When Citizens Speak, Reese Attacks: A Pattern of Bullying from City Hall
Attacking citizens who speak out is an ongoing tactic from Devon Reese. A citizen sent me an email thread between her and, Reese and it is shocking.
Nov 03, 2025
Reese wants to be the Mayor of Reno. One of the clearest measures of leadership is how elected officials respond to criticism. Do they address the issue raised, or do they turn the spotlight on the person raising it? Reno City Councilmember Devon Reese has developed a troubling pattern: when confronted by citizens, he doesn't debate the policy — he attacks the constituent, calls them names, and shames them.
The Beth Dory Emails
More recently, Beth Dory, a Ward 5 property owner, wrote to Reese with a straightforward concern: her ward had never held a Neighborhood Advisory Board (NAB) meeting on the proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) zoning amendment. She requested that the city provide a clear map and gather constituent input before proceeding with writing an ordinance.
Reese later held a NAB meeting, but it was held at City Hall, which is inconvenient for residents, but gives him a sense of safety.
🏡 Backyard Units Are Coming: They Are Not Affordable Housing
Deflection
Instead of addressing her concerns, Reese turned the exchange personal.
"Shaun – thanks for your inquiry. Please continue to post pictures of my home and backyard – super effective advocacy!"
Reese is accusing Dory of being "Shaun Mullin," a poster on Nextdoor that calls out issues with the city and with Reese.
That set the tone. Instead of debating ADUs, Reese mocked her activism.
Reese ignores the issues that residents care about while deflecting and attacking.
Behind the Complaints: The Real Issues Reno Voters Face
Escalation
Rather than a substantive answer, Reese escalated with hyperbole:
"Gaslighting won't win you any points with me, not when elected officials are being murdered and set on fire in this country."
When Dory pressed him on women's safety downtown, noting she and many others don't feel comfortable walking alone at night, Reese didn't take the concern seriously.
Dory wrote: "Most women don't feel safe (I don't) walking alone around the block in downtown Reno at 8:00 pm. When will women be able to feel safe walking downtown again?"
And when Dory pushed back against his evasions, Reese added ridicule:
"All three [my mother and children] have however expressed concern about your posting our family's home online… perhaps you will think of their safety the next time the Leprechaun wants to lash out online."
Reese lives in Somersett, behind two locked and guarded gates, and is protected by license plate readers and surveillance drones. It is the safest neighborhood in Reno.
The Safest and Most Dangerous Places in Reno, NV: Crime Maps and Statistics
Intimidation
By the end of the exchange, Dory was so discouraged she declined to attend the public meeting:
"With these attacks, I don't feel comfortable going to the meeting tonight."
That chilling effect is precisely what the First Amendment is designed to prevent.
The Van Zee Example
Earlier this summer, longtime resident Steve Van Zee provided information to This Is Reno about how the city has mishandled its Landscape Maintenance Districts. When Van Zee raised these concerns, Reese responded not with engagement but with belittlement.
Van Zee reported being publicly dismissed and privately insulted, despite his years of research on a topic of fundamental importance to taxpayers.
Rather than grappling with the policy failures surrounding landscape maintenance, Reese zeroed in on Van Zee himself, undermining his credibility and character rather than addressing the evidence.
When a Citizen Speaks Up, and a Councilmember Shuts Him Down
The Pattern
Both Van Zee and Dory share one thing in common: they raised policy issues that deserved thoughtful responses.
Van Zee: How the city manages taxpayer money in its Landscape Maintenance Districts.
Dory: whether wards 5 & 6 had fair representation before a citywide zoning change, and whether downtown is safe for women.
And in both cases, Reese avoided the issues and instead attacked the people. He accused citizens of impersonation, mocked their appearance, ridiculed their tone, and amplified the conflict by CC'ing city staff into his personal disputes.
Reese's replies are unprofessional, sarcastic, and personal — unusual for an elected official in written correspondence.
Instead of addressing the policy issue (ADU hearings, public safety, constituent rights), he made it about himself, his family, and alleged impersonation.
His inclusion of multiple city staff CC'd into these exchanges amplifies the sense of intimidation — effectively making a private citizen's concerns into a spectacle before bureaucrats.
Why It Matters
This isn't just thin skin. It's a matter of public trust. Citizens have a First Amendment right to criticize their elected officials, even sharply. The government's role is to listen, respond, and, when possible, improve policy.
When a councilmember consistently lashes out instead of engaging, the chilling effect is noticeable: fewer citizens will speak up. Those who do may be met with public embarrassment instead of public service.
If Reese behaves this way as a councilmember, the implications of him seeking higher office — including mayor — are even more serious. Reno cannot afford a leader who treats dissent as a personal attack instead of an opportunity to govern better.
Closing Thought
The people of Reno are not asking for much: transparency, fairness, and safety. When citizens raise these concerns, they deserve answers — not insults. Reese's consistent pattern of attacking constituents reveals more about his temperament than theirs. And it raises a fundamental question: if he can't handle criticism from everyday residents, how could he ever lead the city as mayor?