Die Rechnung der Beschleunigung
Am 3. November sollen fünf Entscheidungen über das Stadtgesetz fallen, und New York wird gebeten, über die Geschwindigkeit der eigenen Regierung nachzudenken. Zohran Mamdani ist seit dem 1. Januar 2026 der 112. Bürgermeister der Stadt, Mitglied der Demokratischen Partei und der Democratic Socialists of America. Er wurde 2025 gewählt, folgte auf Eric Adams und ist der erste muslimische und erste asiatischstämmige Bürgermeister New Yorks. Seine jüngste Initiative however has less to do with public service than with public power: With 1.6 million dollars in taxpayer money, his administration is promoting five ballot questions that, in the view of critics, would exponentially expand his authority while presenting themselves as technical streamlining of government.
On November 3, five charter questions will go to the ballot, and New York is being asked to think about the speed of its own government. Zohran Mamdani has served as the city’s 112th mayor since Jan. 1, 2026. A member of the Democratic Party and the Democratic Socialists of America, he was elected in 2025, succeeded Eric Adams and became New York’s first Muslim and first Asian American mayor. His latest initiative, however, has less to do with public service than with public power: With $1.6 million in taxpayer funds, his administration is promoting five ballot questions that, in critics’ view, would exponentially expand his authority while presenting themselves as technical streamlining of government.
The questions were selected by a 15-member Charter Revision Commission appointed by Mamdani. His administration now uses videos, social-media posts, text-message blasts, advertising on buses and kiosks as well as signs on municipal refuse trucks to urge New Yorkers to vote for them. In one clip, Mamdani races through City Hall with cartoon sound effects and tells voters that they will decide how fast government runs. The message is deliberately frictionless: less red tape, faster construction, more efficiency. What remains offstage is the constitutional machinery that could lose teeth if the questions pass.
That machinery is not incidental. One proposal would simplify approvals for private uses of public space, including outdoor dining sheds, sidewalk cafés, accessibility ramps, benches and planters. In return, City Council review would disappear, local community boards and borough presidents would lose some influence, and applications could proceed without public hearings. A separate measure would accelerate construction of bus lanes, bike lanes and anti-car street-safety projects. Projects presented as administrative necessities would therefore also bypass some of the institutions through which residents, councils and communities can object.
The five questions do not merely promise faster procedures; together, they would redirect control. Their common grammar is acceleration without adequate counterweight, and their recurring sales pitch is that a city unable to move quickly deserves less friction. Yet the public campaign does not explain what controls are being surrendered, by how much authority would migrate toward City Hall, or which communities would bear the consequences. It tells voters that the pace is theirs to choose. It does not tell them plainly that the choice also decides how much scrutiny the winner of that choice may face.
That distinction matters because the legal framework surrounding the campaign is contested. Section 1136.1 of the New York City Charter prohibits the use of government resources for electioneering, including communications designed to influence support for or opposition to ballot referendums. According to Councilman Phil Wong, knowing or intentional violations can constitute misdemeanors. His central accusation is that the advertising does more than provide neutral information: it promotes the proposals while omitting their effects on oversight, thereby using public money to advance the mayor’s political agenda.
The scale and placement of the campaign have made that allegation difficult to dismiss as a technicality. Mamdani’s face appears in spots seen on LinkNYC kiosks and other municipal advertising spaces; accompanying signs have appeared on city garbage trucks. Wong, a Democratic colleague of the mayor, has called for state leaders to investigate and has demanded the appointment of a special prosecutor. In a letter to Governor Kathy Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James, he warned of possible misdemeanors. Neither ally returned his calls, according to reports. New York’s Conflicts of Interest Board has separately said that investigating the advertisements falls outside its jurisdiction.
City Hall offers a different vocabulary. The mayor’s office says the commission is charged under state law with public education and that the campaign is intended to ensure voters are properly informed about the questions before November 3. It calls the advertising neither a referendum campaign nor an effort to determine the outcome. This defense may ultimately be tested in court, but it does not settle the political question: public education becomes difficult to distinguish from persuasion when the public educator is the incumbent who appointed the body drafting the choices and whose office benefits from a particular result.
The mechanism is especially elegant because it preserves the appearance of popular sovereignty while narrowing its conditions. Voters still hold the ballot and still make the final decision; nevertheless, they are asked to approve a menu prepared by a commission named by the incumbent and presented through an advertising apparatus financed by the public. The office of mayor is thus converted from a custodian of the city’s rules into the chief promoter of a charter revision advantageous to that office. A service supposed to inform citizens is made to finance a campaign for greater executive power.
No motive needs to be invented for the concern to remain. The legal question of intent may ultimately belong to prosecutors and courts. The institutional asymmetry, however, is already visible: the same administration that benefits from the five approvals is spending public money to make those approvals appear irresistible. New Yorkers are not being asked only how quickly government should run. They are being asked whether the mayor may help write the rules, bankroll the campaign and reduce the checks on his own power. The question is dressed as efficiency; the substance is concentration.
❖ Ende des Artikels ❖