Three different changes. One vote. What New Yorkers should know about Proposal 3 - by Joe Aquino

New Yorkers deserve to know exactly what they are voting on. Proposal 3 packages three distinct subjects into one City Charter amendment: street projects, city-owned property transactions, and office acquisitions for city employees. Voters get only one “yes” or “no.”

Technically, these are three sets of charter changes, rather than three separate bills. Nevertheless, voters cannot approve one part and reject another. That matters because each affects the city differently.

PART ONE: STREET REDESIGNS—FASTER IMPLEMENTATION, WEAKER PROCEDURAL CHECKS
DOT could begin certain urgent safety projects before presenting them to the community board when the agency identifies an immediate risk of significant injury. Failures to complete required agency consultations would not invalidate a project.

Consultation requirements would remain, but weakening the consequences for overlooking them reduces an important procedural safeguard.

Consider two major Midtown projects that some New Yorkers may not know about:

FIFTH AVE.: WEST 40^TH ST. TO WEST 59^TH ST. — BRYANT PARK TO CENTRAL PARK. The planned transformation expands sidewalks, adds landscaping and reduces the roadway from five traffic lanes to three total. Reporting describes just one lane for general automobile traffic. Three remaining lanes should not be confused with three lanes available to private cars.

PARK AVE.: EAST 46^TH ST.TO EAST 57^TH ST. The updated plan widens the center median for pedestrian space, seating and landscaping. It also converts an existing southbound vehicle lane into a two-way protected bicycle lane alongside the median.

These projects involve major commercial corridors. Residents, merchants and workers deserve clear explanations of how deliveries, passenger pickups, accessible transportation, emergency access and traffic on surrounding streets would function.

Reducing roadway capacity may shift traffic elsewhere. Whether that happens, and how severely, requires careful analysis — not assumptions from either supporters or opponents.

Proposal 3 does not itself approve these projects, and rejecting it would not automatically stop them. It would change procedural safeguards governing qualifying street projects.

PART TWO: CITY PROPERTY — SHORTER REVIEW, NO FINAL COUNCIL REVIEW FOR CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS
Certain smaller city property sales and leases, and development rights at city-owned landmarks, could receive expedited review when an environmental impact statement is not required.

Community boards and borough presidents would review proposals concurrently. The City Planning Commission would make the final decision, without final City Council review under that process.

Public assets deserve scrutiny concerning value, neighborhood needs and long-term consequences.

PART THREE: CITY OFFICE ACQUISITIONS—FEWER HEARINGS AND APPROVALS
The proposal would remove required public hearings and Planning Commission and Council review for acquiring or leasing offices for city employees. DCAS would certify transactions and provide notices.

Faster processing could help government operations. But taxpayers should weigh that benefit against losing formal review of potentially costly commitments.

WHY PACKAGE ALL THREE INTO ONE VOTE?
Someone may support quicker office leasing while opposing weaker safeguards for street redesigns. Another voter may favor transportation changes but want final council review of public property transactions.

Neither gets that choice.
New York needs efficient government. It also needs meaningful public participation and enforceable procedures.

Before voting on Proposal 3, examine all three parts—and understand what faster government could mean for your neighborhood.

Sources: Official Proposal 3 explanation, Fifth Ave. project, and updated Park Ave. plan.

Joseph Aquino is president of JAACRES, Manhattan, N.Y.