2018 California Proposition 68
Ballot proposition to fund parks and environmental projects
Choice | Votes | % |
|---|---|---|
 Yes | 3,808,000 | 57.35% |
 No | 2,831,899 | 42.65% |
| Valid votes | 6,639,899 | 100.00% |
| Invalid or blank votes | 0 | 0.00% |
| Total votes | 6,639,899 | 100.00% |
California Proposition 68 (also the Natural Resources Bond or the California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection, and Outdoor Access for All Act of 2018) was a legislatively referred constitutional amendment that appeared on ballots in California in the June primary election in 2018. It was a $4.1bn bond measure to fund parks, environmental projects, water infrastructure projects and flood protection measures throughout California.
Proposal
The Proposition would allow the State of California to borrow $4.1bn using a municipal bond scheme in order to fund parks, water and flood protection infrastructure and various environmental projects. The Proposition set allocation of these funds between different strategies:[1]
- Natural Resource Conservation and Resiliency - $1.547bn
- State conservancies and wildlife conservation - $767m
- Climate preparedness and habitat resiliency - $443m
- Ocean and coastal protection - $175m
- River and waterway improvements - $162m
- Parks and recreation - $1.283bn
- Parks in neighbourhoods with few parks - $725m
- Local and regional parks - $285m
- State park restoration, preservation and protection - $218m
- Trails, greenways, and rural recreation - $55m
- Water - $1.27bn
- Flood protection - $550m
- Groundwater recharge and cleanup - $370m
- Safe drinking water - $250m
- Water recycling - $100m
The cost to the public was estimated to be $7.8bn after paying off interest, or an average annual repayment of $200m for forty years.[1]
Campaign
Support
Proposition 68 was authored by State Senator Kevin de León.[2] The 'Yes' campaign focused mainly on the improvements the Proposition would bring to parks, saying that it would remedy years of "under-investment" in environmental infrastructure in poorer communities.[3] 'Yes' supporters spent more than $9m throughout the campaign.[4]
Endorsements
- Jerry Brown, then-Governor of California[5]
- Gavin Newsom, then-Lieutenant Governor of California[5]
- Antonio Villaraigosa, former Los Angeles mayor[5]
- League of California Cities, association of California's cities[6]
- Los Angeles Times, the United States' fifth largest newspaper, based in Los Angeles[7]
- The Sacramento Bee, Sacramento's largest newspaper[8]
- Daily Bruin, University of California, Los Angeles newspaper[9]
- The Mercury News, paper from San Jose, California[10]
- The Outdoor Industry Association[11]
- Save the Redwoods League[12]
- Peninsula Open Space Trust[12]
Opposition
Opposition to Proposition 68 mainly argued that instead of issuing debt, the state should fund parks and environmental projects through California's general fund.[12] It was also noted that although the 'Yes' campaign was promoting the Proposition on its benefits to parks, less than one third of the money would actually go towards parks and recreation.[13]
Endorsements
- John Moorlach, State Senator[5]
- Andrea Seastrand, former House member[5]
- Jon Coupal, President of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association[5]
- Peace and Freedom Party, left-wing political party[14]
- Chico Enterprise-Record, newspaper of Chico, California[13]
Results
Yes/No Statement
A "yes" vote on Proposition 68 proposes: The state could sell $4.1 billion in general obligation bonds to fund various natural resources-related programs such as for habitat conservation, parks, and water-related projects. A "no" vote on Proposition 68 proposes: The state could not sell $4.1 billion in general obligation bonds to fund various natural resources-related programs.[1]
Results
Proposition 68 gained 3,808,000 yes votes and 2,831,899 no votes (a total of 6,639,899 votes), so passing with 57.35% approval
References
Politics portal
California portal
- ^ a b c "Proposition 68". Legislative Analyst's Office. June 5, 2018. Retrieved May 8, 2020.
- ^ "California's Prop 68". National Recreation and Park Association. Retrieved May 8, 2020.
- ^ Ravani, Sarah; Garofoli, Joe (June 6, 2018). "Prop. 68 passes to inject $4.1 billion into CA water, land conservation projects". SFGate. Retrieved May 8, 2020.
- ^ Cart, Julie (May 30, 2018). "Parks and politics: What you need to know about Propositions 68 and 70". CalMatters. Retrieved May 9, 2020.
- ^ a b c d e f Austin, Paige (May 18, 2018). "What Is Proposition 68? Voter Guide for 2018 California Measures". Patch.com. Retrieved May 8, 2020.
- ^ "California Newspapers Endorse League-Supported Propositions 68, 69 and 72 on the June Ballot". League of California Cities. May 15, 2018. Retrieved May 8, 2020.
- ^ "Endorsement: Yes on Proposition 68 to preserve parks, protect water supply and enhance our climate resilience". Los Angeles Times. April 26, 2018. Retrieved May 8, 2020.
- ^ "Vote 'yes' on all the June 2018 ballot measures but one". The Sacramento Bee. March 22, 2018. Retrieved May 8, 2020.
- ^ "California 2018 primary election: Yes on Proposition 68". Daily Bruin. June 3, 2018. Retrieved May 9, 2020.
- ^ "Editorial: Prop. 68 water, parks bond deserves Californians' support". The Mercury News. March 10, 2018. Retrieved May 9, 2020.
- ^ "California Proposition 68, Parks, Environment, and Water Bond". Outdoor Industry Association. Archived from the original on July 13, 2018. Retrieved May 8, 2020.
- ^ a b c Rogers, Paul (May 21, 2018). "Proposition 68: Will voters approve $4.1 billion for parks and water projects?". The Mercury News. Retrieved May 8, 2020.
- ^ a b "Editorial: Vote no on Proposition 68, state's parks and water bond". Chico Enterprise-Record. May 21, 2018. Retrieved May 9, 2020.
- ^ "Election 2018: Peace and Freedom Party endorsements for ballot propositions 68, 69, 70, 71 and 72". Peace and Freedom Party. May 14, 2018. Archived from the original on September 10, 2020. Retrieved May 8, 2020.
