Use of gerunds with verbs besides "estar" in Spanish

In Spanish, when you use two verbs, the second one is almost always an infinitive. For example:

Spanish: Yo quiero bailar.
Literal English: I want to dance.

The one exception that beginners learn is for "estar" (to be) which is followed by a gerund (an -ing word).

Spanish: Yo estoy bailando.
Literal English: I am dancing.

But DuoLingo has been throwing in a few more verbs that are followed by gerunds, so I looked for a list to see if I could see a pattern. I don't, but apparently the list of verbs commonly used this way is short.

From DuoLingo, there's "seguir," "continuar," and, most weirdly, "llevar," the last of which lets you or requires that you use adverbial words between it and the gerund.

"Seguir" means "to follow" or "to continue." (I first was confused by this word when getting directions somewhere while I was in Spain. Apparently, continuing straight is a common instruction.)

When used with a gerund, it means "to continue" and can sometimes be translated as "to still be" (doing something) or to "keep" (doing something).

Spanish: Sigo viviendo en la misma casa.
Literal English: I continue living in the same house.
Natural English: I’m still living in the same house.

"Continuar" also means to continue, so it's no surprise that it works the same way.

"Llevar" means to carry or take, but apparently we can think of it as meaning to carry on [doing something].

Spanish: Llevo trabajando diez años.
Literal English: I carry (on) working ten years.
Natural English: I've been working ten years.

That hurts my head, because if I were trying to say that last sentence, I'd use a different verb and different tenses:

Spanish: He estado trabajando diez años.
Literal English: I have been working ten years.

Not only that, but it has been drilled into my head that you NEVER split verbs in Spanish. And yet DuoLingo is always sticking the adverbs between the two verbs:

Spanish: Llevo tres horas estudiando.
Literal English: I carry (on) three hours studying.
Natural English: I've been studying (for) three hours.

Admittedly, gerunds are used like nouns, but we were taught that even with estoy + a gerund, don't put any other words in between.

And here are some other verbs that partner with gerunds I found that I don't recall DuoLingo flinging at me yet.

"Andar" means "to walk" but this word (unlike "caminar") has a very broad meaning and doesn't just mean literally walking, but can often be used like the English verbs "to run" or "to go." It can mean traveling or moving in general (like "go" does), so you can use andar to say you're going by bus. It can even mean to function; you can use andar to say your watch is running. When used with a gerund, the meaning is something like "to go around" in a way that kind of means to spend time.

Spanish: Ella anda diciendo mentiras.
Literal English: She walks telling lies.
Natural English: She goes around telling lies.

Apparently the implication is that this is an action in progress with a connotation that it's been going on longer than expected or desired.

"Ir" means "to go." With a gerund, apparently "ir" means the same as "andar," but without the negative connotation:

Spanish: Voy aprendiendo español poco a poco.
Literal English: I go learning Spanish little by little.
Natural English: I am learning Spanish little by little.

"Pasar" means "to pass" or "to spend." With gerunds, it means to spend time [doing something]. And you can definitely use noun phrases between "pasar" and the gerund.

Spanish: Ella pasa el verano leyendo libros.
Literal English: She spends the summer reading books.

"Venir" means "to come." With a gerund, it acts a lot like "llevar" or "andar" but the connotation is more positive, implying steady progress.

Spanish: Venimos hablando de esto toda la semana.
Literal English: We come talking of this all the week.
Natural English: We've been talking about this all week.

Per Spanish Academy, 'To be honest, you can use almost any verb you want with a gerund, but it won’t convey a progressive action. Instead, gerunds with other verbs behave like adverbs and add information to how the action is being performed.'

November 2023 Travis County Election

This is a brief description of what's on my ballot, how I'm voting, and why. I also wrote a more detailed post.

Proposition 1 - protecting the right to engage in farming, ranching, timber production, horticulture, and wildlife management

No - because it's supported by big ag but not smaller farmers.

Proposition 2 - allowing counties and states to reduce property taxes for child-care facilities

Yes - It's expected to lead to additional much-needed child-care facilities.

Proposition 3 - prohibiting individual wealth or net worth taxes (without voter authorization)

Yes because I oppose wealth taxes, because you are taxing the same money over and over and because it's good to update the Constitution while it's possible. But progressives do not support this bill, I think because wealth taxes are progressive.

Proposition 4 - providing property tax relief

No because it's regressive and it's weirdly temporary. But I'm wavering a bit because if it doesn't pass, homeowners will get a surprise second bill and most of them aren't rich enough to not be bothered by that. (Disclaimer: I would save about $54/month).

Proposition 5 - a Texas University Fund to make more flagship universities

Yes because it provides reliable research funding for four additional state universities (in addition to UT and A&M). (Disclaimer: I love universities.)

Proposition 6 - creating a Texas water fund to assist in financing water projects in this state

Yes because this our state's water infrastructure, which needs lots of help, and water is important for everyone.

Proposition 7 - creating the Texas Energy Fund

No because it subsidizes only new natural gas plants, not cleaner forms of energy that are much more appropriate during our climate crisis

Proposition 8 - creating a broadband infrastructure fund

Yes because this would extend broadband access, helping Texas catch up with the developed world, and this seems like a public utility that should be funded by the government.

Proposition 9 - providing cost-of-living raises for retired teachers

Yes because it really does support retired teachers and it's bipartisan. (Disclaimer: I like teachers, I got certified to be one and tried to be one for decades, and the passage of this proposition would give me an additional $45/month, minus taxes, forever)

Proposition 10 - exempting medical product manufacturers from ad valorem taxes

Yes because I oppose wealth taxes. (In case you don't care about that, it has bipartisan support.)

Proposition 11 - adding El Paso County to the list of counties that can issue bonds to fund recreational development and improvement

Yes because I support parks and the locals still get to vote on any actual tax increases

Proposition 12 - dissolving the office of county treasurer in Galveston County

No because I support checks and balances but not privatization of public offices

Proposition 13 - increasing the mandatory age of retirement for state justices and judges

Yes because I oppose agism

Proposition 14 - creating the centennial parks conservation fund to create state parks

Yes because I think a trust fund for new parks is an excellent use for part of the recent government surplus, and will help make up for a lack of funds in the past. (Disclaimer: I like parks, but so does almost everybody else.)

Travis County Propositions

Proposition A - improving roads and transportation infrastructure

Yes because it seems like the projects highlighted are a good idea

Proposition B - improving and increasing parks

Yes because park development needs to keep up with population growth

November 2023 Travis County Election Details

Here is a detailed description of the items on my ballot and how I'm voting. See my briefer, easier-to-read list.

Main sources:
AC1 - https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2023-10-20/chronicle-endorsements-for-the-november-7-election/
LWV1 - Nonpartisan Voter's Guide, League of Women Voters of Texas
TT1 - https://www.texastribune.org/2023/09/15/texas-constitutional-amendment-voter-guide/
TT2 - https://www.texastribune.org/2023/07/24/texas-abbott-property-tax-cut/
Edited to add: see also Mothers Against Greg Abbott PAC

State of Texas Propositions

Proposition 1 - protecting the right to engage in farming, ranching, timber production, horticulture, and wildlife management

What is the problem? 'Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller said “municipal encroachment will no longer threaten the livelihoods” of farmers and ranchers if the amendment passes.' - TT1

'With Texas cities continuing to grow, this amendment would raise the bar for state and local regulation of generally accepted farming and ranching practices. It would require for state and local governments to provide evidence that the regulation is needed to protect the public from danger. For example, it would prevent a city from banning farming in an area for no specific reason, but it would allow for a government to require ranchers to put up fences for their livestock, according to the Texas Farm Bureau, which supports the amendment. The amendment would not affect state or local government efforts needed to preserve or conserve natural resources, such as water, fish, wildlife and trees. Nor would it affect state actions needed to protect animal health and crop production.' - TT1

Opponents say that actually this would limit the power of local governments to protect community health, including large, industrial farms. 'Counties and cities must follow the definition of "acceptable agriculture practices" as defined by Texas A&M AgriLife Extension, whose interpetation may be too broad for urban areas.' - LWV1

So, I guess it's not about people being allowed to farm in their own backyards? I guess it's not about disallowing eminant domain for farms, ranches, etc.? I'm inclined to trust the A&M Extension office. I wished I knew what this was really all about, and then the Austin Chronicle (AC1) came out, saying 'it also gives an unprecedented level of protection for agricultural businesses that are bad neighbors, creating unreasonably high standards for cities to sue over threats to public health like overuse of pesticides. Texas Farm Bureau, which represents larger agribusiness, lobbied hard for this, and organizations representing smaller farmers like the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance have come out against.'

My vote: No

Proposition 2 - allowing counties and states to reduce property taxes for child-care facilties

This is expected to help child-care facilities stay open and to encourage more to be built, and this kind of support can really help the economy. ('The U.S. Chamber of Commerce Foundation found that the Texas economy loses nearly $9.4 billion a year from breakdowns in child care.' - TT1) Of course others would have to take up this tax burden. It may or may not lead to lower costs for parents and may or higher wages for workers. Costs are pretty high, though, and wages are pretty low.

My vote: Yes

Proposition 3 - prohibiting individual wealth or net worth taxes (without voter authorization)

Okay, we already have property taxes, which are wealth taxes--apparently this is not about those.

'Assets may include cash, bank deposits, shares of stock, equipment, real estate, pension plans, money funds and trusts.' - LWV1

The media say the pros are that wealth shouldn't be penalized, that a wealth tax would be difficult and costly to administer, and some tax payers have wealth but wouldn't have the cash flow to pay a tax. Those opposed say we should keep our options open, a wealth tax would help the very wealthy pay their fair share, and who cares because we're not even considering such a tax.

Personally, I oppose wealth taxes, because you are taxing the same money over and over. Why yes, I'd rather pay sales tax than property tax when buying a house. But I am a weirdo. Apparently normal progressives like wealth taxes. Also, the time to put something in the Constitution is when there isn't yet a threat by a bunch of crazies. (Equal Rights Amendment and birth control/abortion rights, I'm talking to you.)

My vote: Yes

Proposition 4 - property tax relief

This would use a temporary surplus in state funds to temporarily reduce property taxes.

There would be no relief for renters - TT2, so richer people are getting the money. And renters are indirectly paying 1/4 of these taxes - AC1.

One weird thing I noticed from my county's property tax estimate is that it is based on this proposition passing. Admittedly, it probably will. But if it doesn't, the fine print explains that homeowners will receive a second property tax bill for the rest, which will certainly be a rude surprise for most.

(FYI, my new estimate shows an increase for all taxes except the school district part. My bill shows a savings of $648.21 or 20% of my AISD taxes. My total bill is expected to be $516.14 less or 8% lower than last year.)

One thing I'm not clear on is whether the 10% increase max per year will apply after this temporary tax cut happens, in which case it seems like schools would be negatively affected.

Here are some details from The Texas Tribune:

The legislature, in a special session, 'passed three bills to spend $13.3 billion of a historic state surplus to rein in Texas property taxes, which are among the highest in the nation. The extra cash in the state coffers was attributed largely to record sales tax collections — which every person pays when making purchases in Texas — when inflation soared nationally after the pandemic. Added to $5.3 billion budgeted in 2019 to lower school tax rates, a total of $18.6 billion in tax cuts would go to property owners this year.'

However, first the constitution would have to be amended. 'Proponents of the package wanted a constitutional amendment so that any changes that lawmakers might want to make to certain parts of the bill in the future would have to be approved by voters first. The amendment is also needed so that the cost of all of the tax cuts this year won’t count against spending limits imposed by voters and lawmakers on the $321.3 billion state budget for the next two years.'

There are five parts to the plan:
1) school tax compression - $7.1 billion sent to school districts so they can lower the taxes they levy by 10.7 cents per $100 for maintenance and operations (which includes salaries).
2) homestead exemption - $5.6 billion to raise the exemption from $40,000 to $100,000.
3) temporary 20% appraisal cap - the appraisal for commercial, mineral, and residential properties that do not have a homestead examption and are valued under $5 million could not go up by more than 20% over the next 3 years.
4) Franchise tax exemptions - increased from $1.24 million ot $2.47 million. Plus, businesses that don't meet the new threshold for having to pay these taxes would not have to file forms.
5) county appraisal officials - most are appointed; this would require 3 members to be selected by general election for 4-year terms.
'Policy analysts and lawmakers project that the expanded homestead exemption and lower school tax rate would reduce a Texas homeowner’s property taxes by an average of 41.5%, or about $1,300 per year for a $350,000 home.'

(My proposed bill would be reduced 8% or $516.14 (from $6185.54 last year to $5669.40 this year) for property with a market value of $461,783 (up form $433,941) - only my school taxes would be going down (20% or $648.21) (from 3251.56 to 2603.35); all the others will rise.)

Somehow there's also a way for senior homeowners, who's school taxes are already frozen, to see a tax reduction - 'by about $1,450 per year on a $330,000 home.'

Edited to add: Just found this list of recommendations from the Mothers Against Greg Abbott PAC. Weirdly they agree with me on voting No on Proposition 4, saying 'This is a TEMPORARY 20% cap on properties valued under 5 Million dollars. Appraisal boards will go from being appointed to elected. While $7.1 Billion will go back to Tx schools so they can lower taxes for property owners, our schools will not see an additional penny. It just replaces money they lose by the lower tax rate. This isn't long term tax relief, this bill just clicks the ball down the hill till next session.'

My vote: No because kids these days can't afford houses and they need relief more than we do

(Disclaimer: this is one of two propositions that would directly affect my bottom line to the tune of $54/month.)

Proposition 5 - a Texas University Fund to make more flagship universities

Right now, Texas has two flagship state universities (UT and A&M) and they are funded in part by the Permanent University Fund, created at the dawn of time, ahem, when Texas was admitted to the US as a state. Back when I was looking at colleges in 1979, UT had about 50,000 students. Today, UT still has about 50,000 students, yet the state population has increased greatly. So it makes sense that we are trying to create more flagship universities.

Currently there is a National Research University Fund to encourage this. Eight universities qualify for this funding. This proposition would change the name to the Texas University Fund and fund it with with dividends and investments from Texas' rainy day fund. But the funding would go to only 4 universities.

Then a National Research Support Fund would also be created, but its funding would have to be approved every 2 years by the state legislature and is thus much less stable. This would fund the other 4 universities.

'Also, Proposition 5 standardizes performance metrics to evaluate whether a university program qualifies for a grant.' - LWV1 - I have no clue what those metrics are.

It looks like what is different is that 4 additional universities besides UT and A&M would get stable funding for research, but 4 others would keep getting unstable funding. - LWV1 So, I'm for that.

Admittedly, I love universities. (I never want to live anywhere but a university town. With warm weather. Also, I worked at one for over 25 years.) I got a weird thing in the mail supporting this proposition because, "Texas is home to some of the world's largest energy producers but the high-paying jobs these companies are creating will go to out-of-state transplants" - TexasUniversityFund.com

My vote: Yes

Proposition 6 - creating a Texas water fund to assist in financing water projects in this state

Texas is mostly a pretty dry state and yet we are supporting a large population, so we have water problems. This sounds like too little, too late. Just kidding! I assume it's fantastic.

The fund would 'support a wide range of projects including fixing Texas’ aging, deteriorating pipes, acquiring more water sources and mitigating water loss.

'A portion of the fund would have to be used for water infrastructure projects in rural areas as well as for water conservation strategies and water loss projects. At least 25% of the fund would be used for the New Water Supply Fund for Texas, which will support projects to increase the state’s water supply through, for example, marine desalination and treating “produced water,” which comes from the ground during the oil fracking process.' - TT1

Per LWV1, those opposed say it's not enough and complain that state funds could be put into local projects.

Per AC1, 'A $1 billion investment in Texas' broken water infrastructure is needed, and will address the roughly 50 gallons of water a day lost per home through leaky pipes. Part of the fund is also appropriated toward new supply projects, including marine desalination and treated fracking wastewater, as well as education programs about water loss. Sierra Club has not taken a position on Prop 6, as there are concerns about low-income rural communities not being prioritized for infrastructure investments and about the environmental and health impacts of possible supply projects.'

My vote: Yes

Proposition 7 - creating the Texas Energy Fund

This sounds like the same kind of thing, but for energy. But it enables 'officials to distribute loans and grants to companies with the aim of building new natural gas-fueled power plants. This would include giving a 3% interest loan for the construction of or upgrades to gas-fueled power plants on the state’s main electric grid and paying a bonus for getting new plants connected by June 2029.' - TT1

I have mixed feelings about this. One the one hand, we are in a climate crisis and we need to stop subsidizing fossil fuels (in this case, with low interest rates) yesterday! We especially should not still be building brand new fossil fuel plants. On the other hand, I've heard that we should see natural gas as a transition fuel taking us away from coal while we're building up our renewable resources.

But in Texas, coal is not the alternative. Texas has a lot of natural gas, but we've already gotten most of the easy gas and are now into fracking which is polluting and causes earthquakes. Texas also has a lot of sun and an lot of wind. Solar and wind projects are not eligible for loans or grants from this fund. Per AC1, this proposition 'literally stipulates that new battery construction projects need not apply.'

My vote: No

Proposition 8 - creating a broadband infrastructure fund

'With the passage of this resolution, $1.5 billion would be allocated to expand internet availability in Texas, where some 7 million people currently lack access. These dollars would help pay to develop and finance broadband and telecommunications services as well as 911 services. The fund will also provide matching funds with federal money from the Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment Program.' - TT1

I do think we should try to join the rest of the civilized world in having more high-speed internet, and as I see it as a utility, I think it makes sense for the government to fund it.

However, I have no idea how (if?) the ologopolic broadband companies will try to wrap this around their fingers. Wait, per AC1, 'Prop 8 would create a broadband infrastructure fund to expand high-speed internet to Texans statewide, including where private companies don't operate.' That's a clue of some kind, but I don't know how to interpret it.

Wait, Ballotpedia shows they support this proposition.

My vote: Yes

Proposition 9 - cost of living raises for retired teachers

The Teacher Retirement Fund is allowed to give retirees cost of living raises (COLAs) when the fund is financially sound. And it's gone decades without being considered sound. I mean, it's been kinda almost sound but if it looks good now, the long-term average doesn't look good yet and when the long-term average is finally good, it doesn't look good now. Except apparently right now, the fund is finally considered sound and could actually fund a small COLA, but it's not. This bill requires transferring $3.3 billion from the general revenue fund (part of the surplus) to the retired teachers's fund.

I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, they keep raising the contribution rate for current employees while also reducing their future benefits, so at least this isn't doing that. On the other hand, I expect there could be a lot better uses for this money. But, this is good support for ex-teachers (most of whom are not allowed to also collect Social Security like I can) and, per Ballotpedia, this is was from a bi-partisan bill. Literally no one opposed it.

Here are the details on the legislative update that led to this proposition, per https://issuu.com/trsoftexas/docs/trs_news_summer_2023_retiree (most of which does not require voter approval): 1) contribution rates are going up from 8 to 8.25% for the state and employees and from 1.9 to 2.0% for public education employers. 2) Old people will get tiny one-time stipends. 3) If voters approve, I get a 2% COLA, but others get 4-6%. 4) TRS will starting offering optional dental and vision care coverage.

So, this is another proposition that can give me more money, specifically 2% or about $45/month (minus taxes). I'm not going to be bribed with a 2% raise when prices on most things I buy have increased 25-33%. But I'm not the only one involved.

My vote: Yes

Proposition 10 - exempting medical product manufactuers from ad valorem taxes

This is another one of those wealth taxes, and most states don't have it. 'Supporters of the exemption say that it will encourage more manufacturers in the industry to locate in Texas, lower healthcare costs and strengthen the medical supply chain. Detractors say that school districts are already strapped for money and that the same goals can be achieved without lowering their revenue. They also point out that the amendment doesn’t keep taxing entities from raising tax rates to make up for the loss.' - TT1

Per Ballotpedia, this passed with bipartisan support, and all the No votes were Republicans, which surprises me because I'd think they'd like a reduction in taxes.

My vote: Yes

Proposition 11 - adding El Paso County to the list of counties that can issue bonds to fund recreational development and improvement

Frankly I think it makes sense to abstain on an issue that doesn't affect me. But any increase would actually have to be approved by the locals, per LWV1.

My vote - Yes

Proposition 12 - dissolving the office of county treasurer in Galveston County

That sounds wacked out. I assume the county will continue handling money.

'The Commissioner’s Court of Galveston County would be allowed to employ or contract an existing county official or other qualified person to complete tasks previously under the office.

Galveston County’s current treasurer, Hank Dugie, ran on eliminating the position and said in his campaign video that the office is, “redundant and a waste of more than half a million dollars each year.” The County Treasurers Association of Texas opposes the proposition, however, arguing that such a change won't save money and that having an independently elected treasurer — rather than an employee of the commissioners court — ensures a separation of powers in the county and creates a system that lets a treasurer "challenge the commissioners’ court if they question the legality and propriety of a payment order."' - TT1

However, 9 other counties have already abolished their county treasurers, per Ballotpedia. They also quote Dugie as saying, "I believe county treasurer positions were created back in the 1800s and since then, county government and financial technology has really evolved and improved. In Galveston County, we do not need an elected treasure to keep our money safe. We have a system of checks and balances outside of the county treasure that will be able to maintain that for the taxpayers."

Ballotpedia also quotes opponent Cass County Treasurer Melissa Shores (R): "The county treasurer’s office is very important to the function of the county as a whole. It is also an important part of checks and balances. It’s possible that the wrong person in office can have a negative impact, but that’s not an excuse to abolish the office."

They also quote the Houston Chronicle Editorial Board as saying "This proposal, which has precedent in other counties, requires a majority of statewide and Galveston County voters to approve it in the same election. If statewide voters say yes, local voters will be the deciding factor."

Per Fort Bend Independent, 'Supporters falsely claim abolishing the office will save money. But even if abolished, the county treasurer’s legally mandated work still must be done—minus accountability to the People. In Galveston County, commissioners deleted two positions in the treasurer’s office but added a new position in the budget office to perform the treasurer’s work, for a $58,000 net increase in the county budget.' Crazy!

Weirdly, the Chronicle (AC1) sounds like they were inclined to oppose, but, 'There's some history in Galveston driving this proposed amendment, but the Chronicle News team is not well-positioned to report on it, so we're staying out of this one.'

My experience is that contracting something out from state workers to for-profit workers does not save money, at least not unless service is drastically reduced (like in prisons). And my experience is that maintaining checks and balances can be extremely important.

My vote: No

Proposition 13 - increasing the mandatory age of retirement for state justices and judges

Currently they must retire at the end of the term in which they turn 75 unless it's during the first 4 years of a 6-year term, in which case at the end of 4 years. That would change to the end of the term in which you turn 79, even for 6-year terms.

Currently the legislature can set a lower mandatory retirement age as low as 70; that would be increased to 75.

On the one hand, I oppose agism. If you don't want senile people in these positions, then require a senility test or something.

On the other hand, I'm getting pretty annoyed with lifetime politicians and old fogies deciding things for everyone. Still, they do come up for re-election on a regular basis.

So one question I have is whether it's hard to find qualified new people willing to do these jobs. No clue.

'Retired state judges are still eligible to serve as visiting judges, so retired state judges can continue to work if they choose.' - LWV1 That sounds good. Do they still get good pay and benefits? I don't know.

Per Ballotpedia, this proposition has bipartisan support.

My vote: Yes

Proposition 14 - creating the centennial parks conservation fund to create new state parks

'Texas ranks 35th in the nation for state park acreage per capita, according to a report by Environment Texas. This pressured lawmakers to propose investing more than $1 billion for state parks, which advocates said would create “a new golden age” for the park system. The funding would go to buying more land for the state parks system, which celebrates its 100th anniversary this year.' - TT1

Per the Texas Parks and Wildlife, 'TPWD has never had a fund dedicated to acquiring and developing state parks, and while it has created some opportunities working with partners to extend available dollars, Proposition 14 is designed to provide a steady pool of resources the department can draw on to meet Texas’ future conservation and outdoor recreation needs. If Proposition 14 does not pass, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department will continue its efforts to acquire and develop state parks by using a mix of conservation funds, stakeholder partnerships and specifically authorized state and federal appropriations.' I bet they could still use their other strategies to maximize the benefits from this new fund. And it's funded with a portion of the state government surplus rather than new taxes or bonds.

I'm a huge fan of state (and national) parks and as a public service, I believe they are a good use of public funds. I like that it will fund new parks indefinitely.

My vote: Yes

Travis County Propositions

Travis County has a list of projects for these two propositions.

The Travis Two-Step PAC has an even better one.

Proposition A - improving roads and transportation infrastructure

Per KUT, 'Proposition A could fund over $233 million for ... improvements, constrictions and land acquisition for roads, bike lanes, sidewalks and bridges.'

Per the Chronicle (AC1) - 'This $233 million investment in transportation projects is geared toward safety and capacity. The focus will be on several substandard roads across Austin, which share features like missing shoulders and narrow lanes. Each project also includes sidewalks and bike lanes or shared-use paths. For most homeowners, the monthly property tax impact would be a little under $2.'

I don't trust our city with road "improvements," but do I trust my county? I don't know. These sound like good ideas, though I'm not familiar with any of those areas.

My vote: Yes

Proposition B - improving and increasing parks

Per KUT, 'Proposition B could fund $276 million to improve county parks and purchase land to build future parks.'

Per AC1, 'With a little more than $276 million, the county promises to acquire more land for parks and water conservation along existing greenway corridors in Lake Travis, Onion Creek, and Colorado River areas, among many others. The funds will also cover the creation of new community trails, buildings, and amenities. With rapid development in the county, if we want these areas preserved as parkland, now is the time to act. The median monthly property tax impact would be about $2.'

My vote: Yes