Jacobs’ Signs, a Lawsuit, and a Judge Being Removed
The battle over Jacobs’ Neon Line District evolved from branding to Reno’s most revealing political conflict that indicates why Judge Connie Steinheimer was removed.
It All Started With 3 Signs
What began as a dispute over three oversized signs has now touched every layer of local power:
a politically connected developer, a mayor who championed the project, a lobbyist with deep campaign ties, a scenic-preservation nonprofit, the City of Reno’s legal apparatus, the Nevada Supreme Court, and the administrative removal of Judge Connie Steinheimer from her caseload.
This article reconstructs the timeline, analyzes the political alignments, and explains why Steinheimer’s quiet removal from active cases is more than a footnote.
It’s part of a larger pattern showing how politics in Reno operate when money, influence, and development collide.
Jacobs Entertainment Branding West Reno as the Neon Line District
Jacobs Entertainment entered a development agreement with the City of Reno to create the Neon Line District, a branded redevelopment zone stretching from Keystone Avenue to West Street. The agreement included:
Streetscape redesign
Public art installations
Demolition of dozens of weekly motels
And critically: three large “area identification signs”
These signs were the gateway markers for Jacobs’ vision: monumental branding structures meant to define the district in the public imagination.
This is a rendering of a sign that Jacobs wants to put up on 4th Street. Click to read about the lawsuit: Scenic Nevada Digital Billboard Lawsuit.
The Signs Become the Flashpoint
Jacobs applied to install:
A large archway sign over West 4th Street
A “gas station” style sign at Keystone & 4th
A cemetery‑adjacent sign visible from I‑80
Scenic Nevada (affiliated with Scenic America), a long‑standing anti‑billboard organization, sued to block the signs. Their argument was simple:
These are billboards, not “area identification signs,” and Reno’s sign code prohibits new billboards.
This lawsuit was the first major public challenge to Jacobs’ redevelopment agenda.
Judge Connie Steinheimer Rules Against Jacobs
In district court, Judge Connie Steinheimer issued a split decision:
Archway sign: Allowed
Gas station sign: Illegal billboard
Cemetery sign: Illegal off‑premise advertising
Two out of three signs were blocked. This ruling was a rare instance of a Reno judge pushing back against a politically favored development project.
The Political Alignment Behind Jacobs
This is where the story shifts from a legal dispute to a political one.
Mayor Hillary Schieve publicly promoted the Neon Line District.
Schieve repeatedly praised Jacobs’ redevelopment vision, framing it as a transformative project for West Reno.
Mayor Hillary Schieve publicly argued that the signs were not billboards but legitimate place-making:
“It’s place-making identification… It’s just one of those things that you brand.”
That disagreement is particularly revealing because it identifies the underlying policy question:
Was Reno facilitating identification of a public neighborhood, or facilitating a private developer’s branding of an area of the City?
Jacobs’ lobbyist Jessica Sferrazza served as Schieve’s campaign manager, and the two are known to be close friends. This dual role creates a direct political conduit between the developer and the mayor’s office.
The City of Reno formally joined Jacobs in appealing Steinheimer’s ruling.
This is highly unusual. Cities rarely intervene for private developers in litigation. But in this case, the City became an appellant, arguing that the signs were legal and that Scenic Nevada lacked standing. The alignment was unmistakable:
Jacobs → employs Sferrazza as lobbyist → Sferrazza previously managed Schieve’s campaign and is her close friend → Schieve supports Jacobs’ Neon Line concept → City of Reno approves the development agreement → Steinheimer blocks two signs → Schieve publicly argues for the Neon Line branding concept → City votes to appeal alongside Jacobs.
The Nevada Supreme Court Vacates Steinheimer’s Ruling
In October 2025, the Nevada Supreme Court issued a decision that effectively nullified Steinheimer’s ruling:
The City’s classification of the signs as “area identification signs” deserved deference
Scenic Nevada lacked standing to challenge the development agreement
The court did not say the signs were unquestionably legal. It said Scenic Nevada couldn’t challenge them. Jacobs and the City won, not on the merits, but on procedure.
We were told Steinheimer was removed because of staff complaints, the same as with Huntsman, but the events and a source indicate there is more to the story. Click to read the story: Chief judge orders Washoe County Judge Connie Steinheimer removed from all cases.
Judge Steinheimer Is Removed From Her Caseload
Local reporting confirms that in February 2026:
Chief Judge Hardy removed Judge Connie Steinheimer from her active cases.
She remains a sitting judge and continues to receive her paycheck.
No public disciplinary action has been announced, and no detailed reason has been given.
This is administrative leave in name only. It looks political, and a source close to the matter told me politics is the likely reason Steinheimer was removed.
Why This Matters for Reno
Judges are not casually removed from their caseloads. It typically happens when:
A judge is under internal review for serious violations
A chief judge wants to prevent further complications in sensitive cases
There are concerns about judicial performance or conduct
Or there is political pressure, direct or indirect
We don’t know if Steinheimer’s removal is tied to the Neon Line case, but no explanation has been given for the removal beyond staff complaints, and the timing is impossible to ignore:
She rules against Jacobs
The City and Jacobs appeal
The Supreme Court vacates her ruling
She is quietly removed from her caseload
Even if unrelated, the sequence creates a public perception problem for the judiciary and for undue influence by the City of Reno in favor of a developer.
Reno’s Neon Mirage: What Jacobs’ Latest Announcements Tell Us About the Neon Line
Jacobs hasn’t met its commitments to the city, but still pushes an unrealistic vision for West Reno as I write about in this article.
What This Reveals About Reno’s Politics
A. The power alignment is unusually tight
Jacobs Entertainment is not just a developer. It is a developer with:
A lobbyist who manages the mayor’s campaigns
A mayor who publicly champions its projects
A city government willing to litigate on its behalf
A redevelopment agenda that reshapes a neighborhood
This is politically consequential. Too much is going on to ignore.
B. Scenic Nevada was the only institutional counterweight
Their lawsuit was the sole organized challenge to Jacobs’ branding strategy. Once the Supreme Court removed their standing, the opposition evaporated. The people have had no voice in this matter.
C. Judicial independence becomes part of the story
Steinheimer’s removal, paid but inactive, adds a new dimension. It raises questions about:
How judges are protected (or not) when ruling against powerful interests
Whether administrative actions can chill judicial independence
How the public perceives the neutrality of the courts
D. The Neon Line District is no longer just a redevelopment project
It is now a case study in:
Political influence
Administrative maneuvering
Legal strategy
Branding power
And the fragility of institutional checks
The Public Interest Questions
Reno residents deserve clarity on several fronts:
Why was Judge Steinheimer removed from her caseload?
Why did the City intervene on behalf of a private developer?
What safeguards exist to prevent political entanglement in judicial matters?
How does Reno define “area identification signs,” and who benefits from that definition?
What role should lobbyists with campaign ties play in shaping redevelopment policy?
These are not accusations. They are governance questions. They need answers.
The Mysterious Removal of City Clerk Mikki Huntsman Reveals a Critical Fault Line in Reno’s Accountability Structure
Huntsman was removed without cause, and the explanation was staff complaints, just like with Steinheimer, but as this article explains, there is more to the story.
The Neon Line Conflict is Not Just About Signs
It is about the implication of influence and collusion at the highest levels.
Jacobs Entertainment sought to brand a district. Scenic Nevada sought to stop them. A judge ruled partially against Jacobs. The City sided with Jacobs. The Supreme Court vacated the ruling.
And the judge who issued the ruling against Jacobs was removed from her caseload.
This is the story of how redevelopment, politics, and the courts intersect in Reno and why residents should pay close attention to who benefits when the City chooses sides.
Do you have a story to tell? Write to me at: mike@mikesrenoreport.com
Support Reno independent journalism. Click to donate: Mike’s Reno Report.