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.

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.

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.

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

The recent confirmation that Boise-based developer Ahlquist is no longer involved in the redevelopment of the former Harrah’s Reno hotel-casino was brief, carefully worded, and easy to gloss over. It should not be. It’s a serious signal.

Michael Leonard

Dec 15, 2025

Ahlquist’s departure is not a routine staffing change or a benign “handoff.” It marks a structural shift in how — and whether — this project moves forward, in anything close to its initially promised form.

To understand why, it’s essential to be clear about who did what, who still does what, and who is now missing.

See RGJ Dec. 12: Ahlquist out as developer for former Harrah’s Reno renovation

Ahlquist Was the Developer — Not a Consultant

Ahlquist was repeatedly presented as a key development partner in what was branded as “Reno Revival.” They were not a peripheral advisor. They were the firm whose experience was meant to answer the most challenging question surrounding the former Harrah’s site:

“How does this actually get done?”

Ahlquist’s value was not conceptual. It was practical:

• Urban, mixed-use redevelopment experience

• Adaptive reuse expertise

• Managing complex phasing, construction risk, and cost overruns

• Being the entity willing to put its reputation and balance sheet behind execution

In short, Ahlquist was the execution credibility and capability.

When a project of this scale is announced, the named developer signals to the city, lenders, and the public that this is more than a rendering and a press release. That signal is now gone. The project in dead in the water until they find a new developer.

Madison Capital Group Is a Finance and Ownership Firm

The project’s owner, Madison Capital Group, has now “decided to take a more active role in finishing the project,” according to statements provided to the Reno Gazette-Journal. That phrasing deserves scrutiny.

Madison Capital Group is primarily a real estate investment and finance firm. Their core strengths are:

• Capital deployment

• Ownership and asset control

• Structuring debt and equity

• Repositioning properties at a high level

What Madison is not known for is acting as a master developer for large, multi-phase, urban adaptive reuse projects — especially former casino properties with complex building systems, entitlement issues, and downtown political sensitivities.

In most deals, a firm like Madison supplies the money and oversight, then hires a developer to take on day-to-day execution and risk.

That is precisely what Ahlquist was doing.

The Collapse and Revival of Harrah's Casino Property

I provide some recent history of this project in this article.

The Role of the Project Manager — And Why It Matters

Much of the public messaging is handled by Brianna Bullentini, who has spoken publicly about the project’s vision and other work she has been involved in. Based on those presentations and her public positioning, her role is best understood as a senior project manager.

That role is essential — but limited.

A project manager:

• Helps shape and communicate the vision

• Coordinates architects, consultants, and planners

• Interfaces with the city

• Manages schedules, scopes, and deliverables

What a project manager does not do:

• Control the capital stack

• Make financing decisions

• Absorb construction risk

• Replace a departed developer

This distinction matters because it explains the current moment: the project still has a vision spokesperson, but it no longer has a publicly identified developer in charge. Those are not the same thing.

Until they find a developer, I don’t expect much to happen.

“Taking a More Active Role” Is Not a Development Strategy

When a finance-led owner says it is “taking a more active role,” it usually means one of three things:

1. Temporary self-management to stabilize a project after a developer’s exit

2. De-scoping the project to reduce risk and capital exposure

3. Buying time while quietly searching for a new developer

What it rarely means is that the owner has suddenly become an expert in complex urban redevelopment.

If Madison already had a replacement developer lined up — or a robust in-house development arm — that would have been announced immediately. Instead, there is:

• No new developer named

• No revised timeline

• No updated scope

• No ownership-level executive speaking publicly

Those absences are meaningful.

Why This Is a Familiar Downtown Reno Pattern

Downtown Reno has seen this movie before.

The pattern looks like this:

1. A big vision is announced

2. A respected developer is attached

3. Costs rise, timelines slip, or capital tightens

4. The developer exits quietly

5. Ownership assumes control

6. The project shrinks, fragments, or slows — without formal cancellation

Projects rarely fail loudly. They fade, reconfigure, or stall. Ahlquist’s exit places the former Harrah’s redevelopment squarely at Step 5.

Can the Project Still Move Forward?

Yes, but not likely in the form currently sold to the public.

There are only a few paths forward:

• Madison secures a new development partner

• The project proceeds in smaller, lower-risk phases

• Portions of the site are stabilized or repurposed, while others wait

• The vision quietly narrows while the branding remains

• Madison sells off the project

The first option is optimal. The others are a fallback until a developer can be found. What is unrealistic is Madison running a full-scale redevelopment alone in the long term. They need a developer. They will be doing damage control in the meantime.

If they don’t find a developer, a sale is likely, but will be difficult.

The Core Issue Is Not Vision — It’s Authority

The former Harrah’s project still has ideas, presentations, and aspirations. What it currently lacks is a named entity willing to take responsibility for execution.

That is the difference between:

• Talking about redevelopment

• And actually delivering it

Until a new developer is publicly identified, this project is not dead — but it is in limbo. And Reno has learned, repeatedly, that limbo can last a very long time.

One sentence summary

With Ahlquist gone, the former Harrah’s project no longer has a master developer — and without one, even the best vision cannot proceed.

Note: for reference, I spent 10 years in the 1980s working for banks and underwriting major construction loan projects so this situation is familiar to me.

When Accusations Aren’t Anchored: A Problem for Mayoral Candidate Eddie Lorton

Reno voters are being asked to evaluate serious claims of corruption, illegal funding, Open Meeting Law violations, and lobbyist misconduct—based on a Facebook post from December 10th with no meeting date, no agenda citation, no vote reference, and no clear timeline.

Michael Leonard

Dec 12, 2025

Mayoral candidate Eddie Lorton made that post. And that is a problem.

Not because candidates should avoid criticizing City Hall, but because unverified accusations create misinformation rather than accountability.

On top of these issues, Eddie doesn’t make it clear what the meeting is about. What is the problem that prompted the meeting that voters should care about?

The Post That Sparked the Concern

Eddie recently posted a lengthy, unpunctuated Facebook statement alleging:

• “Wrongdoing from local lobbyists.”

• An “illegal” transfer of city funds

• An Open Meeting Law violation

• Improper handling by the city attorney

• Abuse of ratification procedures

He did not list:

• The meeting date

• The agenda item

• The governmental body

• The staff report

• Or the financial account allegedly used “illegally.”

Those omissions alone make the claim unverifiable.

But the problems go much deeper.

Click the image to see the Facebook post from December 10th by Eddie Lorton.

The Screenshot Tells a Different Story

The screenshot Eddie attached clearly shows Park Lane Mall, a site demolished in 2016 and redeveloped as part of one of Reno’s post-recession urban renewal efforts.

The Reno Gazette-Journal published the article he referenced on December 9, 2016.

Eddie’s caption is written in the present tense, using words like “now,” “at the meeting,” and “the city attorney doesn’t want to do a reconsideration.” The post is framed as if a current illegal act just occurred. That is factually false.

“Go to this meeting more wrong doing from local lobbyists in unpresidented deal finding ways to get money from the city for their clients projects at the expense of the taxpayers. Also the city is taking money out of the wrong pot illegally to do so at our expense. While stating at the meeting the system there had 20 years of life left. So there was an open meeting law violation so the public wasn’t aware of what was happening they voted on it and now the city attorney doesn’t want to do a reconsideration so the council can be accountable to the public if they choose to be there. Instead he’s doing a radification which means the vote stands the publics opinion doesn’t matter and they are just reagendising it to take care of the open meeting law violation but I say if not noticed properly the last vote should not count because the public was not aware of what was happening. Paul McKenzie, Jenny Brekhus, Naomi Duerr, David Bobzien. Please do it right. Thank you.”

Possibly, Eddie meant this as sharing a memory, but that isn’t how it was posted. Posting as a memory would only clarify a few of the issues around the timeframe, and getting this wrong adds to the negligence of this post. Even if Eddie intended this as a historical “memory” repost, his caption did not read like a retrospective. It read like a present-day accusation of illegality. He did not identify the meeting or the agenda item, but instead implied that sewer rate impacts and improper fund transfers were still unfolding today.

Whether labeled a memory or not, the post still presented an unverifiable and factually misapplied corruption claim.

The Punctuation Problem Is Critical

The post is written as a single, unbroken stream with no sentence structure. That matters because Eddie is making criminal-adjacent accusations.”

Eddie’s post is written as a single, unpunctuated block of text mixing:

• “illegal”

• “wrongdoing”

• “open meeting law violation”

• “ratification”

• “city attorney”

• “unprecedented deal”

With no clear sentence boundaries, the reader cannot tell:

• Who is being accused of what

• On what date

• Under what authority

• Accusations blur together

• Subjects and actions become unclear

• Timeframes collapse

• And responsibility cannot be assigned appropriately.

For an everyday citizen, that is sloppy.

For a mayoral candidate alleging illegality, it is reckless with legal implications.

It’s cheap and easy to get a grammar and style checker for your browser. Come on, Eddie, get with it!

Three of the Four People He Named Are No Longer on the Council

Eddie named:

• Paul McKenzie – left office years ago

• Jenny Brekhus – no longer serving

• David Bobzien – left the council in 2014

• Naomi Duerr – the only current member listed

This creates a false impression that a sitting council is engaged in present-day misconduct, when, in reality, the dispute he appears to be referencing dates to a different council composition almost a decade ago.

The Open Meeting Law Claim Is Procedurally Misrepresented

Eddie asserts that:

• The public was not properly notified

• A vote was taken illegally

• The city attorney avoided “reconsideration.”

• And instead used “ratification” so that “the public’s opinion doesn’t matter.”

That is not how ratification works. Under Nevada law, ratification is precisely the tool used to cure Open Meeting Law defects.

Ratification requires:

• Re-noticing the item properly

• Full public disclosure

• And re-adoption in a legally compliant forum

Ratification does not erase public participation. It restores it.

By presenting ratification as a corrupt maneuver rather than a compliance mechanism, the post misrepresents the fundamental principles of municipal law.

The Missing Meeting Is the Biggest Red Flag

If an Open Meeting Law violation truly occurred, the most basic facts would be:

• Date of the meeting

• Governmental Body

• Agenda report

• Vote record

None of that was provided. That makes this post:

• Impossible to verify

• Impossible to fact-check

• Impossible to defend if challenged

• A member of the public can’t investigate independently

That is not whistleblowing. That is rumor framing.

What This Signals to Voters

To supporters, the post may read as passion.

To undecided voters and professional reviewers, it reads as:

• Lack of verification

• Lack of document discipline

• Confusion between past and present

• Misuse of legal terminology

• Reckless accusation framing

• And disregard for basic public sourcing norms

A mayor does not get to govern emotionally.

A mayor governs through:

• Verified facts

• Precise language

• Careful legal framing

• And disciplined public communication

This post demonstrates none of those traits.

This Undermines Legitimate Oversight

Reno absolutely does need:

• Strong redevelopment scrutiny

• Aggressive lobbying transparency

• Strict Open Meeting Law compliance

• And real consequences for misuse of public funds

But when a candidate posts an unsourced, misidentified, legally confused allegation, it damages public trust in the system he claims to support.

This was not:

• Investigative reporting

• Document-based whistleblowing

• Or a verified legal complaint

It was an emotional reaction posted without verification, timelines, procedural clarity, or accountability safeguards.

That is not leadership. That is recklessness, and it should concern anyone evaluating who is fit to serve as Reno’s next mayor. That is not what Reno should accept from anyone seeking the city’s highest executive office.

Reno needs a mayor who understands the difference between:

• Past vs. present

• Error vs. crime

• Procedure vs. corruption

• And outrage vs. evidence

Right now, Eddie Lorton’s social media conduct shows that distinction is not being made. He is sloppy and careless and needs to clean up his act if he wants to win.

Taylor vs. Lorton: Two Approaches to Downtown Blight

Downtown blight has become one of the most emotionally charged issues in Reno’s 2026 mayor race how it will be resolved depends on who becomes mayor of Reno.

Michael Leonard

Dec 10, 2025

Boarded storefronts, broken windows, stalled projects, and long-vacant buildings now shape not just the physical landscape of downtown, but also the political one. With Hillary Schieve term-limited and exiting office after more than a decade in citywide leadership, the next mayor will inherit a city that has admitted what many residents have known for years: the tools to address blight existed, but they were not used.

That admission, delivered during the December 3rd, 2025, Reno City Council debate over enforcement authority, has transformed blight from a background planning issue into a defining test of mayoral leadership. With that shift, two candidates now stand in philosophical opposition:

• Kathleen Taylor - click to see her website

• Eddie Lorton - click to see his website

Both say downtown must change. They disagree on how the city should force that change.

The discussion about code enforcement starts at 1:15.

The Long Failure That Set the Stage

For more than a decade, Reno operated under outdated property maintenance standards. The city failed to adopt the 2018 update to the International Property Maintenance Code and continued enforcing 2012 standards well into the 2020s. Meanwhile, repeat violators downtown accumulated warning after warning with few consequences that stuck.

In December 2025, the City Council publicly confronted that failure. Staff confirmed the city already possessed the authority to issue fines of up to $1,000 per day against violators, yet enforcement had been inconsistent. Worse, the administrative appeals system routinely erased penalties, and the council itself lacked direct oversight of hearing officers. The result was a perfect enforcement loophole: the city could cite, owners could appeal, and the fines disappeared.

In this meeting, the council voted to adopt the 2024 International Property Maintenance Code, directed staff to return with stronger enforcement ordinances, and ordered further study of appeals reform. For the first time in years, the enforcement pivot was no longer theoretical. It became an active policy confrontation. That decision turned blight into a mayoral litmus test.

The Accountability Transfer After Schieve

Hillary Schieve joined the city council in 2012 and became mayor in 2014. During her tenure, enforcement authority existed but was not consistently used. That record now frames the moment of transition Reno finds itself in.

The next mayor will not inherit ambiguity. They will inherit a public mandate that says, plainly: the tools are on the table—use them. The 2026 race is therefore not a debate about whether blight should be addressed. It is a debate about how hard the city is willing to hit the owners who created it.

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

Taylor’s Enforcement-First Platform

Kathleen Taylor did not hedge during the council debate. From the dais, she aligned herself squarely with the city’s most aggressive enforcement tools. Her public position now includes support for:

• Daily compounding fines against repeat violators

• Ending facade improvement grants for owners who have allowed chronic neglect

• Blight-specific taxation

• Eminent domain as a last-resort tool for the most egregious properties

Taylor has framed downtown blight not as a misunderstanding or paperwork backlog, but as years of tolerated negligence. Her argument is simple: if owners refuse to maintain safe, habitable, code-compliant structures, then the city must impose consequences severe enough to force action.

Politically, this is the maximum-conflict posture. It invites lawsuits. It alienates some property-rights voters. It risks backlash from developers and lenders. But it also satisfies a public mood that has shifted from frustration to anger after watching empty buildings sit untouched for five, ten, and sometimes fifteen years.

Taylor is now locked into the identity of the candidate for coercive enforcement. If elected, she will be judged on how quickly she imposes real consequences on chronic offenders.

🏙️ The Keshmiri Empire: Strip Clubs, Real Estate, and a Storied History in Reno

Lorton’s Property-Rights-First Frame

Eddie Lorton approaches the issue from the opposite philosophical direction. His framing consistently emphasizes:

• The primacy of private property rights

• Voluntary compliance

• Opposition to punitive taxation as a tool

• Friendship with property owners

• The owner of a warehouse property at 555 E. 4th St.

In discussion, he presents himself as pro-owner, pro-negotiation, and skeptical of government intervention. When pressed specifically on the idea of blight taxes applied to negligent landlords, he has emphasized property rights but has declined to define precisely where the penalty threshold should fall.

That response pattern matters. It suggests a governing instinct oriented toward cooperation rather than compulsion. Lorton’s public posture treats blight as due to a lack of police enforcement, not a failure by landlords requiring economic punishment.

This distinction is not about character. It is about enforcement philosophy. Lorton’s model prioritizes negotiated compliance. Taylor’s model prioritizes forced compliance.

Those models do not converge. They collide.

Eddie Lorton: The Businessman Who Keeps Challenging Reno’s Political Machine

Why These Two Philosophies Cannot Both Succeed

Taylor’s approach requires the city to deploy tools that are, by their nature, coercive:

• Daily compounding fines

• Accelerated compliance timelines

• Forced abatement

• Receivership

• Potential seizure

Those tools are incompatible with a governing model built on voluntary compliance and an absolutist view of property rights. Once fines begin compounding automatically and appeals stop functioning as an escape hatch, enforcement stops being negotiated and becomes punitive by design.

That is the crossroad Reno has reached.

Taylor represents the path of punishment-first cleanup.

Lorton represents the path of negotiation-first cleanup.

They are not incremental variations. They are opposing answers to the same failure.

🏛️ The Iliescu Legacy: Old Family Money in Downtown Reno

What Each Administration Would Likely Do in Practice

If elected, Taylor’s first 18 months would likely include:

• Immediate appeals-process reform to prevent routine fine waivers

• New code enforcement hires tied to the first budget

• Selective daily fines focused on the worst downtown offenders

• Possibly a high-profile property seizure as a warning shot

• A formal end to facade grants for repeat violators

Her credibility would rest on how quickly those measures produced visible change.

A Lorton administration would likely take a different operational shape:

• Expanded owner outreach

• Voluntary cleanup agreements

• Extended cure periods

• Resistance to blight-specific taxation

• Slower escalation toward seizure authority

That approach would seek to avoid legal warfare with property owners but risks being blamed if downtown conditions remain unchanged.

The Political Risk Each Candidate Is Taking

Taylor’s risk is institutional. Aggressive enforcement invites court battles, lender backlash, redevelopment delays, and political enemies. If enforcement gets ugly, she owns it; however, it is the fast path to getting results.

Lorton’s risk is perceptual. If downtown still looks the same two years into his term, voters will not parse his enforcement philosophy. They will see passivity. In a city that now admits it waited too long already, patience for incrementalism may be gone.

Reno Should Learn From San Francisco's Blight Tax

The Choice Reno Voters Will Ultimately Make

At its core, the mayor’s race is compressing into one central question:

Do Reno voters want a mayor who forces compliance through economic and legal pressure—or one who prioritizes property rights and voluntary cooperation?

Taylor offers enforcement certainty.

Lorton offers enforcement restraint.

Both paths carry risk. Only one aligns with a political climate that has moved from frustration to enforcement.

And downtown, after more than a decade of stalling, is now the proving ground where that choice will be tested.

A Stadium for a Billionaire: How Reno Subsidized Greater Nevada Field

Reno’s leaders have pointed to Greater Nevada Field as proof that the City can “partner with private development” to revitalize downtown, but when you lay out the numbers...

Michael Leonard

Dec 09, 2025

For more than a decade, Reno’s leaders have pointed to Greater Nevada Field as proof that the City can “partner with private development” to revitalize downtown. The story goes like this: build the ballpark, crowd in private investment, attract out-of-town visitors, and watch the Freight District bloom into a thriving urban core.

But when you lay out the numbers, history, land deals, bond obligations, and redevelopment outcomes, a very different picture emerges.

This wasn’t a catalytic investment.

It was a public subsidy for a billionaire.

And the benefits promised to the public never materialized.

The Financial Backbone: Public Bonds, Private Benefit

When the ballpark was pitched, the original construction price was publicly referenced at about $85 million.

The developer behind the project — billionaire retail magnate and real-estate investor Herb Simon — financed approximately $55 million through private loans. He then requested $30 million in public financing assistance from the City of Reno.

Reno issued two bond tranches:

• $18,500,000 — Tranche 1

• $9,999,845 — Tranche 2

• $28,499,845 total bond financing by the City

Once you add private financing and public bonds, the total project cost exposure is about $83.5 million.

The bonds are paid from a tax on car rentals, not from ballpark revenue.

But bonds are only the face value.

The real cost is what the City has to repay over time.

As of 2023, the City of Reno still owed approximately $17.1 million on the stadium bonds. Based on the City’s repayment schedule, by the time the final payment is made in 2054, Reno will have paid roughly: $84,858,715 in principal and interest.

That long-term obligation exceeds the originally advertised construction cost of the ballpark itself. The repayment cost comes to about $1,358,870 above the stadium’s estimated construction cost.

And at no point does the public gain ownership of the stadium.

The debt is ours. The asset is his.

Reno’s $24 Million Deficit: What It Really Means

The True Cost Per Game

Assuming a standard 72-game home season, from the ballpark’s opening through the final bond payment year, Reno will host approximately 3,240 home games.

Divide the $84.8 million total repayment by those games:

The City of Reno pays about $26,190 in debt service per home match.

That’s before considering the annual subsidies Reno paid directly to the stadium operators — reportedly $1 to $2 million per year — which continued until 2015.

The ballpark holds about 9000 fans. Reno is paying $3.0 to $4.0 per fan per game.

The Back Taxes Case: Forgiveness for a Billionaire

When Simon’s entities fell behind on property taxes, Reno negotiated a settlement:

• About $1.9 million in delinquent taxes were paid

• Roughly $800,000 in interest and penalties were waived

Penalties that would crush a regular homeowner evaporated for one of the wealthiest developers ever to operate in Reno.

Property taxes for the stadium are now listed as current, and the annual tax bill for the site is approximately $109,727.

Reno is Giving Away Our Tax $ with Tax Incremental Financing

The Parking Lot Deal: Public Support, Private Extraction

One of the overlooked pieces of the stadium agreement was the transfer of control over the parking lot directly across from the ballpark.

That parcel — intended initially for stadium use — was later redeveloped into the Ballpark Apartments, a privately owned residential project that monetizes stadium views and proximity.

This is often cited as evidence of “redevelopment.”

In reality, it’s something else entirely:

• land granted as part of the stadium deal

• converted into a private revenue-producing apartment complex

• benefiting the same developer who leveraged public bonds to build the stadium

Meanwhile, stadium parking capacity shrank.

Game-day attendees lost the large lot and were left with a smaller replacement, more street spillover, and less convenient access.

If redevelopment were the goal, the result would be backwards:

The public financed the stadium, but the private operator privatized the land around it and captured long-term value.

That isn’t catalytic revitalization. It’s vertical integration.

Ballpark Apartments Pivot to Hotel in Slow Market for High Rent Units

Redevelopment Claims vs. Reality

At the council dais and in public briefings, officials routinely suggested that the stadium would trigger a neighborhood transformation.

The “Freight District” name became shorthand for a promised future full of:

• restaurants

• bars

• hotels

• mixed-use projects

• rising commercial density

But more than a decade later, that district never appeared.

There was no cascade of surrounding investment.

No dense urban core. No destination corridor.

Just a privately built apartment complex on land tied directly to the stadium deal.

That’s not redevelopment. It’s an internal portfolio expansion.

The Economic Impact: Modest, Diffuse, and Hardly Transformative

Greater Nevada Field draws around 500,000 annual attendees.

How many of those are true out-of-town visitors who book rooms because of the Aces?

Minor-league research suggests only 5–20%.

If we use a reasonable 10% range, and then assume about half actually stay overnight, the result is about:

• 25,000 hotel-staying ballpark visitors per year

• roughly 37,500 total hotel nights

• estimated local spending (hotel + food + incidental) around $10 million annually

That’s the mid-range model — and it’s generous.

The takeaways:

• The economic activity is real but modest

• It’s diffuse, not concentrated

• It doesn’t come close to covering public costs

• And study after study shows much of this money replaces spending that would have occurred elsewhere in the City

Most importantly:

Minor-league stadiums are not conclusively shown to increase overall employment or taxable economic output in their cities.

The strongest independent assessments describe stadium subsidies as ineffective public investments that rarely pay for themselves.

Reno fits that pattern perfectly.

The National Bowling Stadium: Reno’s Little Understood Property

What Actually Happened Here

When you strip away the slogans, the stadium deal looks like this:

1. A billionaire developer sought help building a private sports venue.

2. The City of Reno issued nearly $28.5 million in bonds to support it.

3. Car renters repay those bonds through 2054.

4. Total repayment cost will exceed $84.8 million.

5. Subsidy payments flowed between 2009 and 2015.

6. Penalties on delinquent property taxes were forgiven.

7. Adjacent land was transferred and later converted into private apartments.

8. Parking for the public shrank, while private long-term ROI increased.

9. Promised downtown redevelopment did not materialize.

10. The stadium remains privately owned.

It’s a textbook example of public risk and private gain.

The Accountability Question

Should Reno subsidize recreation?

Should cities help build cultural anchors?

Those are policy debates worth having.

But when the arrangement is built on the promise of economic upside and redevelopment — and neither occurs — the public deserves transparency.

Here, the numbers tell the story clearly:

• The public financed the stadium

• The public will keep paying until 2054

• The developer retained the asset, the land next to it, and the ability to profit

• The redevelopment claims proved hollow

The single most concrete project tied to the stadium — the Ballpark Apartments — now generates rental income and long-term equity for the billionaire developer who benefited from the public subsidy.

That’s not community revitalization. It’s an extraction dressed up as urban planning.

Final Thought

Reno residents should enjoy the Aces. That isn’t the issue. The issue is governance. When a billionaire wants a stadium, we should ask why he needs public financing and public land transfers to build it. When the promised returns vanish, we should ask whether the councilors who approved the deal were blinded by vision statements rather than by complicated math. And when millions in bond obligations stretch to 2054 — in a city facing projected structural deficits — we should ask why Reno accepted risk that private capital refused to take on itself.

Because the stadium isn’t the problem.

The way we funded it is.

Robert Beadles’ Tracker Scandal: Who Paid for Schieve's Lawyers?

The unanswered questions are who paid for Hillary Schieve’s legal battle, and what are the underlying allegations against Schieve that started all of this?

Michael Leonard

Nov 05, 2025

The revelation that conservative activist and Washoe County GOP influencer Robert Beadles was the mysterious “John Doe” behind the GPS tracker placed on Mayor Hillary Schieve’s vehicle came as no surprise — and few following Reno politics were taken aback.

Within minutes of 775 News, KTVN, KOLO, and The Nevada Independent reporting the story, social media threads across local news pages erupted. The responses, drawn from hundreds of public comments, reveal a city that’s at once scandal-numb and morally polarized — a community that’s learned to expect intrigue at every turn of local politics.

“No One Is Surprised” — The Predictable Shockwave

Across the comment sections of KTVN 2 News, 775 Times, and RGJ, the reaction followed a familiar pattern: eye-rolling disbelief rather than shock. The sense that Beadles was the likely culprit had already hardened in Reno’s online political circles months ago. The official unmasking only confirmed what many suspected — that the secrecy had done more damage than disclosure ever could. For many residents, the headline made explicit what had long been a rumor.

🚨 The Hidden Story in TrackerGate: Allegations of Corruption

Legality vs. Ethics: A Divided Public

The comments exposed a deep divide between those who view Beadles’ actions as stalking and those who see them as oversight.

On one side were privacy advocates who argued that attaching a tracker to anyone’s vehicle — especially that of an elected official — is invasive and potentially dangerous.

“Public officials are still human beings with rights,” one commenter wrote. “This wasn’t accountability; it was intimidation.”

On the other side were “nothing to hide” voices — citizens who dismiss privacy concerns as naïve in an age of cell-phone tracking and social media surveillance.

“If you’re in government, expect to be watched,” one wrote. “They track us all the time.”

That tension — between transparency and harassment — has become a defining moral line in Reno’s political culture. The comment threads make clear that people can not agree on where legitimate scrutiny ends and weaponized surveillance begins.

The Rise of Riley Sutton, and Changing Dynamics, Reno’s Most Connected Political Consultant

The Cost and Council Member Reese’s Response

Councilman Devon Reese, who is both a lawyer and a longtime confidant of Mayor Schieve, seized on the situation. In a Facebook thread responding to the RGJ article, Reese estimated that Beadles’ legal fight to conceal his identity had likely cost around $1 million and described the ordeal as “a million-dollar lark.”

“The extremes he went to try and hide were probably a $1M lark,” Reese wrote. “The spin from his websites and others in his universe shows the extent to which they will go to influence people — that is scary.” Reese often talks about being scared.

That casual remark — offered in a Facebook comment — opens up a new and unexamined dimension of this story: What has the lawsuit cost the Schieve side?

The Unanswered Question: Who Paid Schieve’s Legal Fees?

If Beadles really has burned through $1 million in legal expenses, as Reese estimates, the natural question follows:

How much has Mayor Schieve spent — and where did that money come from?

There is no public accounting of the Mayor’s legal funding. Her lawsuit against Beadles and private investigator David McNeely is a personal matter, not a city-filed case, meaning public funds do not automatically cover it. Still, no one has clarified whether she paid privately, used an insurance mechanism, or received assistance from third-party donors or organizations.

For a public official whose brand should be tied to transparency, the funding source for such a politically charged lawsuit deserves scrutiny.

Was it out-of-pocket? Through a legal defense fund? Or subsidized by political allies or consultants?

So far, none of the local outlets that broke the Beadles revelation have addressed that question — but it’s one that voters, taxpayers, and ethics watchdogs all have a right to ask.

🧴 Mayor Schieve and Doctor Hovenic: Spooge, and Scrutiny

The Inner Circle and the PR Machine

The financial opacity becomes more intriguing when you consider who is shaping the messaging. Reese is not just an elected official and attorney; he’s also part of the same political network that manages public perception around Schieve.

He reportedly spends tens of thousands of dollars on public relations consultant Riley Sutton, who helps polish the images of political figures across Reno, including Hillary Schieve. When that same circle handles both messaging and political crisis control, we wonder what lines have been crossed.

In this context, Reese’s $1M remark reads less like gossip and more like message discipline — an effort to frame the scandal’s cost and moral weight while reinforcing the Schieve-Reese alliance. Reese is running for Mayor and has been endorsed by Schieve. But by calling out the spending by Beadles he puts the light on Schieve.

Inside Hillary Schieve’s $417,000, 2022 Campaign Machine for Mayor of Reno

A City Exhausted by Intrigue

Beyond the partisan sniping, a more profound fatigue began to surface. Dozens of comments questioned why Reno politics seem to produce endless scandals, while fundamental issues such as infrastructure, housing, and debt remain unaddressed.

“There’s something wrong when a small city like Reno is constantly embroiled in political intrigue,” one user wrote. “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.”

The threads that lit up over the Beadles story also contained complaints about sewer rate hikes, construction sites, and data centers — reminders that residents are weary of drama and hungry for leadership.

At the same time, the revelation highlights how political elites on both sides are spending staggering sums to fight battles that most residents never asked for — a microcosm of how power and money continue to dominate Reno’s civic life.

Jacobs Entertainment Promised ‘No Excessive Noise’ — and Delivered a Valley-Wide Rave

A Friday night that shook the valley with booming music that could be heard for miles.

Michael Leonard

Nov 04, 2025

Last weekend, residents across Reno — from Caughlin Ranch to Summit Ridge to Robb Drive — were jolted awake by the thunderous bass of a music festival held at Jacobs Entertainment’s J Resort festival grounds, located at 2nd and Arlington.

The artist was Subtronics, a popular electronic DJ known for heavy dubstep and massive sound systems. The event was part of Jacobs’ push to turn its West 4th Street properties into a “premier live entertainment district.” But for thousands of residents, the reality was far less glamorous: vibrating windows, shaking floors, and the sense that the City of Reno had sold them out.

The Conditional Use Permit: A Promise Made, A Promise Broken

When Jacobs Entertainment sought approval for the outdoor festival grounds — part of the ongoing J Resort/Neon Line District redevelopment — the company was required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) from the City of Reno.

In its filings, Jacobs claimed that outdoor entertainment would be conducted in a manner that “will not generate excessive noise or vibrations” and that “mitigation measures will ensure compliance with Reno Municipal Code standards.”

Those assurances helped the project clear the Planning Commission, despite nearby residents expressing concerns about noise impacts, traffic, and public safety. The CUP approval came with a standard condition: no outdoor amplified sound may exceed 75 decibels at the property line.

But this weekend’s event blew that promise — and the decibel limit — out of the park.

I was sitting at a bar over half a mile away and to the south, not the west, where the noise was carrying the most, and the music was reaching up to 88 dBa, which is supposed to be the sound limit on the festival grounds, not at a distance.

Residents Across Reno Felt the Impact

Comments flooded social media platforms and Reddit’s r/Reno subreddit, where hundreds of users shared the same experience: it wasn’t just loud — it was seismic.

• “I thought it was my neighbors throwing a house party,” wrote one Reddit user. “Turns out the J is the culprit.”

• Another commented, “I live three miles away, my windows are rattling, and the cops said they can’t do anything because it’s permitted.”

• “The J Resort festival ground noise this evening is truly unbearable. We live over 2.5 miles away, and the sound is penetrating our whole house, including our three children’s rooms, while they try to sleep. I wish our leadership would prioritize the needs of families.”

• “I’m in Caughlin Ranch and can feel the vibrations in my floor.”

• “Summit Ridge here — we have our windows vibrating.”

• “Old Southwest, my toddler woke up crying. I’m furious.”

• “Thought I was hallucinating music at 11:30 p.m., turns out it was real.”

Even residents as far as Robb Drive, Idlewild Park, and Mayberry reported feeling the bass through closed windows. Many noted that the event ran past midnight, with one user timing the final beat at 12:07 a.m., followed by an afterparty inside the J Resort.

Community Reactions: A City Divided Over the J Resort Concert

The goal of Jacobs Entertainment’s “entertainment district” is to bring energy back downtown, but the Subtronics concert exposed just how divided Reno has become over what “revitalization” should sound like.

‘We Were Here Long Before Jacobs Entertainment’

Residents across Reno — not just downtown — reported feeling the bass shake their homes.

“I live all the way by Swope Middle School and it was insane,” wrote one commenter.
“Two miles away and I could hear it with my windows closed,” said another.

Others pointed out that the venue is brand new, while many residents have lived in the surrounding neighborhoods for decades.

“How long has that concert venue been there? Hint: a very short period of time,” one person reminded.
“We were here long before Jacobs Entertainment,” wrote another, “they should be considerate of those who were already here.”

For many, the issue isn’t the music — it’s the feeling of being ignored after being promised that “sound-mitigation technology” would prevent precisely this kind of city-wide disturbance.

Economy vs. Livability

Many defended Jacobs Entertainment on economic grounds, celebrating the crowds and hotel occupancy. However, Jacobs does not provide any information on the financial impact, and their festival grounds are hardly full during a concert.

“Tourism is down, Northern Nevada needs revenue from events!” one wrote.
“Go have fun and stop complaining — it’s good for the soul and the community.”

But even those sympathetic to economic development questioned the city’s priorities.

“You can be good for the economy without disrespecting the community,” said one resident.
“Let it be loud — but end at 10pm like everything else, not 12:15am!” added another, referencing the special late-night noise permit.

That distinction — between economic revival and civic fairness — sits at the heart of Reno’s tension over Jacobs’ downtown dominance.

City Hall’s Permit Problem

Ordinarily, city code restricts outdoor amplified sound to 10 p.m. and 75 decibels at the boundary. According to Reno Municipal Code §8.23.085, violations of those limits constitute a misdemeanor offense.

Yet, residents who called the non-emergency police line were told that officers had no authority to intervene — because the J Resort’s event was permitted. That admission confirmed what many residents already suspected: Reno’s enforcement rules apply to everyone except Jacobs Entertainment.

I spoke with a neighbor who is active in the community, and he told me that the police received hundreds of calls from as far as 3 miles away, but they didn’t take any action. Some people had to stop work and go home early due to the noise.

Apparently, the city council members are not responsive either, and they side with Jacobs over the residents.

Downtown Soccer Fields are the New Neon Line Distraction but Where is the Infrastructure?

A Pattern of Exceptions

Jacobs’ representatives have routinely described their projects as “revitalization efforts,” promising jobs, art, and nightlife. But critics — including long-time residents of the Old Southwest and West 4th Street corridor — say the company’s dominance has come at the expense of community livability.

One former city events coordinator commented online: “Getting around the 10 p.m. noise ordinances used to be impossible. The neighborhood notifications took major priority with the city. It’s sad to see we’ve been sold out… again.”

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

Residents Plan to Take Action

One commenter encouraged others to attend the next Reno City Council meeting on Tuesday, November 12, at 10:00 a.m., urging citizens to demand an end to late-night outdoor concerts and stricter noise monitoring at the J Resort.

Residents say they plan to file formal complaints and push for the revocation or amendment of the J Resort’s CUP if future noise violations occur.

You can contact the city council members:

Hillary Schieve, schieveh@reno.gov, (775) 334-2001

Kathleen Taylor, Ward 1, Taylork@reno.gov, (775) 334-2016

Naomi Duerr, Ward 2, duerrn@reno.gov, (775) 334-4636

Miguel Martinez, Ward 3, martinezm@reno.gov, (775) 334-2012

Meghan Ebert, Ward 4, ebertm@reno.gov, (775) 334-2015

Devon Reese, Ward 5, reesed@reno.gov, (775) 691-2996

Brandi Anderson Ward 6, andersonb@reno.gov, (775) 334-2011

The Bigger Question

How did a company that promised “no excessive noise” end up shaking homes three miles away? And why does the City of Reno — a city that once enforced strict sound limits — appear powerless to protect its residents from abuse or not to care?

Suppose Jacobs Entertainment and the City Council want to maintain public trust, they’ll need to explain how a permitted event turned into a citywide disturbance — and they need to fix the problem.