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.

Who Runs the Reno-Tahoe Airport Authority — and Why You Never Voted for Them

When news broke that Reno-Tahoe Airport Authority (RTAA) President and CEO Daren Griffin would leave his post in January, the announcement sparked an unusually revealing public conversation on social media.

Michael Leonard

Dec 18, 2025

Buried in the comment thread was a simple question that many longtime residents quietly share:

“Can someone please tell me how the people on the Airport Authority get their authority? I’ve lived here 55 years and don’t recall ever voting for any of them.”

It is a fair question, and the answer explains much more than just how the airport is governed.

Click the image to see the news article and video on 2 News Nevada. This story was covered by other news outlets as well, so you can search for Reno Airport and CEO Daren Griffin.

What the Reno-Tahoe Airport Authority Is

The Reno-Tahoe Airport Authority is a quasi-independent public authority. It operates Reno-Tahoe International Airport and the region’s general aviation facilities.

The RTAA:

• has its own board

• Controls a large budget

• Makes long-term policy and infrastructure decisions

• Operates at arm’s length from direct voter control

How RTAA Board Members Are Selected

Voters do not elect RTAA board members.

Instead:

• The Reno City Council, Sparks City Council, and the Washoe County Commission appoint trustees

• Appointees do not run campaigns

• Voters do not approve or reject them

• Most residents never see the appointment process happen

• And the trustees are often members of the appointing organizations

The trustees are members of The Reno City Council, Sparks City Council, and the Washoe County. They appoint each other to these boards.

Once appointed, trustees oversee airport leadership, including hiring and firing the CEO.

This means the upcoming interim CEO appointment — and the direction of the permanent search — will be decided by the council and commission members who are on the board.

“But You Voted for the City Council” — The Proxy Argument

Defenders of the system often respond that voters “elect the people who appoint the board,” calling this a form of proxy accountability.

That is technically correct, but incomplete.

Proxy accountability only works when:

• Appointments are transparent

• Qualifications are clearly defined

• The public understands how to participate

• Elected officials actively oversee their appointees

In practice, many residents experience none of those things.

Why People Are Increasingly Frustrated

RTAA is not unique.

Reno and Washoe County rely heavily on unelected authorities to manage:

• The airport

• Water systems

• Emergency medical services

• Redevelopment projects

• Tourism and convention funding

• Housing programs

These bodies:

• Control hundreds of millions of dollars

• Make decisions that affect daily life

• They are insulated from direct voter accountability

• They are often staffed through an appointment culture rather than open competition

When residents ask how these boards get their authority, they are not rejecting civic participation — they are questioning where democratic accountability actually lives.

Another Example: The RDA and the RAAB

The Redevelopment Agency controls the City-owned properties. Citizen input is provided through the Redevelopment Agency Advisory Board (RAAB), which plays a limited role in Reno’s redevelopment process.

RAAB members are appointed by the City Council and serve in an advisory capacity, offering recommendations but holding no decision-making authority over redevelopment actions or the disposition of city property.

While some RAAB members bring experience in urban planning or related fields, many do not, and often friends and associates of the appointing officials get appointed. RAAB’s guidance is nonbinding.

Final authority rests entirely with the City Council acting as the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) board, meaning advisory input is filtered through the same political body that ultimately negotiates and approves redevelopment deals and accepts campaign donations. This structure does not provide independent oversight.

Control over Boards is Concentrated in a Few People

As an example, Alexis Hill, District 1 Chair of the Washoe County Board of Commissioners, holds one of the largest collections of regional and intergovernmental board seats in Washoe County.

If anyone knows what Hills’ qualifications are for any of this, please comment.

Current board and authority roles for Hill include:

• Community Homelessness Advisory Board

• Regional Transportation Commission of Washoe County

• Truckee Meadows Water Authority (TMWA)

• Western Regional Water Commission

• Reno-Sparks Convention & Visitors Authority (RSCVA)

• Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA)

• Tahoe Transportation District / Tahoe Transportation Commission

• Tahoe Prosperity Center

• Truckee North Tahoe Transportation Management Association

• Truckee River Flood Management Authority

• Washoe County Investment Committee

• Washoe County Internal Audit Committee

• Washoe County Legislative Liaison

The Tone Problem

The public reaction to those questions is telling. Instead of explanation, critics were met with:

• Insults

• Dismissive comments

• Accusations of ignorance

• Personal attacks

That response does not build public trust. It reinforces the perception that authority governance is an insider system — one that reacts defensively when questioned.

Civic curiosity should not be treated as a character flaw.

The Real Question in the future

The issue is not whether appointed authorities should exist. Many serve essential functions.

The question is whether Reno’s growing reliance on unelected boards has outpaced:

• Public understanding

• Oversight

• Transparency

• Accountability

With RTAA preparing to appoint interim leadership — and with similar structures governing redevelopment, utilities, and emergency services — this is a conversation worth having calmly, factually, and in public.

Because when residents ask, “Who is making these decisions, and why didn’t I vote for them?”

They are not disengaged. They are paying attention.

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

Rob, a reader, recently sent me a long reflection on Reno’s $24 million projected deficit. His argument was blunt and worth engaging with, and it reflects the mood of many Reno residents: this fiscal crisis isn’t a mystery and didn’t appear overnight. It’s the predictable result of a political culture that has prioritized applause today over solvency tomorrow.

Michael Leonard

Dec 16, 2025

And unless voters change who they send into the council chambers, nothing else changes either.

Below is a structured synthesis of Rob’s critique, with added context and supporting perspective.

The Deficit Didn’t “Happen” — It’s the Tail End of Long-Term Decisions

Cities don’t wake up one day and find themselves $24 million short.

Red ink accumulates from:

• unrealistic financial projections,

• debt obligations stretching decades,

• subsidy agreements that overestimate returns,

• and long-term commitments that can’t be unwound.

Rob’s framing is harsh but accurate:

Reno is now paying for the administrations’ habit of financing big ideas on a future revenue stream that never fully materialized.

This fiscal cliff is not the result of one budget cycle. It’s the compounding cost of choices made during eras of enthusiasm, ribbon cuttings, and economic optimism.

“Business as Usual” Politics: Short-Term Wins, Long-Term Pain

Politicians chase accomplishments that photograph well and sell during elections.

Bond payments and deferred maintenance don’t.

The pattern is familiar:

1. launch a signature project,

2. take credit for visionary leadership,

3. leave the hard part — the financial tail — to someone else.

As administrations turn over, debts remain. The excitement fades, but the payments never do. Two prominent examples still drain Reno’s general fund today:

● The National Bowling Stadium

Celebrated as a downtown magnet during its early years, it now hosts annual bowling tournaments while taxpayers still service the construction debt.

The National Bowling Stadium: Reno’s Little Understood Property

● The Convention Center

Ribbon cuttings and opening galas gave way to sporadic events, lower-than-promised demand, and ongoing bond obligations.

Neither asset is worthless — but both cost significantly more over time than they return. Meanwhile, payroll, pension liabilities, and operational costs keep rising.

Tax Increment Financing (TIF): When Optimism Becomes Subsidy

Rob highlighted one structural problem that gets minimal scrutiny in Reno:

TIF deals pin the City’s financial future on projected growth that may never arrive.

The concept:

• identify a “blighted” or “redevelopment” area,

• estimate the new economic activity a project will generate,

• divert those future tax increases back to the developer rather than the City.

The logic is often this: “Without the rebate, the developer won’t build, so we lose the future altogether.”

But here’s the math problem: When the future doesn’t outperform projections, the City is left with:

• locked-away revenue streams,

• ongoing service demands,

• and no relief valve.

Meanwhile, police, fire, parks, salary steps, and pension requirements continue regardless.

The TIF model for GSR’s expansion is a fresh example. GSR is not a fragile startup, nor is it financially unable to develop. It is a massively capitalized enterprise. If the project itself is profitable, why should Reno sacrifice decades of tax revenue to help a well-resourced entity add another revenue engine to its balance sheet?

At a time when Finance Director Vicki Van Buren warns that city revenues cannot keep pace with inflation, Reno is considering further tax deferrals for private developers already earning substantial returns.

That’s not a strategy. That’s politicking dressed up as vision.

GSR: Reno’s $61 Million Tax Giveaway to a Billionaire

Bureaucratic Gravity: Once Created, Never Contained

Rob’s comment also touches on something residents rarely confront:

Bureaucracies grow; they do not shrink. New departments, initiatives, programs, compliance roles, administrative staff, and managerial tiers get added in moments of political opportunity.

And then they become permanent — with:

• salaries,

• benefits,

• COLA increases,

• retirement plans,

• and structural labor costs.

The City’s largest expenditure isn’t projects, buildings, or one-time purchases — it’s personnel.

Personnel spending rises even when revenue stagnates.

Inflation accelerates that gap.

Pension obligations amplify it.

Government jobs have become secure, high-benefit careers with limited accountability and automatic growth cycles — and taxpayers underwrite the guarantee.

Public service is noble. But no system is financially sustainable when each year adds permanent costs without matching revenue growth.

Fixing Reno's Finances: A Common-Sense Plan That Isn't About Tax Hikes

Unequal Negotiating Tables

Developers, corporate interests, and political professionals don’t walk into City Hall with casual ambition.

They arrive with:

• expert consultants,

• lawyers,

• feasibility studies,

• modeling tools,

• and investor-grade spreadsheets.

Cities, on the other hand, often send:

• term-limited politicians who inherit deals they didn’t originate,

• new councilmembers unfamiliar with bond math,

• and staff who remain cautiously aligned to political winds.

A city that negotiates from hope instead of leverage loses every time.

It’s not corruption in most cases — it’s asymmetry.

Reno’s negotiating posture often boils down to:

“We need you more than you need us.”

Developers sense this instantly.

And that’s how cities agree to tax deferrals, fee waivers, or infrastructure commitments whose long-term fiscal costs dwarfs any near-term benefit.

PERS and Public Benefits: A Permanent Expense Curve

Rob calls out the Public Employee Retirement System, warning that pension growth is cast as inevitable rather than optional.

PERS and benefits are not some villains in the shadows, but they are financially immovable objects.

They:

• expand annually,

• cannot be renegotiated easily,

• and are contractually, legally, and politically protected.

When taxpayers see a $24 million deficit, they often assume it’s waste or mismanagement. Yes — some of it is. But much of it is locked-in commitments made in past decades that now consume large portions of operating revenue. When costs rise faster than general revenue, deficits aren’t crises — they are mathematics.

People are Earning Big Bucks at City Government

Politics Encourages Immediate Gratification

Political life rewards:

• the press release,

• the groundbreaking ceremony,

• the fundraising cycle,

• and the illusion of momentum.

It does not reward:

• delaying spending,

• refusing shiny projects,

• turning down subsidies,

• or shrinking bureaucracy.

Almost no elected official wants to be the councilmember whose legacy is: “I said no for five years straight.”

And yet that level of discipline is often what solvency demands.

What Now? Elect People Who Have Survived Reality

Rob ends with a clear prescription: Stop electing professional office-seekers and start electing people who have actually lived under constraints.

People who:

• have run payroll,

• negotiated contracts,

• fought through down cycles,

• survived bad quarters,

• and had to earn market trust.

Business experience doesn’t guarantee good public policy. Still, it does create a habit: You cannot spend money you don’t have, and you cannot assume tomorrow’s revenues will save you from today’s obligations.

That single discipline, applied at the Council level, would have prevented huge swaths of the fiscal vulnerabilities Reno faces today.

Reno’s 2026 Mayoral Race: Who is in the Lineup? What are their Chances?

Ultimately, the Public Has the Final Say

Rob’s closing message is unambiguous: If citizens keep electing the same political profile, they will keep getting the same fiscal result.

Budgets are not abstractions.

Bond interest is not imaginary.

TIF giveaways are not harmless.

They are long-term commitments with long-term consequences.

And Reno’s chickens, as Rob put it, have come home to roost.

The $24 million deficit is not an isolated pothole in the financial road. It is a structural outcome of decades of:

• optimistic forecasting,

• bad negotiating,

• political self-preservation,

• and a civic culture that stopped demanding the hard truth.

The real test is 2026: Will Reno voters send different kinds of leaders to office? Or will they treat this deficit as just another headline? Because if the answer is the latter, nothing else changes — And the following red ink report will be even worse.