Reno’s Baseball Stadium Deal Is a Masterclass in How Not to Negotiate
Learn how Reno is paying a billionaire to own more Reno — forever and selling out the taxpayers while telling us that it's all about redevelopment.
Jan 27, 2026
Reno is on the verge of approving one of the most financially reckless public-private deals in recent memory — and it’s happening in plain sight.
The proposed agreement involving Greater Nevada Field, the Reno Baseball Stadium, and developer Simon doesn’t just fail the “good deal” test; it fails common sense, basic finance, and stewardship of public assets.
Here is the Deal that Nevada Land (Simon/Aces) is offering to:
Extend the Aces’ non-relocation commitment from 2029 → 2049
Invest $40M over 10 years in capital improvements to the ballpark
Assume property and personal property taxes
Remove the City General Fund as a guarantor and shift risk to RDA
Add a clawback and profit-sharing if the stadium is sold
But, in exchange, the City/RDA would:
Transfer full ownership of the improved Greater Nevada Field to Simon
Give up naming rights control and all upside potential to Simon
Lock in the remaining $1M/year payments through 2043 or $20 million
Reno doesn’t have to pay maintenance, but pays the $1 million subsidy
Keep the stadium embedded in RDA1 TIF until it expires
Note: The unimproved value of the land is estimated at $6 million; the improved value is estimated at $50 million.
Tax Incremental Financing (TIF) funds the RDA, meaning the taxpayer funds this agency. If that money doesn’t materialize, then who is on the hook? It’s likely to be the Reno General Fund. The RDA is composed of the City Council Members.
The City gives away valuable land and a valuable stadium, pays an annual subsidy, and gets no ownership, no revenue share, and no meaningful protection.
The $40 Million Mirage
Supporters of the Deal frequently point to Simon’s promised $40 million investment in improvements as justification.
Here’s the problem:
Simon owns those improvements outright.
There are:
No guardrails on how that money must be spent
No public audit requirements, so we don’t know where the money might go
No efficiency benchmarks, so we don’t know what we get
No obligation that improvements serve non-baseball public uses
This is not an investment in Reno. It is a capital improvement for a private owner’s balance sheet. Taxpayers will never see that $40 million CAPEX — except perhaps as spectators who buy tickets or sit at VIP tables that generate revenue the Aces keep exclusively.
Sadly, though, the taxpayer will be on the hook for the $20 million in subsidy, we get nothing for the $30 million paid when the stadium was built, and we get nothing for the land.
The economic impact numbers: treat carefully
“$21.9M annual spending output”
“$8.2M income from 120 jobs”
These are standard economic impact multipliers, not audited cash flows. They are helpful for justification, not valuation.
Does the Ballpark Bring Revenue to Reno?
Proponents may justify the Deal by saying the ballpark improvements will bring more revenue to Reno, but the data doesn’t support that claim.
A Stadium for a Billionaire: How Reno Subsidized Greater Nevada Field
Read this article to learn how Reno subsidized the building of the Baseball Stadium.
Subsidies Without Upside Are Just Giveaways
The City isn’t just giving away land. It’s not just giving away the $30 million it previously invested. It’s also committing to ongoing payments.
The Deal includes:
An annual operating subsidy of $1 million
No performance triggers
No revenue sharing
No protections if promised benefits fail to materialize
In the private sector, this would be called all risk, no reward.
Why should Reno taxpayers subsidize operations when they receive no ownership stake and no share of the upside?
The Parking Lot That Never Came
If you want to understand why many residents no longer trust these arrangements, look at history. Simon previously received adjacent land with an expectation — explicit or implied — that it would support the stadium district with parking.
What happened instead?
The land was deeded to Simon
Simon sold the land
Simon pocketed the windfall
Expensive apartments were constructed with no benefit to the taxpayers
Those units now struggle to lease, and the stadium has a parking problem
So the most crucial question the City has not answered is this:
Why should the public trust new promises when the last promises were monetized and flipped?
Ballpark Apartments Pivot to Hotel in Slow Market for High Rent Units
Read this article to learn how Ballpark developer Simon sold the parking lot land for apartments.
The Negotiation Failure No One Wants to Admit
Strip away the PR language, and this is what remains:
City gives land ✅
City pays subsidy ✅
Developer keeps ownership ✅
Developer keeps all revenue ✅
City gets no leverage ❌
This is not how competent negotiators operate.
Any real-world negotiator would call this a terrible deal.
Public officials are supposed to negotiate harder than the private sector, not roll over faster.
What a Responsible Deal Would Have Included
A defensible agreement would have included at least some of the following:
A long-term ground lease, not a permanent land transfer
Or sell the land and the improvements so that the City benefits
Revenue sharing on ticket sales, naming rights, or sponsorships
A reversion clause if promised improvements are not delivered
Binding parking requirements with enforceable deadlines
A City equity stake proportional to the subsidy
Independent audits of capital improvements
Clearly defined uses and frequency for the City and for Reno Public uses
Clearly defined costs: current public use is expensive and difficult
If a deal cannot survive basic guardrails, it is not a good deal.
Reno’s RDA “Rebranding” Survey Isn’t About Branding
·
June 17, 2025
The Question No One Wants to Answer
If the City receives:
No ownership
No revenue
No protection
No leverage
Then what exactly is being purchased with public money? The incentives don’t align with the public interest. This Deal looks like a giveaway to a $billionaire.
Deals like this persist because they are supported by the city council, normalized by redevelopment culture, and not scrutinized closely enough before it’s too late.
This Can Still Be Fixed — If Leaders Choose To
The solution is not complicated:
Pause the Deal
Release the full term sheet publicly
Commission an independent financial analysis
Renegotiate with a clear public upside
Public land should generate public returns. Subsidies without upside are giveaways. Reno is being out-negotiated. This is not economic development. It is asset stripping in daylight. And it does not have to happen.
What can you do?
Show up to and speak during the public comments at the Hearing:
Wed Jan 28th 10 am, Reno City Council Chamber, 1 East First Street, Reno, NV 89501.
Virtual access via Zoom: https://share.google/8fAnu1jLg0xWswWIW
Webinar ID: 886 3782 9530
Dial-In 669-444-9171 Webinar ID: 886 3782 9530 #