It’s Not Yours to Give: Fate has spent $80,385.94 on STAR Transit. What is the Purpose of Government?
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 Fate City Council voted last night to censure Councilman Mark Hatley following a contentious ethics hearing that exposed deep divisions among elected officials.
The censure stems from two ethics complaints alleging Hatley improperly disclosed confidential information tied to internal discussions about the potential firing of former Department of Public Safety Chief Lyle Lombard. According to testimony, Hatley shared details with local journalist Michael Pipkins of PipkinsReports.com, including references to recorded conversations with City Manager Michael Kovacs.
The complaint was filed by outgoing councilman Scott Kelley, who played a central role throughout the proceedings and ultimately did not recuse himself and voted in favor of censure.
Monday’s meeting included a formal evidentiary hearing where Hatley, represented by attorney David Dodd, presented a defense and attempted to question fellow council members. The process, however, was repeatedly constrained by legal warnings from City Attorney Jennifer Richie, who advised council members not to answer questions related to Lombard’s termination due to ongoing litigation. That guidance, issued numerous times during the hearing, limited testimony and narrowed the scope of cross-examination.
The council ultimately split along familiar lines. Kelley was joined by outgoing councilman Mark Harper and recalled councilwoman Codi Chinn in supporting the censure. Mayor Andrew Greenberg and Councilman Rick Maneval opposed it, creating a 3–2 divide before the deciding vote was cast. Councilwoman Martha Huffman ultimately sided with the majority, breaking what would have otherwise been a tie, and would have quashed the censure.
Under Texas municipal norms, a censure is a formal statement of disapproval by a governing body against one of its own members. It carries no direct legal penalty, meaning Hatley retains his elected position and voting authority. However, such a reprimand can damage political standing, limit influence within the council, and shape future electoral prospects…if the electorate so decides.
The underlying controversy traces back to the dismissal of Lombard, which has since evolved into a broader legal dispute involving claims of wrongful termination. During Monday’s hearing, repeated references to that litigation underscored the complexity of the case and the limits placed on public disclosure. Richie’s guidance, aimed at protecting the city’s legal position, effectively curtailed testimony that might have clarified key details. Critics argue this dynamic left Hatley unable to fully defend himself against the allegations.
The political context surrounding the vote is difficult to ignore. This was Chinn’s last meeting, as she was recalled from office by the voters, in part due to her involvement in the Lombard matter. Kelley, who initiated the ethics complaint, participated fully in the decision-making process knowing that this was his last meeting. Harper has also been linked in prior discussions about leadership conflicts within city administration, and for he as well, this was his last meeting. Meanwhile, all three have supported recall efforts targeting Hatley, Greenberg, Maneval, and Huffman, for additional recall, along with two new councilmen who will take their seats at the next meeting.
From a procedural standpoint, the meeting reflected a council operating under significant strain. Testimony was fragmented, legal cautions were frequent, and the final vote appeared to follow established political alliances rather than shifting based on evidence presented during the hearing. Even Hatley’s legal representation struggled to gain traction within the constraints imposed by the city’s legal posture.
Opinion
The battle for power in Fate is very real. What unfolded Monday night was not merely an ethics hearing; it was the visible culmination of an ongoing political battle inside Fate’s leadership. When a complainant votes on his own accusation; when key witnesses are effectively shielded from cross examination; when you have councilmen under recall by the very people bringing charges against their opponents; the process begins to look less like a search for truth and more like a managed outcome. It’s cut-throat politics at its worst.
What’s changed due to this Hearing? Essentially, nothing. Hatley gets a political black eye, but that’s about it. The sides were already defined, and the votes exactly as expected. Councilmen whose terms were ending anyway are now gone after delivering one last poke in the eye to their opponents. And the City Manager, who is at the heart of this debacle because of his employee decisions, and his inability to stand up to influence from Council Members… is still employed.
For residents of Fate, the final result is an up-close view into how dirty local politics can get. It diminishes the desirability of the city to new residents, hurts economic growth, and the entire process gives citizens the perspective that their city government is completely dysfunctional.
Disclosure
The author of this article was referenced during the hearing as a recipient of information discussed in the ethics complaints. The reporting above is based on observations of the public meeting and review of the proceedings.
FATE, TX — Allen Robbins defeated newcomer Melinda McCarthy for Place 3 on the Fate City Council in the May 2, 2026 election, signaling that a slim majority of voters preferred experience over change.
The seat, previously held by Scott Kelley, was open after Kelley declined to seek reelection, setting up a direct contest between Robbins’ prior service and McCarthy’s outsider campaign.
Unofficial results show Robbins winning with 52.22% of the vote, 883 votes, to McCarthy’s 47.78%, 808 votes, out of 1,691 ballots cast. The margin reflects a divided electorate, with nearly half backing a first-time candidate.
Robbins campaigned on experience, but his record on the council became a central issue. Public records show he supported a roughly 5.96 percent property tax rate increase, higher solid waste fees, and a $3 monthly road fee applied broadly to residents.
He also backed zoning changes and approved a 179-unit townhome development, decisions that critics argue contributed to rapid growth and increased density. Some residents have tied those policies to worsening traffic and a perceived decline in quality of life in Fate.
McCarthy’s campaign focused on transparency, responsiveness, and reevaluating growth decisions. Her message resonated with a significant share of voters but fell short against Robbins’ name recognition and governing background.
The results remain subject to canvassing, but Robbins is expected to return to the council as debates over growth, taxation, and infrastructure continue.
Analysis and Commentary
This race underscores a familiar tension in local politics. Voters often voice frustration with growth and rising costs, yet still choose candidates they believe understand the system.
Robbins’ win suggests that, for now, experience outweighs dissatisfaction. But the narrow margin tells a different story beneath the surface.
Nearly half the electorate signaled a desire for change, and those concerns are unlikely to fade. If anything, they will follow Robbins back into office, where the consequences of past decisions, and future ones, will be closely watched.
FATE, TX — In a decisive and unexpected outcome, Ashley Rains defeated Lorna Grove for Fate City Council Place 2, delivering a clear upset against a candidate backed by a unified slate of local Republican leadership.
Unofficial results from May 2 show Rains winning with 56.38% of the vote (945 votes) to Grove’s 43.62% (731 votes). The margin, more than 200 votes, signals a strong voter preference that defied expectations heading into election night.
The seat opened after Councilman Mark Harper declined to seek reelection, setting up a race that quickly became a referendum on the direction of city leadership.
Establishment Support Falls Short
Grove entered the race with significant political backing, including endorsements from State Senator Bob Hall, Jace Yarbrough, John Stacy, Dennis London, and Darcy Gildon. Fate Mayor Andrew Greenberg and every Republican precinct chair in Rockwall County also supported her candidacy, forming a rare, consolidated front in a local race.
Despite that support, voters broke the other direction.
Rains positioned herself as a grassroots alternative, emphasizing accountability and independence from what some voters viewed as coordinated political influence. The result suggests that message resonated more strongly than institutional endorsements.
Recall Effort Played a Key Role
A secondary, but important, factor in the race was Rains’ leadership role in the ongoing recall effort targeting three council members and the mayor. The effort will likely be placed on the November election ballot, giving Rains elevated visibility and an engaged base of supporters.
While she did not run solely on the recall, her involvement helped frame her candidacy as part of a broader push for change at City Hall. That connection likely contributed to turnout among voters already invested in the issue.
What It Means Going Forward
Rains’ victory may serve as an early indicator of voter sentiment ahead of the November recall election, though the two contests are not perfectly aligned.
With 1,676 total votes cast, turnout was solid for a municipal race, and the nearly 13-point margin suggests a clear mandate—at least in this contest.
The results remain unofficial pending canvassing, but the outcome is unlikely to change.
For now, the takeaway is straightforward: Fate voters rejected a unified political slate and elevated a candidate tied to grassroots activism, signaling a shift in the city’s political landscape with more tests to come this fall.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login