California Proposition 43, Parks and Recreation Bond Measure (June 1986)
| California Proposition 43 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date June 3, 1986 | |
| Topic Bond issues | |
Status Approved | |
| Type Bond issue | Origin State Legislature |
California Proposition 43 was on the ballot as a bond issue in California on June 3, 1986. It was approved.
A "yes" vote supported authorizing the state to issue $100 million in bonds for park and recreational developments. |
A "no" vote opposed authorizing the state to issue $100 million in bonds for park and recreational developments. |
Under the proposal, the California State Department of Parks and Recreation divided the bond money among counties, cities, and districts, based on their population. Counties and certain park districts received 40% of the grant money. Cities and certain other districts received 60% of the grant money. Proposition 43 required grant recipients to contribute 25% toward the cost of property bought with the bond money.
Election results
|
California Proposition 43 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
2,924,973 | 67.31% | ||
| No | 1,420,822 | 32.69% | ||
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 43 was as follows:
| “ | Community Parklands Act of 1986 | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ | This act provides for a bond issue of one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000) to provide funds for acquiring, developing, improving, rehabilitating, or restoring urgently needed local and regional parks, beaches, recreational areas and facilities, and historical resources. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Fiscal impact
The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:[1]
| “ |
Paying Off the Bonds. The state would make principal and interest payments over a period of up to 20 years from the state's General Fund. The average payment would be about $9 million each year if the bonds were sold at an interest rate of 7.5 percent. Borrowing Costs for Other Bonds. By increasing the amount which the state borrows, this measure may cause the state and local governments to pay more under other bond programs. These costs cannot be estimated. Lower State Revenues. The people who buy these bonds are not required to pay state income tax on the interest they earn. Therefore, if California taxpayers buy these bonds instead of making other taxable investments, the state would collect less taxes. This loss of revenue cannot be estimated. Operational Costs. The local agencies that acquire or improve property with bond funds would have to pay the additional costs to operate those properties. These costs may be offset partly by revenues from the new properties, such as entrance fees. These additional costs cannot be estimated. Costs to Administer Grants. It would cost the Department of Parks and Recreation $500,000 to $600,000 to administer the grant program. This measure provides $400,000 to the department for these costs. The remaining $100,000 to $200,000 probably would come from the state's General Fund.[2] |
” |
Path to the ballot
A simple majority vote was needed in each chamber of the California State Legislature to refer the measure to the ballot for voter consideration.
See also
External links
Footnotes
- ↑ University of California, "Voter Guide," accessed August 17, 2021
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
