Solutions in Comprehensive Zoning
We do have the ability to eliminate multi-family zoning, if we have the will. Here is the blueprint.
The citizens of Fate have made their views known time and again to our City Council that they do not want any increases in multi-family construction. Legitimate reasons include increased traffic, crime and strains on infrastructure that will inevitably lead to increases in taxes.
We are told that change is coming whether we like it or not. We are told that there is nothing we can do about it. And we are told that property owners have the right to sell their property to developers who have the right to build whatever they want.
So the time has come to explain why all these excuses are false and to provide a solution. But to get there we must first discuss what zoning laws are, and how they came to be.
The Origin of Zoning
The first zoning law was enacted in 1916 in New York City and marked a pivotal moment in urban planning history, setting a precedent that would reverberate across cities and towns worldwide. The zoning law, known as the New York City Zoning Resolution, was a response to the rapidly changing urban landscape and the need to regulate land use in a more systematic and organized manner.
Prior to 1916, New York City was experiencing the effects of rapid industrialization and population growth. Skyscrapers were becoming a prominent feature of the cityscape, and concerns were arising about the effects of these towering structures on public health, access to sunlight, and the overall quality of life. Additionally, the haphazard mix of land uses in close proximity was causing conflicts between residential, commercial, and industrial activities.
Then, in 1915, when the 42-story Equitable Building was erected in Lower Manhattan, the need for controls on the height and form of all buildings became clear. Rising without setbacks to its full height of 538 feet, the Equitable Building cast a seven-acre shadow over neighboring buildings, affecting their value and setting the stage for the nation’s first comprehensive zoning resolution.
The 1916 New York City Zoning Resolution introduced several groundbreaking concepts that laid the foundation for modern zoning laws:
- Use Districts: The law divided the city into different use districts, each with specific regulations governing the types of activities allowed. These districts included residential, commercial, and manufacturing zones. This segregation of land uses aimed to prevent incompatible activities from coexisting in close proximity.
- Height and Setback Regulations: One of the most notable features of the law was its establishment of height and setback regulations for buildings. To address concerns about overshadowing streets and blocking sunlight, the law required buildings to be set back from the street after a certain height was reached. This provision aimed to ensure that adequate light and air reached the street level.
- Bulk Regulations: The law introduced restrictions on the bulk of buildings, including factors such as the ratio of building area to lot size. This was intended to prevent the construction of overly massive structures that could overwhelm their surroundings.
- Open Space Requirements: The zoning law mandated the provision of open spaces, such as plazas or courtyards, in certain types of developments. This provision aimed to enhance the quality of urban life by providing residents with communal spaces for relaxation and recreation.
- Non-Conforming Use: The law also addressed existing buildings and uses that did not comply with the new zoning regulations. This introduced the concept of “nonconforming use,” allowing pre-existing uses to continue even if they didn’t conform to the new zoning requirements. However, changes to non-conforming buildings often had to adhere to the new regulations.
The 1916 New York City Zoning Resolution had a profound impact on urban planning and development practices worldwide. It served as a model for other cities grappling with similar challenges, and the concepts it introduced became integral to the formation of zoning laws in various municipalities.
As cities around the globe faced the complexities of urban growth and development, they recognized the need for similar regulations to manage land use effectively, encourage orderly growth, and ensure the well-being of their citizens.
Today, zoning laws remain a cornerstone of urban planning, providing a framework that shapes the physical layout of cities, towns, and communities. While the specifics of zoning regulations vary from place to place, the principles established by the 1916 New York City Zoning Resolution continue to guide urban planners, architects, developers, and policymakers as they seek to strike a balance between progress and preservation.
The Laws of Texas
Zoning laws in Texas, like those in many other states, are designed to regulate land use and development to promote orderly growth, protect property values, and ensure the health, safety, and general welfare of communities. However, the basis and structure of zoning laws in Texas can vary due to the state’s unique legal framework and historical background.
Home Rule Cities vs. General Law Cities:
One key aspect of zoning laws in Texas is the distinction between Home-Rule cities, like Fate, and general law cities. Home-Rule cities, typically those with a population of over 5,000, have more autonomy in creating and implementing their own zoning ordinances. General law cities, on the other hand, have zoning authority granted by the state and are subject to state-imposed limitations.
Dillon’s Rule and Zoning:
Texas follows the legal principle known as Dillon’s Rule, which means that local governments (cities and counties) only have the powers that are explicitly granted to them by the State. This impacts zoning in Texas because local governments must derive their zoning authority from specific state statutes. As a result, the establishment and structure of zoning laws in Texas are largely influenced by state legislation.
Zoning Enabling Acts:
Zoning authority in Texas is granted through what are called “Zoning Enabling Acts.” These are state laws that outline the framework under which cities and counties can create and enforce zoning regulations. There are different versions of these acts, one for general law cities and one for home rule cities, reflecting the distinction in their regulatory powers. Let’s just stick to the Home-Rule cities, because that is where our City abides.
Zoning Ordinances:
In home-rule cities, zoning ordinances are passed by the city council. These ordinances define different zoning districts (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.) and specify the types of activities allowed in each district, along with regulations for building heights, setbacks, lot sizes, and other factors.
Variances and Special Exceptions:
Like many states, Texas zoning laws often include provisions for variances and special exceptions. A variance allows property owners to deviate from certain zoning regulations due to specific hardships or unique circumstances. Special exceptions, also known as conditional uses, permit specific uses within a particular zoning district if certain criteria are met.
Public Input and Due Process:
In line with democratic principles, Texas zoning laws usually require public hearings and community input during the zoning process. This allows residents and stakeholders to voice their opinions, concerns, and suggestions before zoning changes are finalized. Due process ensures that property owners are given the opportunity to contest zoning decisions if they believe their property rights are being unfairly restricted.
The Fate Town Charter
The Town Charter of Fate outlines the creation of the Planning and Zoning (P&Z) Commission and stipulates their duties and powers. Among these powers is the directive to: “Make proposals to the City Council to amend, extend and add to the Comprehensive Plan for the physical development of the City”. However it must not be understated that the capacity of the P&Z is only as an “advisory” role to the Council, where all final decisions are made.
The P&Z was originally created with 5 members and now stands with 7 members; All appointed by the City Council and serve for terms of 2 years. The current members of the P&Z Commission as of publication are: Karen Kiser, Aaron Jackson, Steve Dann, Tyler Bushman, Jeffrey Tathje, Kerry Wiemokly, and Daryell Harmon.
Here’s the really important part… Under Sec. 7.03 (2) The commission shall have the full power to:
(A)Exercise the authority of the Commission as provided by State law, this Charter and City ordinances; and
(B)Make reports and recommendations relating to the Comprehensive Plan and development of the City. [Emphasis added]
In short, this means that the P&Z doesn’t need to wait for the Council to give them directions or instructions; the Commission can start their own inquiry into the Comprehensive plan on their own and if they choose to make a recommendation to the Council for changes, they have every right to do so under Texas Law and our own Town Charter.
Recommended Recommendations
Too often, Town Commissions simply follow directives given to them by the Council. They very rarely take matters into their own hands. Often because they don’t understand that they have the right to do so… and that ignorance is just fine with the Council. But they have every right to take matters into their own hands if they have strong leadership and the guts to rub against the City Council … who appointed them.
The Fate Planning & Zoning Commission should take it upon itself to begin a top-down review of the Comprehensive Plan and evaluate how this plan meets the desires of the community of citizens… which is quite clear. End New Multi-Family Zoning.
Once the Commission has come to the rational decision to end Multi-Family Zoning, they can make a recommendation for the City Council and place the item on their agenda whether they like it or not.
The Mayor and Council are the Problem
Being realistic, this is where the initiative is likely to die. Mayor David Billings has demonstrated time and again that he is in full support of the urbanization of Fate. He is a grand proponent of StrongTowns.org, a leftist-run organization whose stated goals are to urbanize small towns.
The mayor is supported by the City Manager, Michael Kovacs, who is also a leftist who follows the Strong Towns philosophy and has hired a leftist Planning and Development Director named Ryan Wells. All of these individuals support the expansion and urbanization of Fate.
None of this is a secret. Even the town’s website displays a near-carbon copy of the Strong Towns agenda…word for word. The town even pays for the membership of a couple of employees to Strong Towns.
The Solution
The ultimate solution to the problem is simple, but extremely difficult to accomplish.
It begins with the systematic removal of Councilmen and replacing them with individuals who have the courage and will to change the Comprehensive Plan. Ultimately, they all must go because none of them has shown the courage to do what is right. This will take two years as it encompasses the removal of four councilmen to gain a majority.
The next Councilmen that are up for re-election, and must be removed are:
- Heather Buegeler – Place 1 – Expires in May 2024
- Jim DeLand – Place 5 – Expires in May 2024
- Allen Robbins – Place 4 – Expires in May 2025
- Lance Megyesi – Place 6 – Expires in May 2025
Also, Mayor David Billings, who walked in to office without spending a single nickel and getting a single vote from a citizen, and whose term expires in May 2025, must be replaced without question.
With the removal and replacement of these individuals with persons who are willing to represent the will of the people, they can legally amend the Comprehensive Plan to eliminate all future Multi-Family Zoning. That’s it … it’s just that simple.
I would also recommend going a step further and would recommend replacing the City Manager with someone who shares the values of the citizens of Fate. Someone who knows how to budget a town without future growth to cover the cost of their poor decisions. There are plenty of other reasons to replace the City Manager, which I will not delve into in this article.
Conclusion
So this is the solution. Henceforth, anytime comments are made on social media about how “we can’t do that” or “What’s your solution?” I will direct their attention here. The law says that we can do this. We have every right to do this. The question is, do we have the will to do this?
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