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.

Devon Reese with his supporters, Chief Nance on the left, Naomi Duerr, and Mayor Schieve on the right.

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.