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?
How Fate registered a developer’s project domain after seeing it in official plans, then fought to keep that fact hidden
FATE, TX – Cities are expected to regulate development, not steal its name.
Records obtained by Pipkins Reports show the City of Fate registered the domain name of a private development, lafayettecrossing.com, while actively working with the developer who had already claimed that name in official plans. The move, made quietly during a heated approval process, raises serious questions about whether Fate’s city government crossed from partner to predator, taking digital ownership of a project it was supposed to oversee with neutrality and good faith… and depriving the developer of their rights to domain ownership.
What followed, attempts to conceal the purchase, shifting explanations from city officials, and a documented pattern of advocacy on behalf of the developer, suggests the domain registration was not an accident, but part of a broader effort to control the narrative around one of the most divisive projects in the city’s history.
A site plan submitted by the developer, D-F Funds GP, LLC, led by Robert Yu, shows the project title “Lafayette Crossing” clearly identified in the title block on December 20, 2023. The document was part of the city’s official development review for the controversial project at the corner of I-30 and Highway 551.
Less than two months later, on February 7, 2024, the City of Fate registered the domain lafayettecrossing.com, Invoice #116953461, for $12.
Domain records confirm the registration date, with the domain set to expire on February 7, 2027. By that point, Lafayette Crossing was already the established name of the project, used by the developer and embedded in official plans circulating within City Hall.
This was not a coincidence. The city had the plans from the developer. Their were extensive talks regarding the project. Then the city registered the domain without the knowledge of the developer. This is known in the industry as, “Cybersquatting.”
The development, originally referred to as the “Yu Tract,” became known as Lafayette Crossing as it moved through the approval process. The project ignited intense public opposition over density, traffic congestion, infrastructure strain, and the long-term direction of Fate’s growth. Despite sustained resistance and packed council chambers, the city council approved the project.
The political fallout was severe. In the elections that followed, four council members and the mayor were replaced, an extraordinary level of turnover that reflected deep voter dissatisfaction. Two members from that Council, Councilman Mark Harper and Councilman Scott Kelley, remain, but are up for reelection this May.
That context matters, because the domain registration did not occur in isolation. It occurred amid a broader, documented pattern of city officials actively working to shape public perception in favor of the developer.
In February 2024, Pipkins Reports, then operating as the Fate Tribune, published an exposé based on internal city emails showing City Manager Michael Kovacs discussing strategies to “educate” the public about Lafayette Crossing. In those emails, Kovacs suggested deploying what he referred to as “Fire Support,” a term used to describe both paid and unpaid advocates brought forward to counter citizen opposition and astroturf public support for the project.
That reporting revealed a city government not merely responding to public concerns, but actively attempting to manage and counter them.
In a later publication, Pipkins Reports (Fate Tribune) documented the City of Fate’s hiring of Ryan Breckenridge of BRK Partners, engaging in what records showed to be a coordinated public relations effort aimed at improving the project’s image and swaying public sentiment. The campaign was presented as informational, but residents viewed it as advocacy on behalf of the developer, funded with public resources.
It was within this environment, where city staff had already aligned themselves publicly and privately with the developer’s interests, that the city registered the lafayettecrossing.com domain. Yet that fact remained hidden until PipkinsReports.com submitted an Open Records Request on September 30, 2025, seeking a list of all domains owned by the city.
Rather than comply, the City of Fate objected. On October 14, 2025, officials asked the Texas Attorney General’s Office for permission to withhold the records, citing “cybersecurity” concerns.
On January 6, 2026, the Attorney General rejected that claim and ordered the information released. The city complied on January 20, 2026.
In addition to the lafayettecrossing.com domain, the records revealed the city owns numerous domains tied to redevelopment and branding initiatives, including:
- FateTX.gov
- DowntownFate.com
- FateFoodHaul.com
- FateMainStreet.com
- FateStationHub.com
- FateStationMarket.com
- FateStationPark.com
- FateStationSpur.com
- OldTownFate.com
- TheHubAtFateStation.com
- TheSpurAtFateStation.com
- ForwardFate.com
Most clearly relate to city-led initiatives. LafayetteCrossing.com stands apart because it mirrors the established name of a private development already proposed, named, and publicly debated.
When questioned via email, Assistant City Manager Steven Downs initially suggested the domain purchase occurred long before his involvement and downplayed any potential issues. When we revealed documents to show Downs was actively engaged with the project at the same time the Lafayette Crossing name entered the city’s official workflow, his story changed.
In follow-up correspondence, Downs acknowledged he was aware of the project name, while placing responsibility for the domain purchase on former Assistant City Manager Justin Weiss. Downs stated he did not know whether the developer was aware of the purchase and said he was not concerned about potential liability.
What remains unexplained is why the city registered the domain at all, knowing it belonged to a private project, and why it attempted to keep that information from the public.
Opinion
Viewed in isolation, a $12 domain purchase might seem trivial. Viewed in context, it is not.
When a city that has already worked to astroturf support, hire public relations firms, and counter citizen opposition also quietly registers a developer’s project domain, then attempts to conceal that information from the public, the line between regulator and advocate disappears.
The question is no longer whether the city knew the name. The record shows it did.
The question is why a city government so deeply invested in selling a controversial project to its residents felt the need to take ownership of the project’s digital identity as well.
Control of messaging, control of perception, and control of narrative are powerful tools. Sometimes it is equally as important to control what is not said.
Councilman Mark Harper walks out of meeting before adjournment.
FATE, TX – The Fate City Council voted late Monday night to waive deliberative privilege, opening the door to the public release of secret audio recordings that may have driven a recall election against Councilwoman Codi Chinn. The decision came after hours of public criticism, procedural friction, and a lengthy executive session with legal counsel.
The meeting, held Monday, February 2, was streamed live by the city and is available on YouTube at: https://www.youtube.com/live/zQVN0i-d8C0 (Embedded Below)
(Source: City of Fate, official meeting broadcast)
Timeline for Readers
- 00:33:52 – Public comments begin, largely focused on the recall election of Councilwoman Codi Chinn.
- 00:56:10 – Councilman Harper interrupts public Comment.
- 00:57:00 – Councilman Harper interrupts public Comment.
- 00:58:00 – Councilman Harper interrupts public Comment.
- 02:21:00 – Executive Session – Council enters closed session to consult with legal counsel.
- 03:22:52 – Council reconvenes in open session.
- Primary motion – Council votes to “waive deliberative privilege”, allowing release of disputed audio recordings.
Public Comment and Visible Strain
Public comments began just after the 33 minute mark and quickly centered on the recall election. Speaker after speaker questioned the conduct of city officials and demanded transparency regarding audio recordings that have circulated privately but remained unavailable to the public.
During one speaker’s remarks, critical of Councilwoman Chinn, procedural tension became visible. Three separate times, Councilman Mark Harper interrupted to remind Mayor Andrew Greenberg that the speaker had exceeded the three-minute time limit. Each time, Mayor Greenberg thanked Harper for the reminder, then directed the speaker to continue.
The exchange stood out. While council rules clearly limit speakers to three minutes, the mayor’s repeated decision to allow the speaker to proceed suggested an effort to avoid the appearance of silencing criticism during a highly charged meeting.
Clarifying the Recordings
Contrary to some early assumptions, the audio recordings at issue were not recordings of executive sessions. Instead, they are one-party consent recordings, the existence of which has been previously reported and alluded to on Pipkins Reports. Their precise origin has not been publicly detailed, but their contents have been referenced repeatedly by both supporters and critics of the recall effort.
Behind Closed Doors
Following the public meeting, the council entered executive session to consult with legal counsel. After about an hour, members returned to open session at approximately 3:22:52 .
The primary motion coming out of that session was to “waive deliberative privilege“. The effect of the vote was to remove a legal obstacle to releasing the secret audio recordings that have been at the center of the controversy.
No excerpts were played, and no conclusions were announced. The council did not rule on the legality of the recordings, nor did it weigh in on the merits of the recall election itself.
Why the Vote Matters
The decision does not resolve the recall of Councilwoman Chinn. It does not validate or refute claims made by either side. What it does is shift the debate away from rumor and secondhand accounts.
According to guidance from the Texas Municipal League, governing bodies may waive certain privileges when transparency is deemed to serve the public interest, particularly when litigation risk is balanced against public trust (Texas Municipal League, Open Meetings Act resources).
Opinion and Perspective
The council’s action was a necessary step. Secret recordings, selectively referenced and strategically leaked, undermine confidence in local government. So does a refusal to confront them directly.
Transparency is not about protecting officials from embarrassment. It is NOT the job of the council to assist the city in concealing information that may be used against it in legal proceedings when the City Manager, or Councilmen, may have done bad things. It is about protecting citizens from manipulation. If the recordings exonerate those involved, their release will restore credibility. If they raise concerns, voters deserve to hear them unfiltered before making decisions in a recall election.
Monday night in Fate did not end the controversy. It ended the excuse for keeping the public in the dark.
ROCKWALL, TX — Texas State Sen. Bob Hall appeared before voters at Rockwall County’s Final Friday Night Forum, on Friday. The appearance renewed online criticism from supporters of his primary challenger which brought attention back to a decades-old allegation from a former marriage and also to social-media comments allegidily attributed to Hall’s wife.
The renewed discussion did not stem from new legal filings, court actions, or investigative reporting. Instead, it followed social-media posts by individuals publicly supporting Hall’s opponent, Jason Eddington, including Fate City Councilwoman Codi Chinn, whose sharply worded statements have drawn attention for both their substance and tone.
The Forum and the Race
The forum was hosted by Blue Ribbon News in partnership with the Rockwall County Republican Party, and held at the Rockwall County Courthouse. It marked the final event in a series intended to give Republican voters an opportunity to hear directly from candidates ahead of the March primary.
Other candidates in attendance included:
- Rockwall County Judge
- Frank New
- Scott Muckensturm
- County Commissioner, Precinct 4
- John Stacy
- James Branch
- Lorne Megyesi
- Justice of the Peace, Precinct 2
- Victor Carrillo
- Chris Florance
Pipkins Reports could find no official transcript or video of the forum. According to available coverage, the event proceeded without public discussion of personal controversies, and no candidate addressed the matter from the stage.
Background on the Allegations
The most damaging allegations currently being recirculated date back to divorce proceedings in Florida in the early 1990s, during which Hall’s former wife, Jane Hall, made claims in court filings alleging physical, verbal, and sexual abuse during their marriage.
The allegations, raised during a contested divorce, as they often do. Bob Hall has denied the allegations. No criminal charges were filed. No court ruled against Hall or issued a finding of abuse. The filings did not result in convictions, injunctions, or adverse judgments.
The allegations became publicly discussed during Hall’s first Senate campaign in 2014 and have resurfaced intermittently during contested elections. Their latest reappearance coincides with the current Republican primary and has been driven by individuals openly advocating for Hall’s opponent.
Explicit Attribution and Political Context
Following the January 30 forum, Fate City Councilwoman Codi Chinn, who has publicly endorsed Jason Eddington, posted a statement on social media criticizing Hall and urging Republican voters to support Eddington.
In her post, Chinn wrote:
“Senator Bob Hall I expect you will be making a statement issuing an apology on behalf of your wife for body shaming a woman simply because you don’t ideologically agree with her. These comments are shameful and your silence is deafening. Being Republican shouldn’t mean being small minded. I hope Republican Primary voters will pick the true Conservative Jason Eddington, Candidate for Texas Senate, District 2!”
Critics of Chinn, including some local Republican activists, say the post reflects what they describe as a pattern of caustic and confrontational rhetoric directed at individuals she opposes politically. It’s ironic that Chinn requests accountability for language of others, while she herself asks for forgiveness of her digressions in her bid to not be recalled. Supporters of Chinn, by contrast, characterize her comments as blunt advocacy and a willingness to publicly challenge those with whom she disagrees.
Amplification by a Political Social Media Page
On January 31 at 10:57 p.m., the Facebook page Rockwall County News First published a post calling on the Rockwall County Republican Party to condemn comments attributed to Hall’s wife. The page credited Codi Crimson Chinn as the source of screenshots included in the post.
The post stated:
“We hope that Rockwall County Republican Party will join us in condemning Senator Bob Hall’s wife in her comments.”
The screenshots included in the post purport to show comments written by Kay Hall, Senator Hall’s wife. The screenshots have not been independently authenticated by this publication. According to the screenshots, the comments attributed to Kay Hall read:
“Oh, yes, so disgusting to see Jill get up an speak. She and all of the TFRW little people are in their element. Wish I had recorded her speech, or even more wish I had stood up in the room to tell everyone how she got the Democrats to vote for her in the election. The pictures are very flattering to her because she has gained weight and really looked aged. I am sitting across from Bob near the podium. too, close!!!”
As of publication, neither Senator Hall nor his wife has publicly confirmed the authenticity of the screenshots or issued a statement regarding the comments.
Hall’s Position and Current Status
Hall has not publicly addressed the social-media posts and did not respond to our request for comment. He has previously stated, during earlier campaigns, that efforts to revive allegations from his former marriage are politically motivated and unrelated to any legal findings or his conduct in office.
Hall is currently married to Sarah Kay Smith Hall, with whom he has three children. There are no legal actions or criminal allegations involving his current marriage. The current controversy centers on online posts circulated by political opponents and their supporters.
Conclusion
The Final Friday Night Forum was intended to focus voter attention on policy differences among Republican candidates. In the days following the event, however, the race shifted toward personal disputes fueled by online posts from supporters of Hall’s challenger, including commentary that some observers describe as emblematic of an increasingly sharp-edged political style.
As the March primary approaches, voters in Senate District 2 must weigh not only policy and legislative records, but also the motivations and methods used by campaigns and their advocates. Whether the renewed criticism is viewed as relevant scrutiny or as opposition-driven escalation remains a question for the electorate to decide.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login