Cutting Taxpayer Costs in Fate: How Impact Fees Could Lighten the Load for Infrastructure Needs
Had the City of Fate implemented impact fees on developers to address the infrastructure demands of new growth, a $20 million bond—and its associated taxpayer burden—could have been unnecessary. Impact fees, applied strategically, would allow Fate to offset the costs of new public services, roads, water, and emergency services by requiring developers to pay for the added strain their projects place on city infrastructure.
With an informed and experienced council focused on long-term fiscal responsibility, Fate could have positioned itself to harness developer-driven revenue streams. This approach used effectively in cities like Frisco, San Diego, and Fort Collins, has provided critical funding to support growth sustainably, ensuring residents don’t bear the full financial impact of development. By proactively planning for growth in this way, Fate might have avoided the need for a significant bond, creating a model for fiscal efficiency and taxpayer protection. But it’s not too late, the city can offset the cost of the new bond by increasing impact fees immediately.
What Are Impact Fees?
Impact fees are charges that cities levy on developers to cover a portion of the costs associated with public infrastructure demands created by new development. When a new subdivision, shopping center, or commercial area is built, it requires additional public resources—more roads, water, and sewer capacity, and greater public safety coverage. Traditionally, these costs were often shouldered by the general taxpayer. With impact fees, the responsibility for new infrastructure shifts partially or wholly onto developers.
These fees are typically assessed based on the estimated “impact” a development will have on city services. While the structure and application of impact fees vary across jurisdictions, the principle is the same: development should pay for itself, reducing taxpayer burden. The fees can be earmarked for specific projects, such as road expansions, new fire stations, or enhanced public utilities, and are legally restricted for those uses.
How Impact Fees Are Applied
Cities tailor impact fees to meet their unique needs and growth patterns. Some target transportation improvements, while others focus on utilities, public safety, and parks. Texas law allows municipalities to impose impact fees, but guidelines are stringent; fees must be proportionate, directly connected to the development, and justifiable through studies showing the development’s projected impact. This makes impact fees a flexible but carefully regulated tool that, when used effectively, can significantly ease financial strain on local budgets.
Real-World Examples of Impact Fees in Action
To understand how Fate could utilize impact fees, let’s look at five U.S. cities where impact fees have successfully offset infrastructure costs. Each of these cities demonstrates a practical approach Fate could adapt to fund essential services without placing undue burdens on residents.
1. Frisco, Texas: Expanding Services for a Booming Suburb
In the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex, Frisco stands as a model for proactive growth management through impact fees. Frisco’s development fees are rigorously structured, covering roads, parks, water, and wastewater infrastructure. For residential development, the city imposes impact fees based on lot sizes. For instance:
- Roadway Impact Fees: New residential developments incur roadway impact fees of approximately $8,508 per single-family home lot. For multifamily projects, the fees are about $5,317 per unit.
- Water and Wastewater Impact Fees: For water, Frisco charges around $1.33 per square foot for commercial developments, while wastewater impact fees can add another $0.96 per square foot.
- Parks and Open Spaces: Frisco also assesses fees for parks, amounting to roughly $1,000 per residential unit to ensure parkland and amenities keep pace with population growth.
These fees generate millions annually. For example, in 2022, Frisco collected over $25 million in impact fees, which funded the construction of new roads, utility expansions, and public safety facilities. This approach has allowed Frisco to continue its rapid growth trajectory while maintaining high standards of infrastructure without imposing additional taxes on existing residents.
2. San Diego, California: Transportation and Public Safety
San Diego employs a well-established system of impact fees to fund its regional growth. The city charges developers based on the projected increase in traffic, utility demand, and emergency services. These fees are strategically allocated, with a strong emphasis on expanding roadways, upgrading transit systems, and constructing new fire and police stations. San Diego’s approach ensures that growth directly contributes to maintaining and improving the quality of life for its residents, protecting taxpayers from shouldering the full cost of new infrastructure.
The City of San Diego collects significant funds through impact fees, with specific fees for residential and non-residential developments based on metrics like average daily trips (ADTs) and gross floor area (GFA). For example, in the Midway-Pacific Highway area, impact fees in 2019 included:
- Mobility Facilities: Fees for road and transit improvements amount to $533 per ADT. With an average of 7 ADTs per dwelling unit (DU), this results in $3,731 per residential unit for mobility improvements.
- Fire-Rescue Facilities: Impact fees are set at $164 per DU for residential and $164 per 1,000 square feet of GFA for non-residential buildings.
- Parks and Recreation: Residential developments are also charged $3,723 per DU to support parks and recreation facilities.
The city collected millions annually from these fees to fund various infrastructure projects, including road, park, fire-rescue, and transit improvements, which are distributed across neighborhoods and specifically tailored to meet the infrastructure needs of each development area. For example, Carmel Valley collected over $332,980 for improvements in one fiscal year, while downtown areas saw over $8 million in fees during the same period.
You can find more details on San Diego’s impact fees and projects in their public records site. Here: San Diego.
3. Fort Collins, Colorado: Public Utilities and Affordable Housing
Fort Collins has used impact fees for years to fund water and wastewater services and other public utility upgrades required by new development. By charging developers impact fees dedicated to expanding these utility networks, the city has effectively managed costs while also considering affordable housing needs. Fort Collins recalibrates its impact fees annually, ensuring they accurately reflect the city’s infrastructure expenses and growth trends. This ensures that new development is contributing to community infrastructure, reducing pressure on general tax revenues.
In Fort Collins, the impact fees are known as Capital Expansion Fees (CEFs)—are applied to a variety of development types to fund critical infrastructure, including public safety, parks, and general government facilities. Specific fee amounts vary based on the nature of the development, with detailed rates per square footage and per acre.
For instance, residential development fees for single-family homes in Fort Collins are structured by dwelling size. A dwelling between 1,201 and 1,700 square feet incurs an approximate fee of $3,537 per unit, while larger homes exceeding 2,200 square feet are assessed at $4,982. These fees incorporate costs across parks, fire, police, and general government services, providing a mechanism for the city to support infrastructure needs created by growth without over-burdening existing taxpayers. Non-residential developments are similarly charged: commercial spaces incur around $1,311 per 1,000 square feet, while industrial developments face lower fees, approximately $309 per 1,000 square feet.
In recent years, Fort Collins has adjusted these fees upwards to more accurately reflect the increasing costs of service expansion, aiming to align impact fees with current economic conditions and projected city growth. This adjustment process has helped Fort Collins maintain a steady influx of funding for infrastructure, with CEFs totaling millions annually.
For more specific financial data on Fort Collins’ impact fees, the city’s development and utility fees documentation is publicly accessible at fcgov.com
4. Charlotte, North Carolina: Keeping Pace with Growth
Charlotte is another example of a fast-growing city that relies on impact fees to manage infrastructure costs. As one of the Southeast’s leading economic hubs, Charlotte has seen significant population growth, and increasing demands on roadways, water, sewer, and public safety services. The city implemented impact fees to ensure that new developments fund necessary upgrades, allowing Charlotte to invest in critical infrastructure and services without significantly raising taxes on existing residents.
Charlotte’s focus is on water and sewer infrastructure. Although Charlotte does not traditionally employ broad-based development impact fees like some other municipalities, it leverages other types of fees to fund necessary improvements. One primary revenue source comes from system development fees, which help cover capital costs for expanding water and sewer infrastructure to support new development. These fees are calculated based on projected infrastructure costs and the level of demand that new developments impose on existing resources, ensuring that the city recoups a portion of its costs directly from developers.
In terms of specifics, recent updates reflect Charlotte’s commitment to expanding these fees to maintain high service levels amidst growing demand. Development fees are calculated per gallon for water and sewer usage based on expected capacity needs of each new project. The fees in Charlotte and Mecklenburg County provide a proportional structure, where the higher the demand created by a project, the higher the fees imposed to cover required expansions, which helps balance growth with the city’s fiscal responsibilities.
For further details on how Charlotte calculates and applies these fees, including specific fee schedules and supporting data, you can review their infrastructure planning and fee schedules in their fiscal and planning documentation Charlotte Future 2040.
5. Phoenix, Arizona: Balancing Growth with Infrastructure Needs
Phoenix, a city known for its expansive urban growth, has long used impact fees to finance infrastructure expansion. Fees in Phoenix help fund transportation improvements, water resources, parks, and public safety facilities in growing areas. This allows the city to maintain an orderly expansion without straining existing infrastructure or local budgets. The city’s fees are periodically reviewed and adjusted to align with changes in development patterns and infrastructure needs, ensuring a fair contribution from new projects.
In Phoenix, impact fees are structured to ensure that new development contributes significantly to the infrastructure required to support it. Fees are assessed differently across nine specific impact fee areas within the city, with variations based on the infrastructure needs and density of each zone. For instance, in Paradise Ridge, developers of single-family homes pay $16,824 in total impact fees, while in areas like the Northeast and Northwest, fees for similar developments are approximately $15,092 and $15,169, respectively. Each area has tailored fees to meet its unique requirements, which are recalculated and updated periodically by the city to stay aligned with growth and service demands.
For multi-family, commercial, and industrial projects, Phoenix calculates impact fees based on specific project characteristics, such as building size, location, and water meter requirements, making these assessments more variable. These funds are allocated directly to dedicated accounts and are earmarked strictly for infrastructure that serves each impact area, following city policy to ensure that the cost of growth does not fall on existing residents but is absorbed proportionally by new developments.
More information on Phoenix’s impact fees, including detailed rates by area, is available from the City of Phoenix’s official planning and development department City of Phoenix.
Over a recent period, the city collected over $191 million in development impact fees to support capital facility expansion across various zones, which are strategically divided to ensure that the fees benefit specific areas within Phoenix.
Why Impact Fees Matter for Fate
As one of Texas’ fastest-growing cities, Fate faces the challenge of maintaining quality public services without significantly increasing taxes. With every new subdivision or commercial building, demand rises for road capacity, water and sewer services, and public safety coverage. For a city that aims to uphold fiscal responsibility and quality of life, impact fees present a viable tool. Applying these fees to new developments could allow Fate to:
- Expand Public Safety Facilities: New developments increase the need for police and fire services. Impact fees could help fund the construction or expansion of DPS facilities, ensuring the city maintains safe response times and effective emergency coverage.
- Improve Road Infrastructure: More development inevitably means more traffic. By using impact fees, Fate can plan and execute road improvements, expansions, or upgrades without relying on existing taxpayer funds.
- Bolster Water and Utility Systems: To accommodate the growth in residential and commercial areas, Fate’s water and sewer systems will require upgrades. Impact fees allow the city to invest in these essential systems proactively, protecting both residents and businesses from potential service issues.
- Preserve Open Spaces and Parks: Impact fees could also be allocated to developing and maintaining parks and recreational areas. This aligns with Fate’s desire to maintain an “old-town” feel with communal spaces that enhance residents’ quality of life.
A Strategic Next Step for Fiscal Responsibility
Implementing impact fees is a decision that requires careful planning, transparency, and community involvement. However, as illustrated by Frisco, San Diego, Fort Collins, Charlotte, and Phoenix, when managed effectively, impact fees allow cities to balance growth with fiscal responsibility.
For Fate, impact fees could relieve taxpayer burden and diminish the cost of the DPS bond that just passed by a vote of the people, enabling continued growth while safeguarding the services and infrastructure on which the community relies. As Fate evaluates options for funding its future, impact fees may provide the critical bridge between growth and quality of life, ensuring that the costs of new developments are borne by those who benefit most directly—developers and future residents—while protecting the financial interests of current taxpayers.
Rockwall, TX – When money talks, it doesn’t whisper — and in Rockwall, it’s shouting from billboards, mailers, and TV ads. Behind the polished “Vote Yes for Rockwall ISD” campaign urging residents to support the district’s VATRE (Voter-Approved Tax Rate Election) lies a familiar cast of Texas developers, contractors, and political insiders — all with deep pockets and deeper interests in keeping the district spending big.
While the PAC’s glossy flyers and heartfelt slogans suggest it’s a grassroots movement of teachers and parents “standing up for students,” the campaign finance records tell a much different story. In reality, the PAC was created, funded, and operated by people who stand to gain financially from Rockwall ISD’s continued expansion.
A PAC Built by Developers, For Developers
The Vote Yes for Rockwall ISD PAC was born on August 19, 2025. That same day, it received its first $10,000 — seed money courtesy of Meredith and Ryan Joyce, owners of a land development consulting firm that works with both commercial and residential projects across Texas.
It was an auspicious start — and a revealing one. The Joyces’ business depends on district growth: more schools, more infrastructure, more construction. In short, higher taxes mean higher contracts.
A few weeks later, the second $10,000 came rolling in from Terra Manna, LLC, a real estate development and land management company led by Bobby Harrell and Bret Pedigo. Terra Manna specializes in large-scale residential projects — the very sort of developments that flood school districts with new students and new tax demands.
Then came another $10,000 from Northstar Builders Group, a firm specializing in — of all things — school construction and development. The irony practically writes itself.
If the VATRE passes, Rockwall ISD keeps spending, schools keep expanding, and developers keep building. It’s a self-perpetuating cycle of “growth” — for them.
The Builders’ Ball: Who Really Funds “Vote Yes”?
The PAC’s donor list reads less like a community support roster and more like a who’s who of Texas construction and development.
At the top tier:
- Joeris General Contractors, LLC – $5,000
- Z Constructors Nationwide – $5,000
- Matt Zahm (Z Constructors) – $5,000 (personally)
- RPRE, LLC – $3,500 (real estate brokerage and development firm)
These are not concerned citizens hoping to keep classrooms funded — these are professionals whose livelihoods are directly tied to district spending and capital projects.
Add to that a lineup of $2,500 donors, including:
- Chris Harp Construction
- Satterfield & Pontikes Construction, Inc.
- Glenn Partners (Architectural Firm)
- Billy & Julie Burton (private)
Then there’s the $2,273 in-kind donation from State Representative Justin Holland and his wife, Neely, for what they listed as “hats.”
$2,273 worth of hats? That’s either a new fashion trend in political branding — or a convenient way to funnel campaign merchandise under the radar. Holland, a familiar name in local politics, has long been an ally of the developer class, and his support here fits neatly into the pattern.
Other mid-level donors include Jason Volk Consulting, Noelle Fontes, and Brian Berry at $2,000 apiece.
At the $1,500 mark, the donor pool widens to include Elite Landscaping, PCI Construction, Skorburg Company, and Hanby Insurance, LLC — all companies that directly benefit from ongoing construction and development contracts in fast-growing communities like Rockwall.
Follow the Money — and the Math
In total, the PAC has reported $96,068 in contributions. But here’s the number that matters: $89,273 — or 93% — came from developers, builders, and real estate professionals.
The PAC’s promotional materials claim they’re “standing with teachers.” Yet only about 8% of all donations — under $1,000 each — came from teachers or district employees.
In other words, the people being used as the public face of this campaign are the least financially involved in it.
The illusion of grassroots support masks what is, in fact, a highly coordinated and well-funded lobbying effort — one aimed at convincing taxpayers to fund the very projects that enrich the PAC’s donors.
Big Money, Bigger Ads
The spending patterns are just as revealing. Since August, Vote Yes for Rockwall ISD has spent more than $27,000 on flyers and mailers, $9,000 on billboards, and even $3,000 on television ads — a heavy push for a local tax election.
They’ve also purchased $1,250 in ad space in Blue Ribbon News, the same publication that ran a “news article” touting the VATRE’s supposed benefits. The placement wasn’t coincidental — it was strategic.
And then there’s the expense that raised more than a few eyebrows: a $435.40 reimbursement to Meredith Joyce for “Car Polish Supplies.”
Car polish. From the same person who donated $10,000 in seed money.
One has to wonder what, exactly, was being polished — the campaign’s image, or something a bit shinier?
The Real Stakeholders: Not the Kids, Not the Teachers
Let’s be honest: when developers and construction firms pour nearly six figures into a local tax election, it’s not out of civic virtue or classroom compassion. It’s because they see a return on investment.
Every new bond, every tax hike, every “yes” vote translates into another round of district-funded construction — and another series of lucrative contracts.
Meanwhile, teachers — the supposed heart of the movement — are relegated to bit players. Their donations are symbolic at best, swallowed up in a sea of developer dollars.
Even worse, the campaign’s slick messaging exploits their image. Smiling teachers in front of whiteboards, holding “Support Our Schools” signs, while the fine print reads like a blueprint for cronyism.
Political Influence Runs Deep
The fingerprints of political insiders like Rep. Justin Holland only reinforce the perception that this isn’t about education — it’s about influence.
By lending his name (and hats) to the campaign, Holland helps cloak the PAC’s true motives under a veneer of community support. But his connections to the donor class are no secret.
When state legislators, developers, and contractors align to push a local tax increase, taxpayers should pause and ask: Who benefits most from this vote?
Spoiler: it isn’t the students or the teachers.
Manufactured Consent
The “Vote Yes for Rockwall ISD” campaign is a textbook case of manufactured consent. Using big money, polished marketing, and local political connections, the PAC is attempting to sway residents into supporting a measure that serves private interests far more than public good.
It’s the same formula seen across Texas — from bond packages to tax rate elections — where growth and progress are invoked as cover for sweetheart deals and endless construction booms.
Rockwall residents deserve to know who’s funding the message before they cast their ballots.
Because when nearly all the money pushing a tax increase comes from developers, builders, and their political allies, it’s no longer a campaign — it’s an investment.
And like any investment, the people writing the checks expect a return.
Bottom Line:
The Vote Yes for Rockwall ISD PAC isn’t a movement of parents or teachers. It’s a development-driven marketing operation, built to protect the flow of taxpayer money into the hands of builders, consultants, and political allies.
Rockwall voters should take note: when the people who build schools are the loudest voices demanding higher taxes “for the children,” it’s worth asking whether their real concern is education — or their next contract.
San Antonio, TX – More than 30 missing children were located and recovered during Operation Lightning Bug, a focused law enforcement initiative that stretched from July 28 through August 15. The operation, centered in San Antonio, unveiled not only the scale of child exploitation in the state but also the increasingly urgent role Texas agencies are being forced to play in combating trafficking amid a national border crisis.
The U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), working in concert with the San Antonio Police Department (SAPD) and the Lone Star Fugitive Task Force, spearheaded the mission. In an official release, USMS confirmed that “over 30 missing juveniles” were located, six confirmed trafficking survivors were removed from exploitation, five trafficking investigations were launched, three individuals were arrested for harboring runaways, and nine felony warrants were executed. Additionally, “over 120 missing juveniles [were] encouraged to return home, resulting in cleared entries from state and national databases.”
“The safety of our children is the safety of our communities, and justice demands that we protect those who cannot protect themselves,” said U.S. Marshal Susan Pamerleau for the Western District of Texas. “Through Operation Lightning Bug, we reaffirm our promise to safeguard the most vulnerable and strengthen the safety of our communities.”
SAPD Chief William McManus echoed the urgency behind the operation, stating, “Every suspect arrested, juvenile returned home, and survivor taken out of harm’s way matters. This operation demonstrates what can be achieved when law enforcement agencies unite to protect children.”
A Deliberate Target on Traffickers
Operation Lightning Bug was highly strategic. Teams reviewed every missing juvenile listed in both the Texas Crime Information Center and the National Crime Information Center databases, identifying cases where minors were deemed “at high risk of exploitation by traffickers and predators.” The operation included deputies from USMS offices in San Antonio, Del Rio, Midland, and Pecos, along with specialized SAPD units, including Missing Persons, Special Victims, covert teams, and Street Crimes personnel. Intelligence gathering allowed law enforcement to prioritize the most vulnerable cases and craft operational plans that led to direct recoveries and arrests.
SAPD’s Special Victims Unit interviewed each recovered child to determine whether they had been victimized. Trafficking survivors were immediately connected with Texas Health and Human Services and partner organizations to ensure long-term safety, mental health support, and reintegration assistance.
According to data from the International Center for Missing and Exploited Children, more than 330,000 minors were reported missing in the United States in 2024. While many are found quickly, those who lack stable homes or strong support systems are increasingly being targeted by trafficking rings.
Trafficking Thrives on Instability — and Policy Failure
Kirsta Leeburg Melton, founder and CEO of the Institute to Combat Trafficking, explained to Fox News that “trafficking is the exploitation of men, women and children for forced sex or forced labor by a third party for their profit or gain. That’s been around forever. What hasn’t really been around is people’s understanding of that crime and their knowledge that it’s happening everywhere.”
Melton further noted that traffickers prey on minors with “unstable home lives,” including those suffering from a lack of food, housing, family support, or emotional security. Technology serves as a primary tool for both predators and buyers, giving traffickers a near-invisible reach into vulnerable groups.
The unprecedented influx of undocumented minors during the Biden administration placed child welfare and trafficking oversight systems under intense strain—a crisis Texas law enforcement is still working to contain. By contrast, under President Trump’s term, stricter border enforcement and cartel disruption efforts made it significantly harder for trafficking networks to exploit cross-border routes at scale.
Texas Law Enforcement Takes the Lead
While Washington debates border security and trafficking enforcement in committee rooms, Texas law enforcement agencies continue to operate on the front lines. Operation Lightning Bug not only demonstrated the capability of state and federal joint task forces but also reinforced the necessity of cooperation among local agencies.
The Lone Star Fugitive Task Force, involved in the operation, consists of personnel from SAPD, the Bexar County Sheriff’s Office, Texas DPS, the Texas Attorney General’s Office, Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), New Braunfels Police Department, Texas Board of Criminal Justice OIG, Bexar County District Attorney’s Office, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the U.S. Marshals Service.
Under authority granted by the Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015, the U.S. Marshals Service now has explicit power to intervene in missing child cases regardless of whether a sex offender or fugitive is involved. This expansion allowed USMS to establish the Missing Child Unit, which now collaborates rapidly with nationwide law enforcement partners.
Operation Lightning Bug showed what can happen when that authority is fully exercised. It demonstrated what many Texans already know: when state and local agencies are given the backing, funding, and legal authority to act, children are saved, predators are taken down, and trafficking networks are disrupted—sometimes permanently.
A Crisis That Isn’t Slowing Down
In August, 11 children were reported missing in North Dakota—a state with a population of fewer than one million. Earlier, in June, authorities recovered more than two dozen children in a Florida operation described as a “first-of-its-kind missing child rescue operation.” These numbers indicate a nationwide escalation rather than isolated events.
As Texas continues to serve as a primary trafficking corridor due to its geographic proximity to the border and multiple interstate routes, state officials are increasingly forced to respond where federal leadership has not.
Child trafficking is often framed as a distant, foreign evil—but Operation Lightning Bug makes it clear: the victims live here. They disappear from neighborhoods, schools, shelters, foster systems, and broken homes. They are not statistics; they are Texas children, lost to predators who thrive in moments of policy weakness and exploit institutional gaps.
Texas Fights — Even as the Battle Grows Harder
There is no declared victory here. But there is proof of impact. Thirty children were found. Six survivors of trafficking were brought out of exploitation and into safety. Five new investigations are underway, likely mapping broader criminal networks. Over 120 missing children—some voluntarily gone, some running from abuse—were convinced to return home. Felony suspects are now in custody.
More importantly, the operation forced public attention on a crisis that prefers to operate in the shadows.
Every rescued child represents a life pulled off a path toward trauma, abuse, or death. Every warrant served sends a message that Texas still has teeth in its justice system. And every coordinated effort reminds traffickers that the state is watching.
Operation Lightning Bug is not the end—but it is a bright flash in the dark, signaling that Texas law enforcement is willing to strike, even when others won’t.
As Texas gears up for a wave of nationwide “No Kings” protests scheduled for Saturday, October 18, residents in major cities across the state are advised to steer clear of key downtown and civic areas to avoid potential disruptions, traffic snarls, and heightened security measures. The anti-authoritarian demonstrations, organized under the banner of opposing perceived executive overreach by President Donald Trump, are expected to draw crowds echoing the large turnouts seen in June. While organizers promote peaceful assembly, past events have occasionally spilled into street closures and increased police presence.
The “No Kings” movement, which frames itself as a grassroots push against authoritarianism, has ties to left-wing groups including Indivisible and, according to state officials, Antifa networks previously designated as domestic terrorists by President Trump. Protests are slated in at least eight Texas locales, focusing on central hubs like city halls, parks, and capitol grounds. Here’s a rundown of the hot spots to sidestep:
| City | Location/Details | Time Window | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Houston | March from Houston City Hall; Rally at Discovery Green (1500 McKinney St) | Noon–2 p.m. (rally); ~2 p.m. start (march) | Downtown core; expect pedestrian crowds and possible road blocks. |
| Houston (Suburbs) | The Woodlands (Lake Woodlands Dr & Six Pines Dr); La Porte City Hall (604 W Fairmont Pkwy) | 10 a.m.–1 p.m. (The Woodlands); 10 a.m.–Noon (La Porte) | Satellite events in suburban civic spots; lighter traffic but monitor local alerts. |
| San Antonio | Travis Park | 4–6 p.m. | Downtown landmark; anticipate street closures and elevated foot traffic. |
| Dallas | Pacific Plaza (401 N Harwood St) | Noon–3 p.m. | Central business district; business commuters should plan alternate routes. |
| Austin | Meet at Texas State Capitol, march ~1 mile to Auditorium Shores | 2 p.m. start | Traverses downtown; riverfront park finale could draw lingering crowds. |
| Fort Worth | 501 W 7th St | 11 a.m.–3 p.m. | 7th Street corridor in downtown; entertainment district vibe with protest overlay. |
| Arlington | Arlington Sub Courthouse (700 E Abram St) | 10 a.m.–Noon | Civic center area; near courts, potential for quick law enforcement response. |
| Plano | NE corner of Preston & Parker Rd (near Wells Fargo Bank) | 10 a.m.–Noon | Commercial intersection; suburban but busy with shoppers and drivers. |
| Laredo | Jett Bowl North | 10 a.m.–Noon | Local rec landmark; public gathering spot in a border community. |
These sites were compiled from announcements by organizers and local media reports. There will be many more protests in cities of all sizes. Authorities urge the public to check city traffic apps and news updates for real-time detours.
SIDELINE: Abbott Mobilizes Guard and DPS to Safeguard Austin
In a preemptive strike against potential unrest, Governor Greg Abbott has ordered the deployment of the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) and the Texas National Guard to Austin, where the democrat run city is expected to be the hub of the most violent and extreme protesters. The move, announced Friday, targets the capital city’s planned march amid concerns over links to Antifa groups, which President Trump recently labeled a domestic terrorist organization.
“Violence and destruction will never be tolerated in Texas,” Abbott stated in a release from his office. The surge includes state troopers, Special Agents, Texas Rangers, aircraft surveillance, and tactical assets, coordinated with the state’s Homeland Security Division to scan for extremist ties. This echoes a similar summer operation around the Capitol during prior demonstrations.
Local law enforcement will collaborate on arrests for any acts of violence or property damage, emphasizing deterrence over confrontation. Austinites near the Capitol or Auditorium Shores should prepare for a visible security footprint.
Behind the scenes, the “No Kings” push has drawn scrutiny for its funding streams, with reports pointing to deep-pocketed backers like George Soros’ Open Society Foundations (nearly $8 million to Indivisible since 2017), the Arabella Advisors network (over $114 million to affiliates from 2019–2023), and billionaire donors such as Hansjörg Wyss and Walmart heiress Christy Walton. While much of this support flows through dark-money channels for broader civic engagement, critics argue it amplifies protest logistics and messaging.
As the sun sets on these gatherings, it’s worth a final nod to the movement’s own rallying cry: There are no kings in America. And Donald Trump doesn’t see himself as one—for if he did, he wouldn’t allow protests like this to occur in the first place. Stay safe, Texas.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login