Connect with us

Published

on

Fate, TX – Our beloved town, Fate, stands at a precipice. The City Council, blinded by their misguided vision, threatens to unleash a torrent of up to 1,300 new apartments upon our community. As a staunch defender of Fate, The Fate Tribune refuses to mince words. Let’s expose the truth behind this reckless proposal known as Lafayette, which will come before the council for a vote tonight! (02/05/2024).

The Citizens’ Outcry

Picture it: Fate’s sunsets, the laughter of children in our parks, the comforting hum of our local diner. Now imagine it all obliterated by towering apartment complexes and overrun by transient renters who don’t have a stake in our community. Our concerns are real:

  1. Traffic Nightmare: Fate’s roads are already clogged during rush hour. Adding 1,300 more units will turn our streets into a perpetual traffic jam. The developer is offering little more than words to mitigate this problem. The City Council’s response? Crickets.
  2. Schools Overwhelmed: Our schools are already overcrowded. But with this influx, classrooms will burst at the seams. Our kids deserve better. Why is the Council deaf to our pleas.
  3. Rural Lifestyle: Fate’s charm lies in rural environment…away from crowded cities. This project is an attempt to urbanize our small town… just like the Strong Towns philosophy that our City Government covets like a cult. And the Mayor and Council are willing participants.
  4. Property Values Plummet: Apartments built next to train tracks have only one possible outcome … Section 8. No amount of appeasement will change this. The noise and vibration cannot be mitigated with architectural design and the end result will be that only the poorest of families would be willing to put up with this situation (because they unfortunately have no choice). The result will be a community in decline. The Council’s solution? Apathy.
  5. Strained Emergency Services: It won’t take long before the influx of thousands of new residents will overwhelm our emergency services … and the Council will tell us we MUST approve a new bond to pay for all the new emergency service buildings, trucks, police, & fire. They simply ignore these facts.

City Council’s Betrayal

Let’s dissect their arguments – if we can call them that:

  1. Economic Growth Delusion: They chant “progress” like a broken record. They say it is “inevitable” … but they are the cause of it. And at what cost? Our peace? Our identity? Their math doesn’t add up.
  2. Affordable Housing Mirage: They dangle “affordability” like a carrot. But this word is mutable and can mean anything they want it to mean. (Read Here) But these apartments won’t house struggling families; they’ll attract transient renters. The kind of renters that won’t care if they live next to train tracks. Our community deserves better.
  3. Density Disaster: They preach density like zealots. It’s a mantra of the Strong Towns philosophy that they covet. But Fate isn’t Manhattan. We cherish open spaces, not concrete jungles. Their vision blinds them.
  4. Property Rights Suppression: The Council portrays the developer’s property rights as sacrosanct. But what about our rights as existing residents? Are we mere collateral damage? The Community also has rights. WE THE PEOPLE have the right to decide what developments are allowed in our community. The Council are supposed to represent the People … not Developers.
  5. Deceitful Pretty Pictures: The presentation made to the Planning & Zoning Commission include pretty pictures (renderings) of trees and open spaces. But this is just PR…these renderings to not exist in the legal, official documents. The legal documents contain vagaries that will not restrict the design concepts once approval is provided.

The Legal Quandary

Despite claims by some on the council, Texas law, does NOT prohibit “exclusionary zoning”. Exclusionary zoning refers to zoning ordinances and practices that effectively exclude certain types of zoning, such as multi-family housing. It is NOT illegal to exclude multi-family housing in a City as long as the reasons why you are excluding multi-family housing are not discriminatory. The law governing discrimination in housing is the Fair Housing Act. The reason ‘why’ you are excluding multi-family development matters.

There are plenty of legal reasons to exclude multi-family zoning which don’t ‘presume’ to discriminate.

  • For one, a lack of infrastructure to support a large block of new housing. This would include roads, water, and availability of emergency services to name a few.
  • “Crime” is part of the infrastructure … but not in the sense that the apartment dwellers are more likely to be criminals, but because the availability of police to serve any additional populous of permanent residents would be stressed to the breaking point.
  • “Noise” can be a factor. Not because apartment dwellers can be viewed discriminately as “noisy” but because any large gathering of individuals in a concentrated area would dramatically increase the livability of those already in the region.
  • “Traffic” is a legitimate, legal concern. While commercial development may increase traffic during the daytime, large concentrations of residents in a single area increase traffic in the early mornings, evenings, and nighttime. The proposed development is expected to generate 1418 entering trips and 1085 exiting trips in the AM peak hour, and 1751 entering and 1679 exiting trips in the PM peak hour. THAT’S JUST ONE HOUR – in the morning and evening. The final result will be 10’s of thousands of new vehicles on our roads daily.

Our Call to Arms

Fellow Fate-dwellers, rise! Attend the Council meeting TONIGHT (02/05/2024). Raise your voices. Remind them that Fate isn’t just a dot on a map; it’s our home. We won’t surrender to big developers who only care about money and don’t care about our community. The bottom line is that if the project doesn’t work without apartments … then it doesn’t work. Try again.

In the end, our FATE rests with us!


Disclaimer: For those in the cheap seats, this article reflects The Fate Tribune’s unapologetically biased views. If you seek impartiality, look elsewhere. Fate’s destiny hangs in the balance, and we stand with our community. Why don’t YOU!

Michael Pipkins focuses on public integrity, governance, constitutional issues, and political developments affecting Texans. His investigative reporting covers public-record disputes, city-government controversies, campaign finance matters, and the use of public authority. Pipkins is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ). As an SPJ member, Pipkins adheres to established principles of ethical reporting, including accuracy, fairness, source protection, and independent journalism.

Council

Ethics Fight Ends in Censure of Councilman Mark Hatley

Published

on

Ethics Censure Hatley

FATE, TX — The Fate City Council voted last night to censure Councilman Mark Hatley following a contentious ethics hearing that exposed deep divisions among elected officials.

The censure stems from two ethics complaints alleging Hatley improperly disclosed confidential information tied to internal discussions about the potential firing of former Department of Public Safety Chief Lyle Lombard. According to testimony, Hatley shared details with local journalist Michael Pipkins of PipkinsReports.com, including references to recorded conversations with City Manager Michael Kovacs.

The complaint was filed by outgoing councilman Scott Kelley, who played a central role throughout the proceedings and ultimately did not recuse himself and voted in favor of censure.

Monday’s meeting included a formal evidentiary hearing where Hatley, represented by attorney David Dodd, presented a defense and attempted to question fellow council members. The process, however, was repeatedly constrained by legal warnings from City Attorney Jennifer Richie, who advised council members not to answer questions related to Lombard’s termination due to ongoing litigation. That guidance, issued numerous times during the hearing, limited testimony and narrowed the scope of cross-examination.

The council ultimately split along familiar lines. Kelley was joined by outgoing councilman Mark Harper and recalled councilwoman Codi Chinn in supporting the censure. Mayor Andrew Greenberg and Councilman Rick Maneval opposed it, creating a 3–2 divide before the deciding vote was cast. Councilwoman Martha Huffman ultimately sided with the majority, breaking what would have otherwise been a tie, and would have quashed the censure.

Under Texas municipal norms, a censure is a formal statement of disapproval by a governing body against one of its own members. It carries no direct legal penalty, meaning Hatley retains his elected position and voting authority. However, such a reprimand can damage political standing, limit influence within the council, and shape future electoral prospects…if the electorate so decides.

The underlying controversy traces back to the dismissal of Lombard, which has since evolved into a broader legal dispute involving claims of wrongful termination. During Monday’s hearing, repeated references to that litigation underscored the complexity of the case and the limits placed on public disclosure. Richie’s guidance, aimed at protecting the city’s legal position, effectively curtailed testimony that might have clarified key details. Critics argue this dynamic left Hatley unable to fully defend himself against the allegations.

The political context surrounding the vote is difficult to ignore. This was Chinn’s last meeting, as she was recalled from office by the voters, in part due to her involvement in the Lombard matter. Kelley, who initiated the ethics complaint, participated fully in the decision-making process knowing that this was his last meeting. Harper has also been linked in prior discussions about leadership conflicts within city administration, and for he as well, this was his last meeting. Meanwhile, all three have supported recall efforts targeting Hatley, Greenberg, Maneval, and Huffman, for additional recall, along with two new councilmen who will take their seats at the next meeting.

From a procedural standpoint, the meeting reflected a council operating under significant strain. Testimony was fragmented, legal cautions were frequent, and the final vote appeared to follow established political alliances rather than shifting based on evidence presented during the hearing. Even Hatley’s legal representation struggled to gain traction within the constraints imposed by the city’s legal posture.

Opinion

The battle for power in Fate is very real. What unfolded Monday night was not merely an ethics hearing; it was the visible culmination of an ongoing political battle inside Fate’s leadership. When a complainant votes on his own accusation; when key witnesses are effectively shielded from cross examination; when you have councilmen under recall by the very people bringing charges against their opponents; the process begins to look less like a search for truth and more like a managed outcome. It’s cut-throat politics at its worst.

What’s changed due to this Hearing? Essentially, nothing. Hatley gets a political black eye, but that’s about it. The sides were already defined, and the votes exactly as expected. Councilmen whose terms were ending anyway are now gone after delivering one last poke in the eye to their opponents. And the City Manager, who is at the heart of this debacle because of his employee decisions, and his inability to stand up to influence from Council Members… is still employed.

For residents of Fate, the final result is an up-close view into how dirty local politics can get. It diminishes the desirability of the city to new residents, hurts economic growth, and the entire process gives citizens the perspective that their city government is completely dysfunctional.

Disclosure

The author of this article was referenced during the hearing as a recipient of information discussed in the ethics complaints. The reporting above is based on observations of the public meeting and review of the proceedings.

Continue Reading

Election

Fate Voters Go Familiar: Robbins Edges McCarthy in Tight Place 3 Race

Published

on

Robbins wins race against McCarthy

FATE, TX — Allen Robbins defeated newcomer Melinda McCarthy for Place 3 on the Fate City Council in the May 2, 2026 election, signaling that a slim majority of voters preferred experience over change.

The seat, previously held by Scott Kelley, was open after Kelley declined to seek reelection, setting up a direct contest between Robbins’ prior service and McCarthy’s outsider campaign.

Unofficial results show Robbins winning with 52.22% of the vote, 883 votes, to McCarthy’s 47.78%, 808 votes, out of 1,691 ballots cast. The margin reflects a divided electorate, with nearly half backing a first-time candidate.

Robbins campaigned on experience, but his record on the council became a central issue. Public records show he supported a roughly 5.96 percent property tax rate increase, higher solid waste fees, and a $3 monthly road fee applied broadly to residents.

He also backed zoning changes and approved a 179-unit townhome development, decisions that critics argue contributed to rapid growth and increased density. Some residents have tied those policies to worsening traffic and a perceived decline in quality of life in Fate.

McCarthy’s campaign focused on transparency, responsiveness, and reevaluating growth decisions. Her message resonated with a significant share of voters but fell short against Robbins’ name recognition and governing background.

The results remain subject to canvassing, but Robbins is expected to return to the council as debates over growth, taxation, and infrastructure continue.

Analysis and Commentary

This race underscores a familiar tension in local politics. Voters often voice frustration with growth and rising costs, yet still choose candidates they believe understand the system.

Robbins’ win suggests that, for now, experience outweighs dissatisfaction. But the narrow margin tells a different story beneath the surface.

Nearly half the electorate signaled a desire for change, and those concerns are unlikely to fade. If anything, they will follow Robbins back into office, where the consequences of past decisions, and future ones, will be closely watched.

Continue Reading

Election

Knockout! Rains Beats Grove for Fate City Council – Place 2

Published

on

Rains Beats Grove. Knockout!

FATE, TX — In a decisive and unexpected outcome, Ashley Rains defeated Lorna Grove for Fate City Council Place 2, delivering a clear upset against a candidate backed by a unified slate of local Republican leadership.

Unofficial results from May 2 show Rains winning with 56.38% of the vote (945 votes) to Grove’s 43.62% (731 votes). The margin, more than 200 votes, signals a strong voter preference that defied expectations heading into election night.

The seat opened after Councilman Mark Harper declined to seek reelection, setting up a race that quickly became a referendum on the direction of city leadership.

Establishment Support Falls Short

Grove entered the race with significant political backing, including endorsements from State Senator Bob Hall, Jace Yarbrough, John Stacy, Dennis London, and Darcy Gildon. Fate Mayor Andrew Greenberg and every Republican precinct chair in Rockwall County also supported her candidacy, forming a rare, consolidated front in a local race.

Despite that support, voters broke the other direction.

Rains positioned herself as a grassroots alternative, emphasizing accountability and independence from what some voters viewed as coordinated political influence. The result suggests that message resonated more strongly than institutional endorsements.

Recall Effort Played a Key Role

A secondary, but important, factor in the race was Rains’ leadership role in the ongoing recall effort targeting three council members and the mayor. The effort will likely be placed on the November election ballot, giving Rains elevated visibility and an engaged base of supporters.

While she did not run solely on the recall, her involvement helped frame her candidacy as part of a broader push for change at City Hall. That connection likely contributed to turnout among voters already invested in the issue.

What It Means Going Forward

Rains’ victory may serve as an early indicator of voter sentiment ahead of the November recall election, though the two contests are not perfectly aligned.

With 1,676 total votes cast, turnout was solid for a municipal race, and the nearly 13-point margin suggests a clear mandate—at least in this contest.

The results remain unofficial pending canvassing, but the outcome is unlikely to change.

For now, the takeaway is straightforward: Fate voters rejected a unified political slate and elevated a candidate tied to grassroots activism, signaling a shift in the city’s political landscape with more tests to come this fall.

Continue Reading