Brief Digest: September 4, 2022

The Latest Developments in Development

Sep 04, 2022

Greetings on a beautiful Labor Day Weekend, a time of reflection and appreciation for all those who labor, and for all of those who have labored to improve the lives of workers everywhere. I salute and thank you. And if you’d like a quick reminder of why we observe this holiday, here’s the rundown from the U.S. Department of Labor.

Today I bring you something a little different—a new feature that I’m calling the Brief Digest, to appear between longer analyses. Consider it a sort of grab bag with links to some of the development-related stories in the news over the past week or so. I’m likely to return to several of these topics for deeper scrutiny at a future date, but in the meantime, I just want to make sure you’re aware of them.

The Micromobility Pilot Project

Starting us off, Kim Burrows of News4 did a piece this week on the Micromobility Pilot Project currently in place on sections of Virginia and Fifth Streets. The piece is titled “Not everyone likes Reno's downtown road design for bicycle pilot project” and it offers some valuable perspectives as well as a reminder that the City is seeking community input on this experimental reconfiguration for just another month or so.

This weekend offers a perfect opportunity to head downtown and experience the temporary setup for yourself. After you do, be sure to fill out the City’s survey about it, which you can find here. It’s important that you actually visit the sites, using whatever means of transportation you favor—bicycle, vehicle, e-scooter, wheelchair, motorcycle, your own two feet, etc., since the survey is geared toward users of all modes, and the survey can only be as successful as the breadth of its respondents. (I’m concerned in particular that it will be lacking in perspectives from visitors, who are frequent users of the downtown streets but seem unlikely to fill out a City survey, even if they knew about it—especially if driving through).

The City and the Howell House

Several issues in the news this week raise questions about the processes by which decisions about City property and facilities are made. If you’ve been reading the Brief, you know that that’s been an ongoing concern of mine, from major changes being made to the City Plaza (skate park, grass removal, sculpture acquisition) to the fate of historic properties like the Lear Theater and spaces like the CitiCenter site (the former bus station across Center Street from the National Bowling Stadium).

We start with the site of City-owned land at the far west end of Riverside Drive. A proposal was made last fall to make it the new home of a historic house soon to be displaced by the expansion of the Nevada Museum of Art. It’s a 1915 residence I call the Howell House (see Reno Historical entry here), also known as the Sinai Mansion.

The RGJ’s Mark Robison penned two related articles on the situation last week: an overview and a separate timeline. As I wrote on the Brief’s Facebook page (if you’re on FB, give it a follow), the sequence of events here is frustrating. Nancy Gilbert has been working with the museum on finding a new home for the house since 2019. After looking first at private parcels, she submitted an initial proposal to the City last fall to move it to the city-owned parcel on Riverside Drive. City staff, including the now-former Revitalization Manager (who lost his job for unrelated reasons a few months into their discussions) worked with Gilbert for months, but then she was told the City had received another expression of interest in the site, and that City Council would have to weigh the options in a public meeting.

The Council deliberation part is not a surprise—as I reminded readers in my last post, City Council is responsible for determining the disposition of City land. The problem is that staff didn’t take Gilbert’s proposal to Council until just last month, making it nearly impossible for them to discuss, deliberate, and decide on their preferred use for the site in time to meet the museum’s construction timeline. And the process by which they might even make that decision remained largely undefined.

Since City-owned parcels are regularly offered to various entities without opening them up to competing offers, it seems important for the City to clearly outline the process governing such matters. How long (if at all) should City staff work behind the scenes on a proposal for City property before bringing the matter to Council? And what are the City’s priorities when choosing to dispose of land? The time seems ripe to formalize this process in order to avoid future situations like this one, where confusion over process and priorities may have contributed to the senseless demolition of yet another historic structure. (And if you have any other ideas for the Howell House, please let me know and I’ll pass them along.)

In related news, the City issued an announcement on Thursday afternoon: “City of Reno names new Revitalization Manager.” New hire Bryan McCardle is known to many in town, coming directly from EDAWN, where he has been the VP of Entrepreneurial Development. As the City indicates, part of his job is to “develop and implement strategies for the revitalization of deteriorated properties within the City and manage the City’s property program.” Formalizing the process regarding City property in order to make it fair and transparent seems like a good place to start.

More Bad Faith in the Powning Addition

On the subject of senseless destruction, Jesse Stone of the Reno News & Review had a gut-wrenching story this week titled “Neighbors couldn’t save 100-year-old elms from Riverside apartment development” and it’s equal parts tragic and infuriating.

I’ve written at length about this apartment project under construction on Riverside Drive, and thought that we had at least understood the extent of its future impact on the neighborhood, the historic Powning Conservation District. Unfortunately, that was not the case. An alarmed neighbor first alerted me that the 100-year-old elms on the north side of the apartment project, which to this point had been retained in place, were suddenly being chopped down. The developers claim they had no choice but to cut through the roots of the majestic trees in order to build a new sidewalk, while Councilmember Naomi Duerr and others strongly disagree, saying that many other options were available to them. Once they did the deed, however, the City arborist agreed that the trees had now become a falling hazard, and down they came.

Public Outcry about Paradise Park

Back to the subject of City property and public process, there was major outcry this past week upon the City’s sudden announcement of its decision to oust senior programs from the public facility at Paradise Park and lease the building to a non-profit organization instead. Bob Conrad from This is Reno first laid out the situation on August 30 in “Seniors outraged over potential change to Paradise Park facility.” As with the Riverside parcel, this seems a situation where a private entity entered into discussions with the City about use of a City property, and in this case, the City went ahead and made an arrangement with them without any public notice or even discussion with the group most affected: senior citizens. They didn’t even discuss it in advance with their own Senior Citizen Advisory Committee.

After massive public outcry, the City released a statement on September 1st announcing it was reversing course, stating, “We have evaluated the initial feedback and determined that more research and community input is needed before developing long-term plans for both Teglia’s Paradise Park and Teglia’s Paradise Park Activity Center.” More coverage on that reversal followed from both Mark Robison of the Reno Gazette-Journal and Bob Conrad of This is Reno, and the City has created a webpage for further announcements about the park here.

I’m hoping that this can at last finally serve as unequivocal proof of the need for the City to curtail what has in recent years become an unfortunate pattern of unilateral decision-making that I laid out in last November’s post, “Public Process in Crisis.” It’s beyond time to once again embrace its responsibility and obligation to consult with its own citizen advisory committees and commissions on topics pertaining to their areas of expertise and interest prior to making decisions in those arenas. Those groups are the conduit by which residents learn what the City is considering and by which the City is supposed to be learning what residents interested in those areas think and want. And if you missed that post last year, here’s a little refresh for you.

The Barber Brief

Public Process in Crisis

As longtime readers know, The Barber Brief rests on the fundamental premise that public engagement is critical to a functioning city. A healthy system of public engagement demonstrates a city’s commitment to inclusion and equity, transparency, and thorough deliberation, and ensures that our local government is truly representative of (and accountable to…

3 years ago · 10 likes · 7 comments · Alicia Barber

Ideas for the National Bowling Stadium

Mayor Hillary Schieve appeared this past week on Sam Shad’s broadcast Nevada Newsmakers where she introduced a new idea for another public facility, the National Bowling Stadium, proposing that it become a new home for esports and be renamed the Wolf Pack Bowl. The broadcast was accompanied by an article written by Ray Hagar that was picked up by the Reno Gazette-Journal and provides a link to the video.

It isn’t clear to me whether this idea was previously introduced in any public meeting or if it’s one of those situations where various leaders discuss an idea in private and decide to introduce it to the public for the first time through the media. Improved public access to meetings of the Reno-Sparks Convention & Visitors Authority (RSCVA) would help supply an answer to that, and that itself was the subject of media coverage this week in Bob Conrad’s This is Reno story, “RSCVA denies online access to its board meetings.”

Ward 5 Reno City Council Appointment

City Council’s imminent appointment of a new Ward 5 City Councilmember got a lot of coverage this week. Kristen Hackbarth of This is Reno provided info on some of the candidates’ experiences and connections in “Ward 5 city council finalists raise red flags”. Conor McQuivey of the Renoites podcast interviewed all three finalists for the Ward 5 seat, accessible via the main Renoites page to access those. And Faith Evans of the Reno Gazette-Journal reported on the August 30 meet & greet between the finalists and Reno residents in the story “Reno’s Ward 5 finalists Goff, Malin, Taylor talk affordable housing, public safety at Q&A”. Recall that City Council will conduct its own interviews and make that appointment in a Special Meeting on September 7. Be sure to submit your input in advance, keeping in mind that whatever other attributes and experience the candidates bring to the table, the job is above all to represent the residents of Ward 5, so their ability to do so effectively should be the primary concern.

Development Projects Slated for Review

Also out last week was a new edition of the City’s Current Development Projects Submitted August 22, 2022. It’s a great service, and worth your attention. Remember to sign up on this page to have these delivered directly to your email inbox.

Lastly, a word of gratitude. I was honored this week to learn that Frank Mullen of the Reno News & Review had designated me a Staff Pick in the annual Best of Northern Nevada 2022 Awards as “Best Citizen Journalist.”

This nod from an esteemed journalist like Frank means so much to me. I feel a deep kinship with all those who seek to contextualize and inform for the sake of public betterment, and I want to make sure as many people are possible are reading and watching their work, so please click those links above, read and view their reports, and let your representatives know what you think about the topics they address.

As for me, I write the Brief because I can’t not write it, because these are the issues that keep me up at night. I write because I’ve studied Reno’s development and worked with Reno government long enough to know that our leaders as much as our fellow residents can use the context and analysis that my background enables me to provide. It’s important to me to be accessible to everyone, which is why the Brief is free, but I am so grateful for the kind words and encouragement I’ve been sent, and I thank each and every one of you for reading, writing to me, and forwarding your support.

That’s it for today. As always, you can view this and prior newsletters on my Substack site and follow the Brief (and contribute to the ongoing conversation) on Twitter, Facebook & Instagram. If you feel inspired to contribute to my efforts, my Venmo account is @Dr-Alicia-Barber and you can mail checks, if you like, to Alicia Barber at P.O. Box 11955, Reno, NV 89510. Thanks so much for reading, and have a great week.