Boise Isn’t the Issue. Accountability Is, Councilmember Reese!

Devon Reese’s recent Facebook post in, response to my article, explaining “Why Boise and not Reno?” is revealing — not for what it says, but for what it avoids.

Michael Leonard

Dec 19, 2025

Devon Reese’s recent Facebook post explaining “Why Boise and not Reno?” is carefully crafted, likely written by his PR person, Riley Sutton. It is revealing — not for what it says, but for what it avoids.

If you are not blocked by Reese, you can click to view his post on Facebook.

Now that Reese is a declared candidate for mayor, endorsed by Mayor Hillary Schieve and is the ultimate insider, the post functions less as a neutral policy explainer and more as a defense of the governing model that has shaped Reno for more than a decade and has led to the current sad state. Voters should read it with that in mind.

Harrah’s Sold Us Boise. Then Ahlquist Walked Away. Why Did That Happen?

Reese’s response makes it clear that people close to him read this article on Mike’s Reno Report, prompting him to respond, likely through his PR person, Riley Sutton.

Boise as Explanation — Not Benchmark

Reese’s central argument is that Boise’s downtown success stems from structural advantages: broader tax authority, early and sustained access to redevelopment tools like tax incremental financing (TIF), and decades of continuity.

Reno, he says, operates under tighter constraints, but is making steady progress using the tools available. That framing matters.

Boise is presented by Reese not as a standard Reno should meet, but as a reason to temper expectations. The comparison becomes a shield rather than a challenge. Leadership is displaced by structure; outcomes are softened by process.

Reese ignores that Reno has had a redevelopment authority for decades. It has controlled land disposition, zoning, incentives, and public-private partnerships throughout the same period.

The difference is not whether tools existed, but how consistently, transparently, and effectively they were used — and whether failures were acknowledged and corrected.

Reno is Giving Away Our Tax $ with Tax Incremental Financing

Reno used TIF in 2007 for the Cabela’s project, and bonds for the RETRAC train trench in 2002, and bonds for the Bowling Stadium in 1995. Did Reese conveniently forget about that?

Mike’s Reno Report Readers Disagree with Reese

I get a lot of email, and readers’ comments reflect a widening gap between government and public trust.

Many longtime Reno residents don’t see Downtown as “steadily improving.” They experience it as a place that has lost something fundamental — activity, purpose, and everyday life.

Peg captured that sentiment: “I remember Reno in the ‘70s when there were several small casinos on Virginia St., and there was so much more activity downtown than there is today… I can’t think of the last time I went downtown for anything.”

That is a memory of mixed-use vitality — small businesses, daily foot traffic, reasons to be Downtown that weren’t tied to festivals or one-off events.

Midtown and Wells Avenue are doing better, Peg suggests, precisely because they resemble “old Reno” — incremental, human-scale, organically active.

Downtown does not reflect old Reno.

Toni places it in a much longer arc: “Mid 1990’s, when Redevelopment was young to Reno — Reno was introduced to Oliver McMillan as the savior for Downtown… The Council is always quick to find the quick fix.”

Downtown decline was blamed on convenient villains — the Mapes, the railroad tracks — rather than examined as a cumulative result of policy decisions and public spending choices.

That pattern has not changed.

Toni’s memory matters because it punctures the idea that Reno’s challenges are new or misunderstood, as told by Reese.

Reno’s Structural Deficit and the Culture That Created It: $24 Million in the Hole.

Reno has had financial issues during the Schieve administration, which Reese is part of, and these issues have led to ongoing $24 million deficits with no fix in sight.

The Government-Siting Argument Cuts Both Ways

Reese says that Boise deliberately located state offices, courts, universities, and agencies Downtown, creating steady weekday foot traffic and economic stability.

That was not accidental.

But that only sharpens the question Reno must answer. Reno also made siting decisions — many of them decentralizing government functions away from Downtown — and largely stayed the course even as Downtown hollowed out.

Those were not mandates from Carson City. They were local policy choices, made and reaffirmed over time.

If Boise’s success reflects long-term alignment between government siting and redevelopment goals, then Reno’s struggles reflect the absence of that alignment.

Explaining why something worked elsewhere does not absolve responsibility for why it wasn’t pursued here.

Activity Is Not the Same as Impact

Much of Reese’s post is a long list of actions: housing approvals, river reclassification, ordinances, park districts, River Rangers, lighting, bathrooms, festivals, facade grants, transit changes, and shelter relocation.

None of these is imaginary. But lists are not outcomes.

What’s missing are the metrics voters use to judge progress:

• How much housing was actually delivered and occupied?

• How much public value did TIF investments return?

• What happened to downtown vacancy rates?

• Which projects failed, stalled, or underperformed — and why?

• How much money was spent, and what changed as a result?

A system that produces activity without accountability will always generate lists, but rarely clarity. Reese’s post does not confront this reality. Instead, it reinforces the idea that steady, incremental governance by interconnected boards is how city-building works.

Many voters no longer agree, and they want change.

Insider Continuity vs. Change

This activity vs. results context matters because Reese is running for Mayor and not as an outsider. He is endorsed by Mayor Schieve and closely associated with the same political and administrative ecosystem that presided over downtown Reno's decline.

Harrah’s, which was the focus of my article, is conspicuously absent from Reese’s narrative, despite being the single most consequential downtown redevelopment failure of the past decade. Does Reese have an answer to the Harrah’s problem?

Boise’s success is inseparable from execution discipline. Reno’s challenges are inseparable from high-profile breakdowns that were never reckoned with.

What the Public Is Actually Asking For

The reader response to the Boise article — and to broader coverage of governance, redevelopment, and boards — is remarkably consistent.

People are not asking for:

• Longer explanations

• More process language

• Better framing of constraints

They are asking for:

• Leaders who are willing to confront entrenched interests, even at personal political cost, and fix problems.

Voters are not calling for better messaging. They are calling for structural change.

The Real Question for Voters

Downtown revitalization is not a single project. It is not an abstraction. Reno produces visible results — or it doesn’t.

The real question voters face is simple:

Do they want a mayor who explains why progress is slow, or one who is willing to confront why the system produces slow progress in the first place?

Reese’s post makes his position clear. He is not running against the Schieve era. He is running as its continuation — with better language, more context, and the same underlying assumptions.

Boise isn’t the issue. Trust, accountability, and who holds power in Reno are the issues.

Harrah’s Sold Us Boise. Then Ahlquist Walked Away. Why Did That Happen?

After I published my article on Harrah’s Revival, three readers wrote in with comments that, taken together, expose more about downtown Reno’s struggles than any press release or glossy redevelopment rendering could.

Michael Leonard

Dec 17, 2025

Joe asked why Boise’s downtown feels alive while Reno’s does not.

Paul wondered what really happened behind the scenes that caused Ahlquist to exit the Harrah’s redevelopment.

Lorin offered an important firsthand detail: they attended the meeting where Ahlquist was introduced to Reno’s real estate community — a meeting where Boise’s success story was front and center.

That combination matters because it reveals a pattern Reno keeps repeating: we import vision without importing the conditions that made redevelopment work elsewhere—and then act surprised when it fails.

This article doesn’t answer exactly why Ahlquist left or if Harrah’s Revival can succeed. We don’t know that for sure. The article does discuss the conditions in Reno that make redevelopment difficult.

What the Exit of Developer Ahlquist Means for the Harrah’s Revival Project

The Boise Pitch

Lorin’s comment cuts to the heart of the issue. They attended a meeting hosted by 1st Centennial Title Company, where Ahlquist was introduced to the Reno real estate community.

According to Lorin, the meeting leaned heavily on Boise — how Ahlquist had revitalized its downtown, how the model worked, how Reno could be next.

That pitch resonated because Reno wants to believe in a clean comparison. Boise feels familiar. It’s Western. It’s growing. It’s outdoorsy. It’s aspirational.

And most importantly, Boise offers something Reno desperately wants: proof that a midsize city can turn its downtown into a place people want to visit.

But what wasn’t said — or wasn’t fully grappled with — is that Boise’s success wasn’t a template. It was an outcome of conditions Reno does not share.

This is Boise. Both Reno and Boise have street parties. The difference is that in Boise, the stores are open and thriving along the street, while in Reno, 70% of stores are vacant.

Surface Similarities, Structural Differences

Joe’s question framed this. Both Reno and Boise are growing. Both are attracting new residents. Both are desirable places to live. So why does Boise feel vibrant while Reno feels stalled?

The answer starts with what downtowns were built to do. Boise’s downtown was redeveloped incrementally. Small blocks. Human-scale buildings. Fragmented ownership. Businesses that depended on foot traffic.

Reno’s downtown revolves around casinos — as self-contained systems: The ROW, a city within a City. They are inward-facing islands. Not integrated with the street life.

That distinction matters more than most people realize.

Downtown Reno’s Identity Crisis: A Facebook Thread That Says It All

Casinos Are Not Neutral Anchors

Casinos are often described as “anchors,” but they do not function like normal downtown anchors.

A successful downtown anchor creates spillover. It pushes people onto sidewalks. It rewards neighboring businesses. It depends on the street.

The ROW Casinos do the opposite. They internalize spending. They minimize wandering. They treat the street as a risk to be managed, not an asset to be cultivated.

Casinos worked better when Reno had many small casinos from the 1940s through the 1970s. Those properties were porous. People moved between them. Bars, restaurants, and shops benefited from that flow.

But as casinos consolidated into a few massive operators, downtown’s economic logic changed. Large properties replaced street life with internal corridors. Entire blocks became blank walls. The street stopped mattering.

The Hidden Drag: Concentrated Land Ownership

Joe also put his finger on another under-discussed problem: who controls downtown land.

Downtown Reno is not just shaped by what exists, but by who owns it — and how much of it they control.

When a small number of actors own large, contiguous sections of downtown, several things happen:

• Activation becomes optional

• Vacancy becomes leverage

• Delay becomes rational

• Competition can be frozen

In that environment, blight is not always a failure. Sometimes it is a strategy for oldtimer property owners who “know what they got.”

Boise’s downtown worked because no single owner could afford to let many properties sit idle indefinitely. It works because density, enforcement, and fragmentation discourage land banking and holding out for a higher price.

Reno’s government allows land banking and doesn’t hold developers and property owners accountable, and then we wonder why redevelopment never happens.

🏙️ Who Owns Downtown Reno? A Look at Owners by Total Property Value

Why Big “Magnet Projects” Keep Failing

Joe also referenced his experience working on the marketing for the Grand Sierra Resort’s past visions — luxury condos, high-end dining, and even the infamous “world’s largest water park.”

Reno keeps chasing silver bullets — arenas, towers, mega mixed-use concepts — while skipping the unglamorous work of street-level vitality.

Cities that succeed don’t start with monuments. They begin with sidewalks, ground-floor uses, safety, enforcement, and density that support daily life.

Boise didn’t revive itself with one giant project. It revived itself by making streets worth walking again.

Ahlquist’s Exit: Developers Tell the Truth by Leaving

Paul’s comment raises the question many people are asking quietly: what happened behind the scenes that made Ahlquist walk away? Developers don’t usually issue press conferences when things go wrong. They leave.

And when experienced developers exit, it’s rarely because they suddenly lost interest. It’s because one or more fundamentals stopped working:

• The numbers stopped penciling

• Risk and control became misaligned

• Timelines became unpredictable

• Authority didn’t match responsibility

Developers can tolerate complexity. What they can’t accept is uncertainty layered on top of misaligned incentives. A quiet exit is not a mystery. It’s a signal.

Why the Boise Model Didn’t Transfer

This is where the observations matter most. Boise’s success was not portable. It was contextual.

Boise benefited from:

• Fragmented ownership

• Predictable approvals

• Strong street incentives

• Continuous activation

Reno struggles with:

• Consolidated land control

• Inward-facing mega-properties

• Politicized approvals and subsidies

• Downtown carries the region’s social service burden

You can import a developer. You cannot import context. Selling Boise as a blueprint ignored the realities of Reno’s downtown — realities that any serious developer eventually has to confront.

Scattershot Redevelopment and Option Preservation

What replaces cohesive redevelopment when conditions are misaligned is something else entirely: option preservation.

Acquire parcels. Demolish selectively. Float ideas. Abandon some. Reset timelines. Maintain leverage.

That approach makes sense for balance sheets. It is disastrous for cities.

Downtowns don’t recover through optionality. They recover through commitment, enforcement, and a critical mass of everyday activity.

Reno keeps confusing motion with momentum.

The $2 Billion Mirage: Has Jeff Jacobs’ Downtown Reno Vision Stalled?

The Myth of the Visionary Savior

Paul expressed a hope many people share: that a capable, experienced, visionary developer will come along and take over.

That hope is understandable — and misplaced.

No developer, no matter how talented, can overcome a structure that discourages activation, rewards delay, and concentrates control without accountability.

Reno doesn’t lack vision. It lacks alignment.

Until ground-floor activation is enforced, land hoarding is discouraged, and downtown is treated as a place rather than a portfolio, the cycle will repeat. Another pitch.

Another announcement. Another quiet exit.

Envisioning West Reno’s Transformation - Not the Neon Line

The Question Reno Still Avoids

Joe, Paul, and Lorin weren’t asking abstract questions. They were asking practical ones.

Why does Boise work?

Why do developers leave?

Why do promises keep collapsing?

The answers are not mysterious. They are structural.

Downtown Reno doesn’t need another vision imported from somewhere else. It requires an honest reckoning with who controls downtown, who benefits from delay, and who pays the price when nothing happens.

Until that conversation happens — publicly and honestly — every Boise story we import will end the same way.

With a good pitch. And a quiet goodbye.