Fate Tribune

05/17/2025

4 arrested. Great work Fate PD.

05/05/2025

On Tonight's City Council Agenda ....

"(This is a resolution to approve the purchase of property for the purpose of constructing a future Elevated Water Tower No. 3) ... for a purchase price of $425,000.00"

By all means, let's push this half-million dollar purchase through before the next council gets in...

And if this IS approved, and you just know it's already been decided, after all, we certainly MUST have this critical infrastructure, where do you think they will get the money to build it?

The answer: A NEW BOND. And of course, if you don't vote for it then you must obviously hate the town (sarcasm).

We warned you this was coming when the last bond was proposed. And you bet Kovacs knew it too... or else he damn well should have known. But he hid that from you because if you knew that ANOTHER bond was on its way, you might think twice about funding a new (unnecessary) police station when there are other critical issues to resolve.

In the very least, you might have been a little more ticked off when they gave away $15,000,000 to a developer in tax revenue that could have been used to build this water tower ... a tower that wouldn't be necessary if NOT for the very development that they gave the $15 mil. to.

Send a message to learn more

05/05/2025

Fate, Texas, Chooses Andrew Greenberg as Mayor in Resounding win.

Fate, TX – Fate citizens have selected Andrew Greenberg as their next mayor, affirming a vision of principled, conservative leadership. In a race that highlighted the city’s dedication to its values, Greenberg’s triumph reflects a clear mandate for transparent governance, sustainable growth, and steadfast public safety. His opponent, Lorna Grove, mounted a respectable campaign but ultimately stepped back, recognizing Greenberg’s conservative credentials and readiness to lead. Fate’s voters have entrusted their city to a man whose priorities align with its small-town charm and forward-looking aspirations.

The unofficial results are Greenberg (903 votes) – 78.66% to Grove (245 voted) – 21.34%.

Greenberg, a government and economics professor and Rockwall GOP Precinct Chair, has called Fate home since 2018, raising three daughters alongside his wife in a community he cherishes. His campaign, grounded in constitutional conservatism, emphasized preserving Fate’s unique character while managing growth responsibly. As a professor, he brings a disciplined mind to the complexities of municipal governance, promising to balance development with the city’s identity by carefully addressing infrastructure and business expansion.

Transparency defined Greenberg’s platform, resonating with residents weary of opaque government processes. His commitment to open town halls, regular updates, and accessible city operations struck a chord, offering a refreshing antidote to distrust in institutions. Voters saw in him a leader determined to make local government approachable and accountable, ensuring residents are informed about every decision affecting their lives.

Public safety, a point of pride for Fate as Texas’s sixth-safest city in 2024, remains a cornerstone of Greenberg’s agenda. His pledge to equip police, fire, and emergency services with robust resources reassured a community that views security as non-negotiable. This focus underscored his understanding of Fate as a haven for families and citizens across generations.

Lorna Grove, Greenberg’s opponent, brought her own conservative bona fides, earning admiration from many. Initially skeptical of a professor in the mayor’s race, she discovered Greenberg’s rare conservative perspective in academia, dubbing him a “unicorn.” Her near-endorsement of him signaled a shared commitment to Fate’s future, and while she may run again, her current focus on family and her dignified campaign won her widespread respect.

As Andrew Greenberg prepares to lead, Fate faces the challenge of growth without sacrificing its soul. With a mayor rooted in conservative principles—limited government, personal freedom, and community pride—residents can trust that their city will remain a beacon of tradition and opportunity. Greenberg’s election is a reaffirmation of Fate’s values and a bold step toward a future that honors its past.

05/05/2025

Fate, Texas, Elects Rick Maneval to City Council Place 4 in Decisive Victory

Fate, TX – Fate has chosen Rick Maneval as its next City Council Place 4 representative, delivering a resounding endorsement of his conservative, common-sense approach to governance. In a race that pitted Maneval against primary challenger Emily Camacho and the largely absent George D. Lewis, voters opted for a proven steward of fiscal responsibility and community values. Maneval’s win signals Fate’s desire for transparent leadership, prudent budgeting, and a councilmember who prioritizes the city’s families and future.

The unofficial results are: Maneval (649 votes) 55.80%, Camacho (370 votes) 31.81%, Lewis (144 votes) 12.38%.

A lifelong Texan and Fate resident, Maneval brings over three decades of financial expertise from his career at the Dallas Morning News, where he managed budgets with a sharp eye for efficiency. Retired since 2021, he has channeled his energy into community service, notably at Christ Church Rockwall, where he served on the Vestry and led efforts to fund and build a new church facility. His reputation as a faithful husband, father, and neighbor, coupled with his deep-rooted Texas values, made him a natural fit for voters seeking a councilmember who governs with integrity.

Maneval’s campaign centered on keeping Fate prosperous, safe, and affordable. His pledge to maintain a lean budget, lower taxes, and ensure spending transparency resonated with residents tired of government overreach. Drawing on his financial acumen, he promised to stretch every tax dollar while safeguarding the city’s small-town charm against unchecked growth. His commitment to open government—making every decision accessible and accountable—further solidified his appeal in a community that values clarity over bureaucracy.

Emily Camacho, Maneval’s primary challenger, campaigned on improving infrastructure and quality of life but stumbled early. Her use of a maiden name in an election strategy group on Facebook sparked accusations of deceit, eroding trust. The fatal blow came when she endorsed the controversial Lafayette Crossings Project, a proposal for 1,100 new apartments that outraged residents protective of Fate’s character. Her support, alongside Place 6 candidate Brett Bushnell, alienated voters who saw the project as a threat to the city’s identity, effectively ending her campaign’s viability.

George D. Lewis, the third candidate, was a non-factor. A former first responder and funeral service practitioner, Lewis touted his service credentials but failed to engage voters. Absent from meet-and-greets and barely visible online, his campaign lacked the substance and presence needed to compete. His promises to support first responders, while admirable, fell flat without a tangible plan or community connection.

Maneval’s election to City Council Place 4 is a triumph for constitutional conservatism in Fate. His focus on fiscal discipline, transparent governance, and community-driven priorities aligns with the city’s ethos. As Fate navigates growth and change, residents can trust Maneval to honor their values—limited government, personal responsibility, and local pride—while steering the city toward a future that remains true to its roots.

05/05/2025

Fate, Texas, Elects Martha Huffman to City Council Place 6 with Strong Mandate

Fate, TX – Fate has chosen Martha Huffman as its City Council Place 6 representative, delivering a clear victory for conservative values and prudent leadership. In a contest against challenger Brett Bushnell, voters embraced Huffman’s vision of smart growth, fiscal discipline, and unwavering commitment to Fate’s small-town charm. Her win underscores the community’s demand for a councilmember who prioritizes transparency, public safety, and the preservation of Fate’s unique identity over unchecked development.

The unofficial results are: Huffman (694 votes) 60.30% to Bushnell (457 votes) 39.70%.

A Fate resident since 1998, Huffman embodies the Texan spirit that defines this city. With her husband, Steve, she has raised two children and nurtured a rural lifestyle, tending to horses, chickens, and bees on their annexed property. Her 30-year career in the legal field, managing a law office and overseeing budgets, hiring, and major projects, equips her with the practical skills to steward Fate’s resources wisely. Her daily commute to Dallas gives her intimate knowledge of the traffic woes that accompany growth, making her a fierce advocate for infrastructure that keeps pace with development.

Huffman’s campaign was a masterclass in constitutional conservatism, emphasizing responsible governance that serves residents without burdening them. She pledged to manage growth thoughtfully, ensuring infrastructure and resources align with Fate’s needs while safeguarding its rural character. Her commitment to fiscal responsibility—spending tax dollars efficiently and keeping taxes low—resonated with voters wary of government bloat. Transparency, a cornerstone of her platform, promised accessible decision-making and open communication, empowering residents to hold their leaders accountable.

Public safety and economic vitality rounded out Huffman’s priorities. She vowed to equip police, fire, and emergency services with the tools to maintain Fate’s reputation as a safe haven. Her balanced approach to business—supporting small enterprises while welcoming larger ones that bring jobs—aimed to foster prosperity without sacrificing the city’s soul. Voters saw in Huffman a leader who understands that growth must enhance, not erase, what makes Fate special.

Brett Bushnell, Huffman’s challenger, brought credentials as a conservative attorney and Texas A&M Law School graduate but faltered under strategic missteps. His campaign, the most expensive for a standard city council seat in Fate’s history at nearly $10,000, failed to connect with voters. Bushnell’s alignment with outgoing Mayor David Billings and his public support for the controversial Lafayette Crossings Project—a plan for 1,100 apartments that sparked widespread opposition—proved fatal. His stance alienated residents protective of Fate’s character, casting him as out of touch with the community’s values. As Martha Huffman prepares to take her seat on the City Council, Fate stands poised to navigate growth with a steady hand. Her election reaffirms the city’s commitment to limited government, personal responsibility, and community pride. With Huffman’s experience and integrity guiding Place 6, residents can trust that their voices will be heard and their city’s heritage preserved for generations to come.

**This post first appeared in the Fate Tribune.

05/01/2025

MAHA

PepsiCo's CEO said all artificial colors will be removed from Lay's and Tostitos chips by the end of this year

04/29/2025

Fate Candidates Face Ethics Complaint Over Campaign Sign Violations

FATE, TX — A complaint filed with the Texas Ethics Commission (TEC) on April 24, 2025, by local activist Autumn Lobinsky has cast a shadow over the campaigns of three Fate candidates: Andrew Greenberg (Mayor), Rick Maneval (Place 4), and Martha Huffman (Place 6). Lobinsky, a vocal liberal known for her prolific social media presence, alleges that the trio violated Texas election law by omitting required disclosures on campaign signs and flyers. The accusations raise questions about selective enforcement and the weaponization of bureaucratic technicalities in local races.

According to email received by the Fate Tribune from Lobinsky, she alleges that the candidates failed to include the mandatory “Political Advertising” or “Pol. Adv.” disclaimer on their campaign signs, as required by Texas Election Code, Title 15, Chapter 255, Section 001(a)(1). The law mandates that all political advertising clearly state “Political Advertising” followed by the name of the person or entity who paid for it. While the candidates’ signs do include “Paid for by [Candidate’s Name],” each of them omits the critical “Political Advertising” phrase. Lobinsky claims the violations began in March 2025 for Greenberg and extended to joint signage with Maneval and Huffman in April.

Lobinsky further alleges that door hangers and flyers distributed by the trio lack the same disclosure. However, Section 255.001(d) exempts flyers costing less than $500 in aggregate to publish and distribute. Campaign finance disclosures show Huffman spent $351.86 and Maneval $195.82 on flyers, well below the threshold. Greenberg’s filings report no flyer expenses, possibly due to billing timing. Thus, the flyer complaint may be a nonstarter, as the candidates voluntarily included “Paid for by” statements despite no legal obligation to do so.

The complaint’s selective nature raises eyebrows. Lobinsky, who opposes the three candidates, spared George Lewis, also a Place 4 candidate running against Rick Maneval & Emily Camacho . Lewis’s signs entirely lack any of the required “Political Advertising” and “Paid for by” statements, yet Lobinsky claims she hasn’t seen his signs and notes he reported no sign-related expenditures on his campaign finance reports.

In an interview with a person familiar with the matter, the Fate Tribune learned that most political signs across Rockwall County omit the phrase “Political Advertising,” as candidates and voters alike consider it presumptive that a sign bearing a candidate’s name and the office sought is plainly an “advertisement”. The source emphasized that the phrase’s primary purpose, as mandated by the Texas Election Code, is to prevent Political Action Committees (PACs) from obscuring their motivations or biases behind vague or misleading signage. This widespread omission, the source noted, reflects a practical understanding of the law’s intent, though it leaves candidates vulnerable to complaints like the one filed by Autumn Lobinsky against Greenberg, Maneval, and Huffman.

This isn’t Fate’s first brush with campaign sign controversies. Last year, the Fate Tribune reported on a similar issue involving candidate Cinnamon Krauss, whose signs listed the wrong entity as the payer of the signs. While it could be argued that the Krauss situation was magnitudes of order more deceptive, the outcome of that situation was resolved with a Sharpie, as the candidate simply corrected the signs by hand. No fines or reprimands were paid by the campaign in that situation.

The TEC has five working days to review Lobinsky’s complaint, meaning a decision could come by May 1. Possible outcomes include dismissing the case, requiring a “good faith effort” to correct the signs (such as adding “Political Advertising” by hand), or taking no action. Even if corrective measures are ordered, candidates would have 10 days to comply—pushing resolution well past the election, when signs are likely to be removed regardless. Given this timing, the odds are favored that TEC may well toss the complaint as moot.

The Fate Tribune was unable to get a response from the candidates. Under TEC rules, Greenberg, Maneval, and Huffman are barred from commenting until the case is resolved. Lobinsky, however, faces no such restriction and has taken to social media and the Fate Tribune to amplify her allegations. Her willingness to exploit this asymmetry underscores the complaint’s political motivations.

For constitutional conservatives, this saga is a reminder of the left’s penchant for weaponizing bureaucratic minutiae to silence opponents. Texas election law exists to ensure transparency, not to serve as a cudgel for partisan vendettas. The voters of Fate deserve campaigns focused on ideas—property taxes, infrastructure, liberty—not distractions over signage technicalities. As the TEC deliberates, one thing is clear: Lobinsky’s complaint may generate headlines and clicks, but it’s unlikely to alter the trajectory of this election.

** This article First Appeared in the Fate Tribune.

04/25/2025

On 4/16/2025 we submitted an Open Records Request for "A copy of the Lafayette Crossing development agreement with amendments for Project Cactus."

On 4/22/2025 we received copies of the documents ... unsigned. We responded with a statement that the city must respond with valid, executed documents.

As of today, it appears that the ORIGINAL Lafayette Crossings Development Agreement, approved in 2024, is still NOT SIGNED, and not yet even codified into ordinance.

Yet this council would have the public believe that approval of the amendment to the Agreement was so dire that it could not wait for a decision even until the following week. The Amendment, which gave away 50% of the future tax revenue for 10 years, up to $15,000,000 was approved by the Council in a 7-0 vote.

The modified agreement also remains unsigned, at the time of this publication, by EVERY party involved.

In short, the Developer and the Council lied to the public about the urgency of this agreement.

**CORRECTION - We made an error. It appears that the Original Layfayette Crossings Agreement was indeed signed. However, the Amendment and the 380 Agreement are not signed.

04/23/2025

The Tribal Tapestry of Fate, Texas: How Politics Weaves a Complex Web

Fate, TX — In the rapidly growing town of Fate, Texas, a microcosm of American political life unfolds, revealing a truth as old as human society: politics is tribal. Beneath the surface of city council meetings, zoning debates, and campaign signs sprouting like bluebonnets, Fate’s political landscape is a vibrant, fractious tapestry of tribes, sub-tribes, and secret cabals, each vying for influence. Here, loyalty to one’s tribe—be it a council faction, a political party, or the omnipresent anti-apartment coalition—shapes every decision, often at the expense of unity. As a constitutional conservative, I see in Fate a reflection of the broader struggle to preserve principle amid the clamor of competing loyalties.

At the heart of Fate’s political ecosystem sits the City Council, a tribe unto itself. This small band of elected officials, tasked with steering a town ballooning past 20,000 residents, operates as a microcosm of governance. Each council member commands their own tribe of supporters—voters who propelled them to office based on promises of low taxes, controlled growth, or infrastructure improvements. These constituent tribes are fickle, growing or shrinking based on a council member’s fidelity to campaign pledges and their skill in forging coalitions. A council member who champions a new park might swell their tribe’s ranks, while one perceived as cozy with developers risks defections.

Yet the council is no monolith. The Fate Municipal Development District (MDD), a sub-tribe appointed by the council, exerts significant sway over the town’s economic trajectory. Recently, the MDD finalized agreements for the Lafayette Crossing and “Project Cactus” developments, committing $15 million in future tax revenue to reimburse developers for infrastructure costs. This deal, aimed at spurring a massive retail hub, has ignited fierce debate, particularly among the anti-multi-family housing tribe—a dominant coalition of homeowners, retirees, and longtime residents. United in their opposition to high-density projects like the 1,300 apartments proposed in Lafayette Crossing, they fear such developments threaten Fate’s small-town ethos.

Fate’s tribal map grows more intricate with the city employee tribes. The administrative staff, a tribe of bureaucrats managing budgets and policies, works alongside the Department of Public Safety (DPS), the police and fire personnel who embody Fate’s commitment to security. DPS extends its tribal bonds to citizens, who rally behind first responders at parades and fundraisers. However, citizen tribes have clashed over DPS support: one faction demands unwavering backing, while another seeks cost-effective alternatives to fund a new police station, resisting a $20 million bond that would burden taxpayers. These tribes, though distinct, overlap: an employee might cheer for DPS at a council meeting while privately aligning with a council member’s faction.

Political affiliation adds another layer. Fate leans heavily Republican—roughly 70%—reflecting the conservative bent of Rockwall County. Yet the Democrat tribe, though smaller, is vocal, often aligning with progressive causes like “Strong Towns”. Within these partisan tribes, sub-factions emerge: Republicans split between establishment types and populist firebrands, while Democrats range from moderates to activists pushing urban-style policies. Tribal loyalties blur further when personal affiliations—church groups, HOAs, or even book clubs—pull individuals in conflicting directions.

Conflict is the lifeblood of Fate’s tribal politics. It erupts within tribes, as when a council member’s supporters fracture over a vote to fund a DPS bond. It flares between tribes, like when the Planning and Zoning Commission greenlights a project that the anti-apartment tribe deems heretical. Most poignantly, it torments individuals caught between tribes. Picture a conservative voter, loyal to a Republican council member, who also belongs to the anti-apartment tribe. If their council member backs a multi-family project to attract business, that voter faces a crisis of allegiance: party or principle?

Then there are the shadow tribes. Secret cabals—informal gatherings at coffee shops or closed-door strategy sessions—plot to sway council votes or oust rivals. These groups, often led by a Council Sub-Tribe, operate in whispers, their existence known but rarely acknowledged. Equally potent are the silent tribes, amorphous blocs of voters who may not even recognize their tribal bond. These residents, swayed by yard signs or a candidate’s handshake at the Forward Fate
Festival, vote based on gut-level perceptions of trustworthiness or alignment with their values.

Amid Fate’s tribal fray, a vocal tribe opposes the Fate Tribune, waging a relentless campaign to discredit its reporting. This group, often aligned with entrenched council factions or development interests, dismisses the paper’s stories as biased, accusing it of stoking division. Conversely, a larger, steadfast tribe champions the Tribune, viewing it as a bulwark against corruption. Confident in the paper’s ability to expose backroom deals and tribal overreach, these supporters—ranging from watchdog citizens to principled conservatives—rely on its investigative lens to hold Fate’s power structures accountable.

The anti-multi-family housing tribe towers above all. Born of a shared dread that apartments will bring traffic, crime, or declining property values, this tribe transcends party lines, uniting Republicans and Democrats, newcomers and old-timers. Its influence is seismic: council candidates court its favor, and zoning decisions are scrutinized through its lens. In 2024, the Lafayette Crossing Development sparked a firestorm, with packed council meetings and petitions circulating like wildfire. The tribe fought fiercely, packing the council meeting, but the Lafayette Crossing project was approved by the Council Tribe, despite overwhelming opposition from the anti-multi-family housing citizen tribe. This decision deepened divisions, which led to the replacement of two council members, and is set to replace two more, plus the Mayor, in the election this May.

This tribalism, while vibrant, frays Fate’s social fabric. The Constitution’s call for ordered liberty—government by consent, tempered by reason—struggles against the raw passions of tribal loyalty. When council members prioritize their own agenda over the common good, the deliberative process suffers. Yet tribes also empower citizens, giving voice to those who might otherwise be ignored. The challenge for Fate, as for America, is balancing tribal zeal with a commitment to principle.

For those eager to delve deeper into Fate’s tribal dynamics, several works illuminate the forces at play. Amy Chua’s, “Political Tribes“ reveals how group identities drive conflict, from small towns to nations. Michael Morris’s, “Tribal“ offers a hopeful guide to harnessing our tribal instincts for good, rooted in psychology. Timothy J. Redmond’s, “Political Tribalism in America“ provides practical tools to restore reasoned debate. These books, grounded in principle, offer wisdom for navigating Fate’s fractured landscape.

As Fate grows, its tribal dynamics will only intensify. Newcomers will form their own tribes, challenging the old guard. Developers, an external tribe with deep pockets, will press for influence, testing the anti-apartment coalition’s resolve. Through it all, Fate’s leaders must navigate this fractal web of loyalties, striving to govern not for one tribe, but for all. In this small Texas town, the stakes feel local, but the lesson is universal: in politics, tribes are inevitable, but wisdom lies in rising above them.

**This post first appeared in the Fate Tribune.

04/16/2025

Fate City Council Greenlights $15 Million Developer Giveaway While Residents Foot the Bill for New $15 Million Police Station

Fate, TX - Fate Tribune

In a swift decision, the Fate City Council has approved a controversial modification to the Lafayette Crossing development agreement—now rebranded as “Project Cactus”—that authorizes up to $15 million in reimbursements to a private developer for public infrastructure. The move, framed by city officials as an urgent economic opportunity, was rushed through the council without adequate public notice, discussion, or debate.

Coincidentally, the council’s vote to give away up to $15 million of taxpayer-controlled funds came just weeks after the city issued a $20 million bond, $15 million of which will be used to construct a new police station. The Fate Tribune has submitted an Open Records Request (ORR) to discover if the city knew of this potential request by the developer before the bond proposal was issued to the voters.

Buried in the Agenda, Rushed Through Council
The Project Cactus agreement appeared on a recent council agenda under the vague language of “economic development negotiations; and to deliberate the offer of a financial or other incentive to the business prospect with no clear explanation of the project’s scope, cost, or long-term financial obligations.” The Agreement was presented to the Council in a closed, executive session, and the public was never able to review it. Only a summary, which does not indicate how many incentive credits were under consideration, was posted for the public. Therefore, the people of Fate were left without access to the details and had no meaningful opportunity to review, question, or weigh in on the proposal before the council cast its vote.

Council members were reportedly told that time was of the essence and that an immediate vote was necessary to secure the project. The pressure tactic left no room for thorough analysis or citizen engagement. The rushed timeline ensured that residents would not have a chance to digest the financial implications or voice either support or opposition.

This is not the first time Fate residents have expressed frustration with the city’s lack of transparency in major spending decisions, but the size and scope of this developer giveaway have taken concerns to a new level.

A Familiar Development, Rebranded with Bigger Costs
Project Cactus will span approximately 80 acres at the northwest corner of Interstate 30, between Woodcreek Blvd. and FM-551. Plans include 400,000 square feet of retail and restaurant space, anchored by two Fortune 100 retailers, we are told: one a grocery store, the other a department store. Both of which are undisclosed to the public.

In order to serve the development, approximately $15 million worth of public infrastructure—roads, sewer, water, and utilities—must be constructed. Under the newly amended agreement, the city will reimburse the developer for those costs using a blend of revenue streams:

$9 million in developer-paid impact fees collected from the eastern portion of the project
$1 million in utility capital replacement funds, earmarked for maintaining the city’s existing infrastructure
$1.7 million from the Fate Economic Development Corporation’s sales tax revenues
$3.3 million from the City’s general fund, supported by residential property taxes and citywide sales taxes
Although the agreement is framed as “performance-based,” reimbursement begins in 2028 and continues through 2037, with payments tied to 50% of the city’s potential sales tax generated from retailers in the development. The money comes as “tax credits”, a type of transferrable commodity that can be sold or traded in private markets. What we are referring to as the “developer”, is actually a slew of companies: D-F FUND 18, LTD., D-F FUND VI, LTD., D-F SOUTHWEST FUND 19, LTD., and LA-DF INVESTMENT FUND 8. These Tax Credits can be used by anyone on the development team, or sold off to some future entity. They can also just be cashed in, giving the developers a nice bonus.

$15 Million for Retail, $15 Million for Police—But Only One Got Voter Input
What makes this maneuver troubling to residents is the striking contrast between how the city handled its $15 million police station project versus how it handed over $15 million to a developer.

The police station project was part of a broader $20 million public safety bond package presented to voters and approved in November 2024. It went through a process of public discussions, public meetings, and was ultimately subject to democratic approval by a vote of the people, where it was passed by 60% of the voters.

In contrast, the Project Cactus reimbursement—also worth $15 million—received no such scrutiny. There were no town halls, no financial impact analysis made public, and no citizen advisory input. It was quietly placed on the agenda and passed under the rationale of urgency. Other than what was presented seconds before the vote, the public had no idea what, “Project Cactus” was.

A Taxpayer Gamble on Retail Hopes
Supporters of the deal argue the project will eventually generate over $140 million in taxable property value and $2.8 million in annual sales tax revenue for the city. But those gains are 10 years from now and are far from guaranteed. The commercial retail sector has been highly volatile in recent years, and the success of any development on the outskirts of Dallas-Fort Worth depends heavily on consumer patterns, traffic flow, and macroeconomic factors outside the city’s control.

With infrastructure costs scheduled to be completed by mid-2027 and anchor stores set to open by that year’s end, the sales tax reimbursement clock begins in 2028 and runs through 2037. The agreement replaces the original Lafayette Crossing deal, which capped developer credits at $9 million and limited city exposure. However, as we stated previously, the Tax Credits can be used or transferred at the whim of the Developers.

Citizens Left Wondering: Who Does City Hall Work For?
For many residents, the larger concern isn’t the project itself—it’s the process.

A massive, multimillion-dollar commitment was pushed through with minimal transparency, no time for public input, and under pressure to act quickly. In doing so, the city council placed the interests of a private developer ahead of the taxpayers who fund the very infrastructure being gifted away.

While the council insists that Project Cactus will broaden the tax base and relieve residential property owners in the long term, it’s the short-term sleight-of-hand that’s raising alarm bells. When the public is kept in the dark until it’s too late to act, it’s not economic development—it’s taxation without representation.

The people of Fate approved a bond to build a police station. They were never given a chance to weigh in on giving away the same amount to a retail developer. Perhaps it’s time to revise the Town Charter so that future councils can’t give away more than $100,000 to a developer at a time, without voter approval. It’s clear that the Fate Municipal Development District doesn’t view city obligations in the same way that citizens do. Furthermore, City Manager Michael Kovacs was derelict in his duty to the citizens of Fate, choosing to prioritize a developer’s timeline over the public’s right to transparency, oversight, and meaningful participation in the decision-making process.

Now the money is committed, the votes are cast, and the deal is done. What remains to be seen is whether the gamble pays off—or whether Fate’s taxpayers will be left holding the bag.

**This post first appeared in the Fate Tribune.