Andres
@Andres4NY@social.ridetrans.it  ·  activity timestamp 3 weeks ago
Andres
@Andres4NY@social.ridetrans.it  ·  activity timestamp 3 weeks ago
Proposal 6 would move New York City's primary and general election dates to even years, syncing up our local election cycle (2021 and 2025, most recently) with the federal presidential election cycle (2020 and 2024). A "yes" vote for Proposal 6 would signal a desire for even-year elections (more on that later) and a "no" vote is a vote to keep the current system in place. This is probably the most controversial proposal of the three. Earlier this month, the good government group Citizens Union released a report in favor of Proposal 6 which found that syncing state elections with the national cycle would significantly increase New York City's depressed voter turnout. Both Common Cause and Reinvent Albany have weighed in in favor of Proposal 6. "We strongly support this measure to move City elections to even years, which have much higher turnout because of presidential elections and gubernatorial elections. We are convinced by the extensive research presented by Citizens Union that changing to even years would increase voter turnout, which we think is a good thing," Kaehny said. He noted that a "yes" vote for this proposal is only the first step—actually changing the election cycle would require the state legislature to pass a bill twice in consecutive sessions and then it would need to be approved by voters statewide—but said it was still "politically important" to convince state reps that New Yorkers want this. But opponents of the proposal worry that if Proposal 6
Proposal 6 would move New York City's primary and general election dates to even years, syncing up our local election cycle (2021 and 2025, most recently) with the federal presidential election cycle (2020 and 2024). A "yes" vote for Proposal 6 would signal a desire for even-year elections (more on that later) and a "no" vote is a vote to keep the current system in place. This is probably the most controversial proposal of the three. Earlier this month, the good government group Citizens Union released a report in favor of Proposal 6 which found that syncing state elections with the national cycle would significantly increase New York City's depressed voter turnout. Both Common Cause and Reinvent Albany have weighed in in favor of Proposal 6. "We strongly support this measure to move City elections to even years, which have much higher turnout because of presidential elections and gubernatorial elections. We are convinced by the extensive research presented by Citizens Union that changing to even years would increase voter turnout, which we think is a good thing," Kaehny said. He noted that a "yes" vote for this proposal is only the first step—actually changing the election cycle would require the state legislature to pass a bill twice in consecutive sessions and then it would need to be approved by voters statewide—but said it was still "politically important" to convince state reps that New Yorkers want this. But opponents of the proposal worry that if Proposal 6
Proposal 6 would move New York City's primary and general election dates to even years, syncing up our local election cycle (2021 and 2025, most recently) with the federal presidential election cycle (2020 and 2024). A "yes" vote for Proposal 6 would signal a desire for even-year elections (more on that later) and a "no" vote is a vote to keep the current system in place. This is probably the most controversial proposal of the three. Earlier this month, the good government group Citizens Union released a report in favor of Proposal 6 which found that syncing state elections with the national cycle would significantly increase New York City's depressed voter turnout. Both Common Cause and Reinvent Albany have weighed in in favor of Proposal 6. "We strongly support this measure to move City elections to even years, which have much higher turnout because of presidential elections and gubernatorial elections. We are convinced by the extensive research presented by Citizens Union that changing to even years would increase voter turnout, which we think is a good thing," Kaehny said. He noted that a "yes" vote for this proposal is only the first step—actually changing the election cycle would require the state legislature to pass a bill twice in consecutive sessions and then it would need to be approved by voters statewide—but said it was still "politically important" to convince state reps that New Yorkers want this. But opponents of the proposal worry that if Proposal 6
Proposal 5 Proposal 5 concerns the City's official map. Currently, every borough president is in charge of maintaining their own set of paper maps that, as the CITY wrote, define "the locations and legal boundaries of streets, parks, public places and other public land." Who! Knew! Proposal 5 would do away with this system and create one unified, digital map of the city consolidated under the Department of City Planning. A "yes" vote on this proposal means voting in favor of a digital map, and a "no" vote means voting in favor of keeping the current system. Amit Bagga, the campaign director for Yes on Affordable Housing, told Hell Gate that the choice to change the City's map system is an obvious one. "It's 2025—the City's 8,000 maps should be digitized, unified, and easily accessible. It's a no-brainer, and will help fast-track delivery of affordable housing along with Props 2 through 4." Kaehny of Reinvent Albany agreed. "This is a long overdue modernization measure and would end reliance on the borough president's Topographical Bureaus, which were a great innovation a hundred years ago," he said. Oooh, burn! We couldn't find anyone who meaningfully opposed this ballot proposal—but if you or someone you know is a disgruntled cartographer who vehemently disagrees with digitizing the City maps, please get in touch.
Proposal 5 Proposal 5 concerns the City's official map. Currently, every borough president is in charge of maintaining their own set of paper maps that, as the CITY wrote, define "the locations and legal boundaries of streets, parks, public places and other public land." Who! Knew! Proposal 5 would do away with this system and create one unified, digital map of the city consolidated under the Department of City Planning. A "yes" vote on this proposal means voting in favor of a digital map, and a "no" vote means voting in favor of keeping the current system. Amit Bagga, the campaign director for Yes on Affordable Housing, told Hell Gate that the choice to change the City's map system is an obvious one. "It's 2025—the City's 8,000 maps should be digitized, unified, and easily accessible. It's a no-brainer, and will help fast-track delivery of affordable housing along with Props 2 through 4." Kaehny of Reinvent Albany agreed. "This is a long overdue modernization measure and would end reliance on the borough president's Topographical Bureaus, which were a great innovation a hundred years ago," he said. Oooh, burn! We couldn't find anyone who meaningfully opposed this ballot proposal—but if you or someone you know is a disgruntled cartographer who vehemently disagrees with digitizing the City maps, please get in touch.
Proposal 5 Proposal 5 concerns the City's official map. Currently, every borough president is in charge of maintaining their own set of paper maps that, as the CITY wrote, define "the locations and legal boundaries of streets, parks, public places and other public land." Who! Knew! Proposal 5 would do away with this system and create one unified, digital map of the city consolidated under the Department of City Planning. A "yes" vote on this proposal means voting in favor of a digital map, and a "no" vote means voting in favor of keeping the current system. Amit Bagga, the campaign director for Yes on Affordable Housing, told Hell Gate that the choice to change the City's map system is an obvious one. "It's 2025—the City's 8,000 maps should be digitized, unified, and easily accessible. It's a no-brainer, and will help fast-track delivery of affordable housing along with Props 2 through 4." Kaehny of Reinvent Albany agreed. "This is a long overdue modernization measure and would end reliance on the borough president's Topographical Bureaus, which were a great innovation a hundred years ago," he said. Oooh, burn! We couldn't find anyone who meaningfully opposed this ballot proposal—but if you or someone you know is a disgruntled cartographer who vehemently disagrees with digitizing the City maps, please get in touch.
Proposal 1 A "yes" vote on Proposal 1 would retroactively rubberstamp an expansion that has already occurred of an Olympic sports complex, the Mount Van Hoevenberg facility in Adirondack Park, onto protected state forest land. In exchange, New Yorkers would get even more protected lands (the Olympic Regional Development Authority would pay for an additional 2,500 acres to be added to Adirondack Park). A "no" vote would leave the sports complex in violation of the state constitution. According to John Kaehny, executive director of Reinvent Albany, voters "can think of this as a technical correction that ratifies the long ago expansion into state forest by the state Olympic Regional Development Authority." He added that it's "one is supported by enviros because it makes it harder for ORDA to wriggle out of a commitment to add 2,500 acres in new forever wild land to compensate for ORDA using 323 acres for bobsled runs and whatnot." "This is the best-case scenario for both the human and ecological communities of the Adirondacks: It protects wildlands while an historic attraction continues to host world-class sporting events, drawing athletes and visitors from the region and around the world," the Adirondack Council, a nonprofit advocacy group dedicated to Adirondack Park, wrote in a blog post endorsing the proposal. Opponents of the proposal, like Soft Power Vote, argue that it will give the Olympics complex a pass and "privatize what could have stayed protected land.
Proposal 1 A "yes" vote on Proposal 1 would retroactively rubberstamp an expansion that has already occurred of an Olympic sports complex, the Mount Van Hoevenberg facility in Adirondack Park, onto protected state forest land. In exchange, New Yorkers would get even more protected lands (the Olympic Regional Development Authority would pay for an additional 2,500 acres to be added to Adirondack Park). A "no" vote would leave the sports complex in violation of the state constitution. According to John Kaehny, executive director of Reinvent Albany, voters "can think of this as a technical correction that ratifies the long ago expansion into state forest by the state Olympic Regional Development Authority." He added that it's "one is supported by enviros because it makes it harder for ORDA to wriggle out of a commitment to add 2,500 acres in new forever wild land to compensate for ORDA using 323 acres for bobsled runs and whatnot." "This is the best-case scenario for both the human and ecological communities of the Adirondacks: It protects wildlands while an historic attraction continues to host world-class sporting events, drawing athletes and visitors from the region and around the world," the Adirondack Council, a nonprofit advocacy group dedicated to Adirondack Park, wrote in a blog post endorsing the proposal. Opponents of the proposal, like Soft Power Vote, argue that it will give the Olympics complex a pass and "privatize what could have stayed protected land.
Proposal 1 A "yes" vote on Proposal 1 would retroactively rubberstamp an expansion that has already occurred of an Olympic sports complex, the Mount Van Hoevenberg facility in Adirondack Park, onto protected state forest land. In exchange, New Yorkers would get even more protected lands (the Olympic Regional Development Authority would pay for an additional 2,500 acres to be added to Adirondack Park). A "no" vote would leave the sports complex in violation of the state constitution. According to John Kaehny, executive director of Reinvent Albany, voters "can think of this as a technical correction that ratifies the long ago expansion into state forest by the state Olympic Regional Development Authority." He added that it's "one is supported by enviros because it makes it harder for ORDA to wriggle out of a commitment to add 2,500 acres in new forever wild land to compensate for ORDA using 323 acres for bobsled runs and whatnot." "This is the best-case scenario for both the human and ecological communities of the Adirondacks: It protects wildlands while an historic attraction continues to host world-class sporting events, drawing athletes and visitors from the region and around the world," the Adirondack Council, a nonprofit advocacy group dedicated to Adirondack Park, wrote in a blog post endorsing the proposal. Opponents of the proposal, like Soft Power Vote, argue that it will give the Olympics complex a pass and "privatize what could have stayed protected land.
Andres
@Andres4NY@social.ridetrans.it  ·  activity timestamp 2 weeks ago
Home Login