NYC’s community board term limits ballot measure, explained

Who's behind it, who's for and against it, and what it would mean for NYC

When New Yorkers go to the polls on November 6, they should be sure to turn their ballots over: There are three proposals, written by the mayor's Charter Revision Commission, that city dwellers are being asked to vote on. The most contentious of these is Proposal 3, which would implement term limits for the city's 59 community board members, along with other measures aimed at promoting diversity on those boards.

While other city officials—the mayor, City Council members, borough presidents, and more—are subject to two four-year terms, community board members (volunteers who are appointed by borough presidents) are not subject to any such cap. If the ballot measure is approved by voters, that would change: Newly appointed board members, or those reappointed after April 1, 2019, would be limited to four consecutive two-year terms. After two years off a board, members would be eligible to be reappointed to it.

To precent a sudden mass exodus in 2027 and 2028, members appointed for terms that begin in April 2020 could be reappointed for up to five two-year terms, or 10 years. Terms served before 2019 or 2020 would not count toward the term limit—thus, those currently serving would be eligible for four additional terms, regardless of how long they've been on a board.

Additionally, Proposal 3's approval would require borough presidents to "seek out persons of diverse backgrounds in making appointments to community boards," and make applications available on their websites.

While the term limits may themselves pave the way for community boards that are more reflective of neighborhood demographics, the commission hopes the proposal's added transparency measures—such as new reporting requirements on the recruitment and selection of community board members, including age, education, and optional demographic information (race, ethnicity)—will lead to the appointment of a more diverse set of members.

The backstory

The proposal came out of the city's Charter Revision Commission process, which Mayor Bill de Blasio announced during his 2018 State of the City address. The commission was tasked with looking at how it could amend the city's rulebook for its governance structure via ballot initiatives.

In April, former New York Secretary of State Cesar Perales was appointed chair of the Charter Revision Commission. Over the next few months, during a series of public meetings, the group fielded suggestions from stakeholders, city residents, and elected officials. It issued its final report in September, with three recommendations for ballot measures: revamping the city's campaign finance rules, creating a civic engagement commission, and enforcing term limits for community boards.

The central divide that has emerged in the debate over Proposal 3 is between those who believe that boards must be bodies where new voices, who many say are more in touch with of the current realities of their districts, are able to enter the fray, and those who want boards to be heavily populated by seasoned, longtime members who possess the requisite experience and know-how to handle complex development proposals.

Arguments in favor

"The proposal seeks to strike a reasonable balance between retaining valuable institutional knowledge and providing opportunities for new voices to have a seat at the table," Matt Gewolb, the executive director of the commission, said in a statement.

The Charter Review Commission's own report argued that term limits would "create an opportunity for new voices on all community boards." During its public hearing process, the group heard testimony about situations in which board members do not proportionality capture the vast array of voices that ought to be included in a board's discussions and decisions. As neighborhood demographics shift, the theory goes, the continued appointment of the same individuals who first joined a decade or two ago does not allow for the board to reflect the interests of an area's new residents.

For example, John Choe, a member of Queens Community Board 7, testified that its executive committee is 100 percent white, while just 26 percent of its constituency is; 52 percent of the district's residents are of Asian descent, but they're represented by 38 percent of the spots on the community board. Very few of its members are under the age of 40.

Unlimited reappointment can also create a situation in which a disproportionately white, older cohort represents communities that are majority non-white, leading to imbalances in whose interests are advanced. One instance cited by the commission's report was a community board giving a thumbs down to a nonprofit seeking to build a health clinic that would serve 40,000 predominantly low-income immigrants; the board had concerns over an insufficient amount of parking.

At least a few City Council members are on board: Rafael Espinal supports approving Proposal 3, because he believes it will help community boards "become more representative of the communities they serve," according to a spokesperson.

In a statement, Ben Kallos said he supports the proposal because community boards ought to be spaces where people are "greeted by board members who hear their voices and reflect the demographics of their neighborhood."

The only Borough President to support the proposal is Brooklyn's Eric Adams, who says term limits would break the cycle of longtime board members crowding out others' perspectives.

"[F]ar too often," he said via a spokesperson, "the members remain members for long periods, blocking new voices and limiting the diversity of voices on the board." He said that though "institutional knowledge" is valuable to community boards, term limits allow for both informed board members and fresh voices to be included in the conversation.

Ben Carlos Thypin, a board member of nascent pro-development group Open New York, was more explicit in his support. Since community board members skew "older, whiter, and more housing-secure than their neighbors," he said, they do not make decisions that are in the best interest for the communities as a whole, specifically excluding people of color, renters and newcomers to the city or neighborhoods.

Arguments against

Leading the charge against the proposal is Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer, who last week formed a committee, "Vote No on 2 & 3," with the goal of defeating the pair of proposals. (Proposal 2 would create a 15-member "Civic Engagement Commission" tasked with bolstering civic trust and participation in the city).

Brewer says term limits would serve as a gift to the real estate industry: Developers—equipped with land use lawyers, architects, public relations staff, lobbyists, and the like—could, in theory, exert pressure on those inexperienced newcomers, who Brewer says are likely to be insufficiently adept at handling complicated land use proposals. (Community board land use recommendations are advisory and non-binding, but Council members are often loath to side against them.)

Imposing term limits, she wrote in an email from her personal account, would serve as a "disruption" to the manner in which community boards "protect" communities. "Land use and zoning regulations are hard to learn; it takes time," she wrote. "It would have the effect of allowing developers and their lawyers—who are never term limited!—to dominate development negotiations, because those long-time members will be gone."

City Council member Helen Rosenthal also believes longtime community board members are needed to fight back against development. "There already is a certain amount of turnover every year on the boards, but her key objection is that board members who fully understand the land use review process are desperately needed, especially as the city continues to go through a development boom," Sarah Crean, a spokesperson for Rosenthal, said in an email.

Brewer and Rosenthal are joined by three other borough presidents—the Bronx's Ruben Diaz Jr., Queens's Melinda Katz, and Staten Island's James Oddo—in their opposition. Those four borough presidents in August signed a letter, first reported by the Daily News, which makes the case that adding term limits "serves to further empower real estate developers and the lobbyists and technical advisors who appear on their behalf before the community boards." Term limits would induce a "brain drain" on community boards, they wrote, and would "weaken their ability to serve as advocates for neighborhood concerns in the development process."

(In response, Gewolb noted that another ballot measure—Proposal 2, to create a Civic Engagement Commission—would offer the necessary resources to get new board members up to speed on complicated land use issues.)

Brian Van Nieuwenhoven, who has been a member of Manhattan Community Board 6 for four years, says that while the line argument made by those like Brewer is "overstated," there is some truth to their assertion that veteran members are often more comfortable aggressively taking a stand. "People who are familiar with community boards understand that it really takes time to ramp somebody up to being an outspoken leader, if they ever get to that point at all," he tells Curbed.

Comptroller Scott Stringer said in June said he doesn't support term limits, due to his concern that board members would always be thinking of their next moves instead of focusing on the tasks at hand.

"When you have term limits," he said during a commission advisory forum, "you also have a lame duck status that sets in. We're going to see that with people now in their fifth year wondering what office they're gonna run for next, and, I dare say, you're gonna see a lot of musical chairs and people thinking about the future, not necessarily the job in front of them."