This proposal amends the New York State constitution to add new protections to the State Bill of Rights, prohibiting discrimination based on ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, and sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, pregnancy, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.

Why Vote Yes: Proposal 1 would ensure that all New Yorkers are legally protected against discrimination and that abortion remains accessible to those who want it.

Currently, New York’s constitution protects against discrimination based on race, color, creed, or religion. We should expand our constitutional protections against discrimination to more comprehensively encompass the categories that New Yorkers expect to be protected.

Although New York’s government is currently controlled by leaders who support abortion access, there’s currently no constitutional protection that would prevent anti-abortion laws being passed in the future. Proposal 1 would fix this, by constitutionally protecting against any government actions that would reduce access to abortion, such as an abortion ban, prosecuting or criminalizing miscarriage, or adding medically unnecessary burdens on patients or facilities.

Proposal 2: Responsibilities of the Sanitation Department

I recommend you vote yes on Proposal 2.

What It Is: This proposal amends the City Charter to clarify and expand the Department of Sanitation’s authority to clean all city-owned property, including streets, parks, and medians. It also empowers the Department to enforce garbage containerization and oversee street vendors’ waste disposal on properties beyond streets and sidewalks.

Why Vote Yes: Proposal 2 would increase the cleanliness of public property and New York’s streets.

Currently, New York City’s laws about cleaning property restrict the Department of Sanitation from cleaning roadway medians, parks, and the perimeters of city-owned buildings. These can only be cleaned by other departments, like the Department of Transportation or the Department of Parks & Recreation. This segmentation of responsibilities causes confusion for the public and inefficiencies for the city, which this amendment would fix by explicitly naming the Department of Sanitation as the agency with primary responsibility for these tasks.

Relatedly, this amendment will make explicit that the Department of Sanitation is authorized to enact regulations requiring businesses and households to use trash bins rather than plastic trash bags, and clarify that the Department also has authority to enforce street vending regulations everywhere in the city.

Ultimately, I think having a clear division of responsibilities between agencies is good to ensure tasks are completed correctly, so I support Proposal 2.

Proposal 3: Budget Estimates & Timelines

I recommend you vote no on Proposal 3.

What It Is: This proposal requires that the City Council receive fiscal impact estimates from the Mayor’s Office before voting on new laws (in addition to the fiscal impact estimate the City Council is already required to produce). It also updates budget deadlines, giving new administrations more time to prepare their first budget.

Why Vote No: Proposal 3 would harmfully constrain the power of the City Council to pass laws.

I believe that powerful, independent legislatures are important to ensure the creation and passage of good laws. While I appreciate that Proposal 3 seeks to ensure the City Council has access to accurate estimates about the fiscal impact of their laws, I believe any introduction of additional steps into the legislative process should be at the initiative of the Council itself — which has opposed this proposal.

I don’t object to the second half of this proposal, which slightly extends budget deadlines during a mayoral administration’s first year in office. However, the Mayor’s Charter Revision Commission has unhelpfully intermingled this deadline adjustment with the change to fiscal impact statement requirements, so ultimately I’m opposed to Proposal 3.

Proposal 4: More Notice and Time Before Votes on Public Safety Legislation

I recommend you vote no on Proposal 4.

What It Is: This proposal requires additional notice and public hearings before the City Council can vote on laws related to the operations of the Police Department, the Department of Correction, and Fire Department.

Why Vote No: Proposal 3 would harmfully limit the power of the City Council to pass laws.

Again, I think it’s essential that legislatures control their own processes. There is no particular reason why bills related to public safety should be subject to additional special hearings or notice requirements, and certainly not at the behest of the mayor. The City Council already holds public hearings on its bills, and adding more procedural hurdles seems unnecessary, so I’m opposed to Proposal 4.

Proposal 5: Capital Planning

I recommend you vote no on Proposal 5.

What It Is: This proposal amends the City’s budget process, requiring detailed assessments of city facilities and aligning capital planning deadlines with the city budget process.

Why Vote No: While this proposal aims to improve planning, the changes can be achieved through administrative updates rather than codifying them into the City Charter. Adding more steps to an already slow capital planning process could impede critical projects, so I’m opposed to Proposal 5

Proposal 6: Minority and Women-Owned Business Enterprises (MWBEs), Film Permits, and Archive Review Boards

I recommend you vote no on Proposal 6.

What It Is: This proposal addresses three different issues: establishing the Chief Business Diversity Officer to support Minority and Women-Owned Business Enterprises, authorizing the Mayor to designate the office responsible for film permits, and combining two archive review boards.

Why Vote No: This proposal mixes together three entirely unrelated topics. I’m opposed to enshrining the office of the Chief Business Diversity Officer into the Charter, because this makes the office permanent and it’s entirely plausible that future mayoral administrations might have different staffing needs.

I do support the second and third components of this proposal, which bring clarity to film permitting and streamline municipal archives. Ultimately, however, I see the downside of codifying the office of the Chief Business Diversity Officer as worse than the benefit of these other efficiencies.

Ultimately, the three topics are inappropriate to be in one combined amendment, so I’m opposed to Proposal 6.

Final Reflections on our Ballot Proposals

I hope these recommendations help guide your decisions at the ballot box. Remember, if you haven’t yet, you have until October 26th to update your voter registration or request to vote by mail:

Get ready to vote, New Yorkers

In summary, Proposal 1 offers a critical opportunity to safeguard the fundamental rights of New Yorkers, ensuring protection from discrimination and preserving access to abortion. This amendment is about protecting the future of personal freedoms in our state, and I believe it’s essential for all of us. I’m particularly grateful for the leadership behind this initiative, spearheaded by State Senator Liz Kruger, who represents my district. The work done to get this on the ballot reflects the importance of acting now to enshrine these protections in our constitution.

In contrast, Proposals 2 through 6 are examples of unnecessary and poorly constructed ballot measures. These proposals ask voters to weigh in on technical, bureaucratic issues — things like which agency handles film permits or how the city schedules budget hearings — which don't need general public input. We elect officials to handle these details on our behalf, and bogging down the electorate with these trivial questions only distracts from more pressing matters.

The reality is that these city-level proposals stem from clashes between the City Council and the Mayor. The City Council had intended to propose amendments that would have given them greater oversight of the Mayor’s appointees. However, the Mayor sidestepped this by forming his own Charter Revision Commission, which resulted in this patchwork of minor reforms. Because proposals from the Mayor’s commission take precedence over those from the City Council, the Council’s efforts were blocked, leaving us with proposals that frankly don’t warrant mass voter input.

Perhaps in the future, we can revisit the process of amending the City Charter to prevent this kind of political gamesmanship. But for now, these six proposals are what we get to opine on.

I encourage you to vote “Yes” on Proposals 1 and 2, and “No” on the rest.

---