OPINION – Recently, the City of Fate gave us another example of how government is reaching too far into the control of our lives through a public transportation system called STAR Transit. But thanks to an open records request, we now know the issue runs much deeper than a single budget item. According to city records, Fate has spent $80,385.94 on STAR Transit services between April 16, 2021 and April 16, 2026. [Document Here] (Note: we didn’t ask for records beyond that date. The total spent is most assuredly more.)

This not a one-time decision. It’s a pattern of abuse that may span perhaps a decade. With every council approving the funding in every city budget.

And it appears the spending may not stop there. In internal communications obtained through the same request, City Manager Michael Kovacs discussed expanding transit options, including interest in more “robust” micro-transit systems and ideas aimed at reducing traffic congestion, proposals he indicated would be presented to the City Council. He seeks to have more “fixed routes” (ie: a full-scale bus system).

There is no documented evidence that he ever completed that task.

I made the claim that STAR Transit would be a precursor to DART, and I was criticized heavily. One outgoing council member accused me of misleading the public. But I was right, and the evidence proves it. This isn’t just about maintaining a small, call-a-ride service. It’s about growing a transit system. A posture that fits right in with Kovacs’ vision of a Strong Town.

STAR Transit is not a narrowly tailored service for the elderly or disabled either, as some mistakenly believe. By its own description, it is open to anyone in its service area, offering rides for jobs, errands, doctor visits, and more. In plain terms, it is already a full-fledged public transit system. It is a regional one that covers not only Fate & Rockwall County, but Kaufman County, Mesquite, Balch Springs, Seagoville, DeSoto, Cedar Hill, Duncanville, Hutchins, Lancaster, and Wilmer.

So let’s ask the obvious question. Why are Fate taxpayers subsidizing a system that serves a broad population, many of whom don’t live here and don’t pay into our city’s general fund? They operate with a $7.2 Million dollar budget. Of that, they receive $6.4 million in grants and taxpayers’ money from State and Federal sources. Mind you, riding the bus is not free. Users still pay a fee to ride.

But even that question misses the larger point.

Before we argue about buses in general, we need to get back to basics. What is the purpose of government?

At its core, government exists to ensure fairness among the people, to enforce the law, and to provide for safe communities. It exists to fund essential services such as: police, fire protection, emergency response, utilities, roads, and to manage appropriate land use through zoning. That is the lane the government belongs in. That is its job. Its purpose.

Its purpose is not to become a social welfare system. It is not to operate as a charitable clearinghouse. It is not to morph into a publicly funded support network for every perceived need. Those responsibilities belong first to individuals and their families, and then to churches and private charitable organizations operating voluntarily.

Nothing is stopping anyone in Fate from donating their own money to STAR Transit. Nothing. They can choose to use the service just as they would for Uber or Lyft. That is what charity looks like in a free society.

What I oppose, and what I believe should concern every taxpayer, is the government taking money from citizens and giving it to outside organizations and NGOs. Doing so is not charity, it is compulsion. It is coerced government redistribution.

There’s a reason the story of David Crockett still resonates. In “Not Yours to Give,” Crockett refused to support a federal appropriation for a widow of a soldier, not because he lacked compassion, but because he understood a simple truth, it wasn’t his money to give.

That principle has been lost in the City of Fate. And once it’s lost, the door opens to something bigger.

Because programs like STAR Transit rarely remain what they start as. Today, it’s a limited, on-demand service. Tomorrow, it becomes something else. It will, because the leaders are already in discussion to make it so.

We’ve seen this progression before with systems like Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART). It begins with a reasonable pitch, help people reach essential services. Then comes the next step, just one fixed route. Then, expansion along major corridors. Then, broader coverage, more infrastructure, more funding.

Each step sounds reasonable. Each one is sold as necessary. And each one costs more.

That trajectory is not hypothetical. It is already being discussed. The city manager’s own communication makes clear that expansion, modernization, and increased service levels are under consideration.

And with expansion comes the familiar promises: reduced traffic, improved accessibility, solutions for those who can’t afford cars. Care for disabled and elderly. But those promises always come with a price tag. A growing one.

I’ve already heard the pushback. “It’s only $17k.” “It helps people.” “Some people need transportation.” “Don’t be heartless“. “You hate old and disabled people.” “You’re a monster“.

But name-calling is irrelevant. The size of the number is irrelevant. Principles don’t scale. If it’s wrong at $800,000, it’s wrong at $80,000.

And let’s address this directly. It is not heartless to say the government should not seize money from its citizens to fund NGOs. In fact, I would argue the opposite. You probably did too. Remember DOGE? How about the “Learing Center” in Minneapolis? The healthcare fraud in California? It is far more respectful of both taxpayers and those in need to keep charity where it belongs, with individuals, families, and communities … acting voluntarily.

What is dangerous is a system where government decides which causes are worthy and funds them with money that was never theirs to begin with. The same documents we received in our Open Records Request also reveal that while the city was paying STAR Transit, the company was returning some of that money to sponsor the Tree Lighting and Celebrate Fate events. This is how corruption starts. You scratch our back, we’ll scratch yours.

Of course, I’m not making any claims that anything thus far is illegal. But the potential for corruption is there. Tomorrow it could be anything. There is no shortage of NGOs that have worthy causes that are willing to accept our tax money.

This is how government grows, not in sweeping changes, but in incremental steps. A few thousand dollars here; a program there. Each one justified. Each one defensible. Until the boundary disappears entirely.

So no, this isn’t really about buses, old or disabled people.

It’s about whether we still believe government has a defined purpose, and whether we are willing to defend it as David Crockett did, right before he died at the Alamo. Because if we don’t, then the warning in Crockett’s story wasn’t just a story. It was a prediction.

FATE, TX — The political battle in Fate has escalated significantly, as Vickey Raduechel, the City Secretary for Fate, has completed her review and verified that the recall petition signatures submitted against four of the city’s top elected officials are “sufficient”.

According to official confirmation obtained by Pipkins Reports, the petitions to recall Mayor Andrew Greenberg, Councilman Rick Maneval, Councilman Mark Hatley, and Councilwoman Martha Huffman have now been verified following their submission on April 6, 2026.

With the verification process complete, the petitions have cleared a critical legal hurdle, setting the stage for recall elections that could reshape the city’s leadership.

Verified Signature Counts

As part of the certification process, the City Secretary validated the number of signatures submitted for each petition to ensure compliance with the city charter requirement of at least 351 qualified voters.

• Andrew Greenberg, Mayor (contained 385 valid signatures)
• Richard Maneval, Council Member Place 4 (contained 366 valid signatures)
• Mark Hatley, Council Member Place 5 (contained 382 valid signatures)
• Martha Huffman, Council Member Place 6 (contained 353 valid signatures)

*Update: The City of Fate responded to our inquiry and provided the verified signature counts above.

From Petition Drive to Certification

The now-verified petitions mark the culmination of a 30-day signature collection effort launched in early March. Organizers, led by local activists Christopher Rains, and Ashley Rains, who is running for City Council, initiated the recall campaign in response to actions taken by the same officials against Councilwoman Codi Chinn. Chinn is already scheduled to face voters in the May 2nd, 2026 election.

As previously reported by Pipkins Reports , the effort quickly mobilized residents, with organizers establishing signing locations and conducting outreach across the community.

Supporters of the recall effort have framed it as a necessary check on elected officials, while critics have argued it represents political retaliation. The certification of the petitions now shifts the debate from signature gathering to the ballot box.

What Happens Next

Under the Fate city charter, once recall petitions are certified as sufficient, the city council is required to formally call a recall election. That process includes setting an election date and coordinating with election officials to place the measure before voters. It is likely that the recall election will be set for November 2026. Estimates indicate this recall will cost taxpayers up to $15,000.

Unless one of the targeted officials resigns—and the vacancy is filled by the remaining council prior to any election—there is a credible risk of a temporary governance breakdown if voters remove all four members at once, a scenario explored in prior Pipkins Reports coverage examining how a full-scale recall could leave the city unable to function.

The outcome of these efforts could result in a significant shift in the composition of the city council—and potentially the mayor’s office—depending on how voters respond.

This is an ongoing story. Pipkins Reports will continue to provide updates as recall election dates are announced and additional details become available.

FATE, TX — The Fate City Council voted Monday night to formally recognize what it called “credible evidence” that Councilman Mark Hatley may have violated the city’s Code of Ethics, setting the stage for a hearing and potential sanctions, and intensifying an already bitter political divide.

The decision came following an executive session on Monday night, and considered a motion by Councilman Scott Kelley, who was the person who filed the ethics complaint against Hatley. Kelley’s motion asserted that the council had sufficient basis to proceed under Section 2-309.10 of the Fate Code of Ethics and Section 3.093 of the City Charter.

The motion passed with support from Codi Chinn, Scott Kelley, Mark Harper, and Martha Huffman. Mayor Andrew Greenberg and Councilman Rick Maneval voted against the measure, according to the official meeting record and public proceedings.

It remains unclear from the meeting record whether Hatley voted on the motion concerning himself. He was not presented as voting in the negative, yet the Mayor made no mention of him abstaining either.

Mayor Greenberg highlighted that this process is political, not criminal.

Following the vote, Kelley introduced a second motion, requesting that Hatley provide a sworn affidavit within seven days addressing key questions tied to the investigation.

Those questions focused on whether Hatley had shared recorded conversations involving City Manager Michael Kovacs with anyone outside city government, including investigative journalist Michael Pipkins. The motion also sought to compel Hatley to cooperate with any additional information requests from the city’s Ethics Council.

Councilwoman Chinn clarified during the discussion that Hatley is not legally required to submit such an affidavit, implying the request is voluntary rather than enforceable under current rules.

The council set the public hearing for May 4, 2026.

That date falls after the city’s General Election on May 2, but before the results are officially canvassed on May 11, meaning the current council will still be seated at the time of the hearing.

Harper currently holds Place 2, a seat being sought by candidates Lorna Grove and Ashley Rains. Rains is one of the petition members seeking to remove multiple councilmembers, including Hatley, through a new recall effort.

Kelley holds Place 3, which is being sought by former Councilman Allen Robbins and Melinda McCarthy. Robbins is also aligned with those supporting the recall of the four councilmen, while McCarthy supported the recall of Codi Chinn, which is already on the ballot for May 2nd.

Early voting for that election is scheduled to begin April 20.