Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
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:
Natural Resource Conservation and Resiliency - $1.547bn
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.
Campaign
Support
Proposition 68 was authored by State SenatorKevin de LeΓ³n. 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. 'Yes' supporters spent more than $9m throughout the campaign.
Opposition to Proposition 68 mainly argued that instead of issuing debt, the state should fund parks and environmental projects through California's general fund. 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.
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.
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