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?
Fate, Texas — The City of Fate has completed its review of the recall petition targeting City Councilwoman Codi Chinn, formally verifying the petition as valid and clearing the way for a recall election to be ordered by the City Council.
City officials confirmed that 396 signatures from registered Fate voters were verified and accepted, exceeding the 351 signatures required under the city’s home rule charter. With the verification process complete, the matter now advances to the City Council on Monday, January 26th, which is legally required to call a recall election in accordance with Texas election law.
Under the charter, the action is administerial and the council has no discretion to reject or delay a properly presented petition. Chinn will be given an opportunity for a hearing to address the council, if she chooses, but it will not change the fact that a recall election must be held.
A Stark Electoral Comparison
The verified signature count carries added political significance when viewed against the backdrop of Chinn’s original election.
In June 2024, Chinn prevailed in a runoff election against challenger Cinnamon Krause, winning by a margin of 835 votes (56.92%) to 632 votes (43.08%). The recall petition, which gathered over 400 signatures in approximately one week, represents almost half the total number of votes Chinn received citywide in her election.
While a recall petition is not a direct proxy for voter intent, the comparison underscores the speed and scale of the opposition effort, as well as citizen dissatisfaction with Chinn, particularly in a city where municipal turnout is typically modest and electoral margins are measured in the hundreds, rather than the thousands.
From Certification to the Ballot
With the petition signatures verified and considered “Sufficient”, the recall effort now enters its next—and most consequential—phase. If the council follows the standard timeline, the recall election is expected to be placed on the May ballot, coinciding with regularly scheduled municipal elections for City Council Place 2 (Mark Harper) and Place 3 (Scott Kelley).
Harper and Kelley have not yet announced if they intend to run for reelection.
The recall ballot will present voters with a single question: whether Codi Chinn should be removed from office before the expiration of her term in May 2027. A simple majority is required for removal. If the recall succeeds, the resulting vacancy would be filled by appointment of the council. If it fails, Chinn would retain her seat for the remainder of her term.
Fate, Texas — A recall effort targeting Fate City Councilwoman Codi Chinn escalated sharply after organizers behind the petition announced they had collected enough signatures to meet the threshold required under the city charter, setting the stage for a recall election in May.
According to organizers, the petition, submitted yesterday, contains 403 signatures from registered Fate voters, exceeding the minimum threshold of 351 signatures required under the charter. City Secretary Vickey Raduechel is expected to validate the signatures and determine whether the petition is sufficient. If certified, the Fate City Council will be legally obligated to call a recall election, placing Chinn’s political future directly in the hands of voters.
From Petition to Ballot
The recall effort began formally on January 5, 2026, when an application for a recall petition under Fate’s home rule charter was filed with the City.
Within hours of that filing, Chinn received a copy of the petition via her official city email account. She subsequently published images of the document on social media using her personal Facebook profile, exposing the names, signatures, and home addresses of all recall committee members.
That decision became a catalyst—galvanizing supporters of the recall while intensifying criticism of Chinn’s conduct as an elected official.
Beyond the mechanics of the petition itself, several residents pointed to Chinn’s own conduct as an accelerant to the recall effort. In recent months, Chinn has engaged in online exchanges that critics describe as unprofessional and caustic—at times directed not at political opponents, but at individuals who had previously supported her. For many voters, that behavior was viewed as unbecoming of an elected official and inconsistent with the expectations of public service. Coupled with her prominent role in the termination of Fate DPS Chief Lyle Lombard, these actions appear to have served as a catalyst for the unusually swift and decisive outpouring of support behind the recall petition.
From Chinn’s perspective, however, the unfolding backlash is framed very differently. In public comments and online posts, she has portrayed herself as a “freedom fighter,” casting her actions as principled stands taken in the face of overwhelming opposition. Chinn has suggested that the criticism directed at her reflects resistance from a crowd unwilling to accept dissenting views, rather than dissatisfaction with her conduct or decisions. To her supporters, this framing underscores conviction and resolve; to critics, it further illustrates the widening gap between Chinn’s self-perception and how her leadership style is received by a growing segment of the electorate.
Pipkins Reports reached out to Councilman Chinn for a response to the submission of the recall petition. She did not respond prior to publication.
The Signature Drive
What followed was an aggressive and highly organized signature drive that unfolded both online and on the ground. Recall organizers coordinated neighborhood canvassing, direct outreach to registered voters, and private meetups to gather signatures during the charter’s circulation window.
Multiple sources involved in the effort described turnout that exceeded expectations, particularly among longtime residents and voters who had previously remained disengaged from city politics.
What the Council Must Do Now
Under Fate’s charter, once a recall petition is verified, the City Council has no discretion to block or delay the process. The council must formally order a recall election within a defined timeframe, with the election date set in accordance with Texas election law.
If the timing holds steady, the recall is expected to be placed on the May election ballot along with the election of two other offices, Place 2 & Place 3, which are currently held by Mark Harper and Scott Kelley, respectively. Fortunately for Fate Citizens, this process would ensure no additional cost above and beyond the normal election.
Ironically, this puts all three Councilmen, who played a role in the removal of Chief Lyle Lombard on the same ballot. As for Chinn, there would not be an opponent running against her. Instead, the recall ballot will present voters with a simple question: whether Codi Chinn should be removed from office before the expiration of her term, which is May of 2027.
The outcome will be decided by a simple majority. If it passes, and Chinn is removed, the vacancy will be filled by the Council.
If the recall fails, Chinn will retain her seat for the remainder of her term. Politically, however, the survival of a recall may not equate to stability. A failed recall would still leave a deeply divided electorate and a council struggling to function cohesively.
Either outcome will reverberate far beyond the ballot box.
A Decision Now in Voters’ Hands
With the petition certified (shortly) and an election looming, the recall effort will move out of City Hall and into the public square where it belongs. The coming weeks will test not only Chinn’s political support but the capacity of Fate’s civic culture to withstand sustained conflict.
The final judgment will not be rendered in Facebook comments, council chambers, or competing press releases—but at the ballot box, where Fate voters will decide whether this chapter ends with removal, redemption, or something in between.
Fate, TX
Lombard’s Performance Review – Part 2. How a DPS Chief Got Railroaded due to Politics, Deception & Corruption
Fate, Texas – This is Part 2 of an ongoing investigation into the political firestorm engulfing Fate over the ousting of DPS Chief Lyle Lombard.
In this installment, records obtained by Pipkins Reports via an Open Records Request (ORR) are placed side by side: Police Chief Lyle Lombard’s performance evaluations, the official letter terminating his employment, and the chief’s detailed written rebuttal. Together, they reveal a pattern of shifting claims and material inconsistencies used to justify a firing that internal records had not supported just months earlier. As the documents are examined in full, a clearer picture emerges of how it appears that Lombard was methodically railroaded, not for professional failure, but for reasons that appear personal, political, and wholly disconnected from public safety.
The controversy erupted publicly after the November 21, 2025 termination of Public Safety Chief Lyle Lombard, a veteran lawman who had led Fate’s police and fire operations for years. City officials claimed the firing stemmed from performance issues. But documents, audio recordings, and timelines reviewed by Pipkins Reports suggest a far more troubling story, one involving political coercion and apparent disregard for due process.
Let’s step back and look at the timeline and performance reviews.
According to internal performance records, Lombard submitted his semi-annual self-evaluation on September 30, 2025. Just six months earlier, on May 20, 2025, City Manager Michael Kovacs had issued Lombard a glowing review, rating him “Successful,” “Highly Successful,” and even “Outstanding” in areas including honesty and public safety leadership. No deficiencies were noted at that time, despite the fact that he would later allege problems existed.
Things changed abruptly in late October 2025. During an October 30 review meeting, Kovacs downgraded several categories to “Needs Improvement”, the first such marks Lombard had received in seven years, but he also stopped short of rating Lombard as, “Unsuccessful”.
Reviews
(In the comparison sheet created by Pipkins Reports of the last two employment reviews, we have highlighted those categories where Lombard’s review was downgraded by Kovacs. We are not including those 15 other categories where Lombards’ review stayed the same, or improved.)
Following the review, Lombard was allowed to address some of the issues noted by Kovacs.
On November 3rd, he responds with the following letter, pointing out factual errors and noting that some complaints appeared driven by personal animus tied to unrelated social media posts by his spouse, and disgruntled employees.
The content of that letter is as follows:
“Sir,
During my semi-annual development discussion, you had mentioned that this is currently in draft, and if I wanted to appeal any of the items we discussed, I could. I recognize that I have areas for improvement and will make an effort to address those items. I believe that over the past two years, the political climate has been incredibly tumultuous and has entangled others within it. I have documented a few points from our conversation last week below for your consideration:
• I trusted two supervisors who registered the sex offender in a timely manner as required by state law, and interpreted the residency ordinance themselves. Within the City Attorney’s response, she noted that the wording creates some ambiguity. Regarding timeliness, the notice from Councilman Harper to you was within 12 days of the person registering as a sex offender, and I’m sure that timeframe was shortened by the time it took Texas DPS to update the registry website. The personnel within DPS make many critical decisions daily that affect people’s health, welfare, and civil liberties.
• During the salary survey period, I had not promised anyone a definite increase amount. It doesn’t make sense that we would do a salary survey if it were known to provide a certain percentage increase. This process has identified a few members who have become greedy with the salary provided to them. I was shocked to hear that Council member(s) were informed.
• In reference to the FEMA grant, I spot-checked our fire personnel to see if they knew the plan if we did not receive the grant, and they did know we would hire three and run a squad vehicle when staffing allows to start tackling the overlapping calls.
• The reference to the police building design and land, I have always liked the two-story police building design for several reasons, but during our visits to other police facilities, Steven and I had discussed the cost savings and the loss of internal interaction with personnel having a two-story building. I agreed with some council members that a one-story building would result in lower construction costs. Since the original concept of a multi-use building was turned down, the land space for a two-story or single-story police building was not going to be available for a fire station on the single lot. I was attempting to provide options and not mislead anyone by not being able to do both buildings in the future as separate builds. The original shared spaces were the key factor in the single lot.
• In reference to the pay plan roll-out, the Captains had attempted to reach you to discuss the pay plan because I had discussed this situation with Leigh and separately with you about their concerns about the lack of use of the step plan during this salary adjustment proposal. I was unable to make any changes to their satisfaction, so their next step was to contact you directly. We did speak about the situation I was having trying to appeal to Leigh regarding their expectations, specifically [Redacted: Officer #1]. I believe that part of the issue with venting to other managers or Council members is that when they are present, some council members ask pointed questions about the pay study or inquire if there are any concerns they should be aware of. Then, they hear the comments. I have been teaching the Captains more management practices and budgeting, and allowing more decision-making authority for their future.
• The detective reorganization was not a surprise. I have verbalized my idea of rotating personnel through as many aspects of the department as possible to create well-rounded police officers from the beginning. It was only “confusing” to [Redacted: Officer #2] because he did not want to leave the Monday-Friday, off on holidays schedule to do shift work. He had been on this assignment for over 5 years. [Redacted: Officer #2] has expressed that he felt like he was being demoted, but he hasn’t been. [Redacted: Officer #2] had attached himself to the command staff due to the proximity of offices and the ability to overhear discussions. I can’t account for how other members may tease him. Several members of the department informed me that they appreciated the change. Morale in CID has increased following the reorganization. A couple of officers have requested shift transfers away from [Redacted: Officer #2] current supervision. I am not writing this rebuttal to be argumentative. I am attempting to reveal another side of the situation. I would like to respectfully ask you to consider the sources of information and evaluate whether this is a result of personal hard feelings stemming from past social media postings that are not my own.”
[Note: Pipkins Reports has voluntarily chosen to redact the names of officers found in Lombard’s response even though this information is public record.]
What Changed?
Things changed on November 10th, at the City Council Meeting when the discussion for splitting the DPS into separate Police & Fire was put on hold. Witnesses say this allegedly made Councilman Mark Harper furious. He had been advocating for this split for a long time. They say he blamed Mayor Andrew Greenberg, Michael Kovacs, and Chief Lombard.
According to a recording obtained by Pipkins Reports, purportedly capturing Councilwoman Codi Chinn, she states that Harper was ready to fire them both and wanted to bring both Kovacs and Lombard into Executive Session. But Councilman Scott Kelley wasn’t ready to put Kovacs into the hot seat. Kelley agreed to go forward only with Chief Lombard. In this same conversation, which occurred prior to the executive session, Chinn states that the plan is already in the works to fire the chief.
Introduction of an Anonymous Complaint.
Dated November 11, 2025, the unsigned letter accused Lombard of causing low morale, misconduct, and closely mirrored language from his performance review. Perhaps suggesting that the person who wrote the letter either had knowledge of the review’s contents or played a role in its creation.
The letter was hand delivered to Councilwoman Codi Chinn (she claims), who sent it to Kovacs, via text. The complaint was never verified, never signed, not investigated, and Lombard was not formally given the opportunity to respond, despite Texas Government Code sections 614.022 and 614.023 requiring sworn complaints and officer notification.
Kovacs referred to the letter as “new information” and sent it to all Councilmen ahead of the Executive Session, yet he conspicuously omitted it as a stated reason for termination, a move that could indicate awareness of potential legal exposure and would invite actionable legal defense by Lombard.
On November 18th, the day after the Executive Session where the “Anonymous” letter was presented to Council, Kovacs issued his letter of a “Notice of Investigation and Complaint” to Lombard. This amounts to his written “suspension”, following the verbal suspension he received 4 days prior. This is the only complaint that was ever officially filed against the chief.
In the complaint, Kovacs completely discounts any and all explanations previously given by the chief and alleges of Lombard:
- Poor Communication
- Detectives’ reorganization created confusion and morale issues,
- DPS pay plan rollout mishandled; staff believed raises had been promised,
- Lack of early conflict identification and proactive mitigation,
- Delay in addressing a sex offender residency issue and failure to seek legal advice contributed to public controversy,
- Judgment and decision making
- Uncoordinated decisions have created confusion and unnecessary risk, (property acquisition and facility development)
- Failed to maintain trust with executive team leaders by not maintaining confidentiality of discussions and subsequent failure to repair relationship(s),
- Communications with elected officials regarding official town business and failed to disclose communications to management
- Made [a] public presentation regarding [the] ongoing sex offender registration matter which included identifiable photographs of minors and disclosed sensitive information regarding city property.
Lombard refuted every allegation and provided a written response to Kovacs at the mandatory review meeting on November 20th. We have provided a copy of that response here.
To summarize,
- The reorganization was a process designed to provide for well-rounded officers by rotating them through the detective division and cross-training them. There was one Lieutenant who wasn’t pleased with this policy because it meant they would have to go back into the field for a period of time.
- The DPS pay plan is a creation of HR (Leigh Corson) and Michael Kovacs, not the Chief. The chief discussed the issues with them on several occasions. There was no promise for pay increases because the chief was not responsible for that activity. He did however, point out how the recommended pay plan would put officers at a rate that is above the survey for those positions.
- Regarding the sex offender, Lombard sought legal interpretations from Lt. Guerrica as well as City Attorney David Overcash who both interpreted the law and ordinances and came to the same conclusion. As for the identifiable photographs of minors, those images came directly from the subject’s Facebook page that was set to public viewing. This was not under the control of the chief.
- The chief did not disclose confidential or under-cover information by showing pictures of vehicles in the Police station parking lot. For one, Fate does not have an undercover division. Vehicles in the parking lot are not only visible to the general public, but they are vehicles that are used by administrative personnel. Second, undercover detectives (if we ever did have any) would not come into the station at all. Lest their cover be blown by doing so.
- The issue with Stephen Downs, stems from an event where he demanded that the chief take to social media and defend previous Mayor David Billings. The chief did this one time, reluctantly, after which he told Downs he did not like being put into that position and not to do that again. This occurred months prior and should have been listed on his previous review … if it were an issue.
Conclusion
Now the political consequences are arriving. On January 5, 2026, a recall petition targeting Councilwoman Chinn was officially filed. (Our Story here). While the petition does not list specific grounds, the timing and context of her alleged involvement in terminating the chief are unmistakable.
Adding fuel to the fire, Chinn published a copy of the Recall Application, which included the names and personal details of petition signers. Information that she received via her official Fate email account when the information had not yet been made public. Prompting backlash from residents who view the move as deliberately retaliatory and intimidating.
What emerges from the record is not a single act of misconduct. It reveals a lifetime of favorable performance reviews followed by abrupt downgrades due to politics, political pressure, an unverified anonymous complaint from an [allegedly] disgruntled employee, and a termination justified by allegations the city’s own documents had not previously identified as deficiencies. Whether these actions reflect poor governance, political expediency, or something more deliberate is a question now squarely before the public. What is clear is that the official justification for Lombard’s removal does not align neatly with the documentary record created by the city.
As Fate continues to grapple with the fallout—including a recall effort, growing public distrust, and unanswered questions about due process—residents are left to decide whether this episode represents accountability in action or a cautionary tale about the use of power behind closed doors. Pipkins Reports will continue examining the documents, recordings, and legal implications surrounding Lombard’s firing, because the issue at stake is larger than one chief or one council vote: it is whether transparency and the rule of law still govern how Fate conducts its public business.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login