Jumping the Gun with Jacobs
A frustrating lack of information on key proposals and projects
Happy fall, everyone, and apologies for the extended time between posts. In addition to my historical consulting work, I teach an online graduate course in Nonfiction Writing for ASU twice a year, but with the fall session ending, we’re back in business.
The Reno City Council meets next on October 13. The agenda and materials aren’t yet available, but at that meeting and in the weeks to come, the Council—and by extension, the public—will be faced with some major decisions that could have an enduring impact on the appearance, function, and image of significant portions of Reno’s city center, and who those spaces will be built and branded to welcome.
I write a lot about the need for transparency in government, for the public to be informed about important decisions being made by those who represent them. And that means a lot more than just conducting business in public meetings where residents have an opportunity for a three-minute comment. It also means providing the public with the information they need to understand and weigh in on those deliberations well in advance of them. After all, it’s hard for City Council to represent the public they were elected to serve if that public is left without critical information until late in the game. Which brings me to my first topic.
The Jacobs Entertainment Development Agreement
The news just dropped on Friday (October 1) that a new Development Agreement (DA) between Jacobs Entertainment and the City of Reno will be reviewed by City Council on October 13, which is right around the corner. Unfortunately, there is still no information about what that agreement will contain. Public notices were just posted in the vicinity of Jacobs’ properties on and around West 4th Street this past week with only the barest information about it.
If you can’t read it, the description says, "A request for a Development Agreement between the City of Reno, Reno Real Estate Development, LLC, and Reno Property Manager, LLC regarding the Reno Neon Light [sic] District--an area in downtown Reno bounded by Keystone Street to the west, West 5th Street to the north, West Street to the east, and West 2nd Street to the south. The proposed agreement provides financial incentives to the developer and sets development standards for properties within the Reno Neon Light [sic] District."
We’ve been waiting to see this Development Agreement since April, when Jacobs presented an earlier draft to City Council, something I wrote about in my April 13 and May 2 posts. Notice of its review at the October 13 City Council meeting also appeared in this week’s Current Development Projects email, with a link that takes you to the Accela website, where project applications are posted. The place to look for a new application is under “Attachments” (which you can see when you click on “Record Info”) but there’s no new information there, just technical descriptions of the 78 parcels that Jacobs says they own or control and an application from February relating to their special events space. And back in August, City Councilmember Naomi Duerr clearly conveyed her understanding to Jacobs rep Garrett Gordon that any Development Project proposed by Jacobs should first be discussed in a public workshop (you can view that exchange here). So what gives?
Issuing a public notice and a link that provide no information about what this DA will actually contain seems irresponsible at best. Without it, we are left to glean what we can from the notice itself, which indicates that the area covered by the agreement would be smaller that that suggested by the initial proposal (which would have extended it all the way north to Interstate 80), and that it will involve both financial incentives to Jacobs (what kind?) and development standards for the area (like what?).
I’m really hoping we can see the full agreement before the full staff reports are posted (that usually happens on the Friday before a Wednesday meeting) so we can all have time to read and digest it. I’ll write up another Brief as soon as I have.
The language refers to the “developer” and of course a “Development Agreement” implies development, but we still have no idea what Jacobs actually plans to build. Of course, the gaming company has been actively marketing what they have termed the “Neon Line District” through their own marketing initiatives, including a website with images of the Sands Regency and Gold Dust West, a lot of flashy signs and relocated sculptures, and the single motel they renovated into apartments.
There’s not yet any more to it, except a very long wall lit up with neon-colored LED (not neon) lights. But in what has to be the most questionable marketing decision I’ve ever seen from them, our local and state tourism agencies are already promoting the “Neon Line District” as a fait accompli. Check out this page on the Travel Nevada site, the State of Nevada’s official tourism website. I’ll include a screen shot below.
Here, the Reno Neon Light District is already being promoted as a peer of the Reno Midtown District and Fleischmann Planetarium. But it’s what you see after you click on that link where things really get surreal. The text on Travel Nevada’s Reno Neon Line District page reads like a Jacobs Entertainment press release:
“Soon to be brimming with historic neon signs, Burning Man art, new hotels, retail stores and restaurants, the reimagination of downtown Reno continues with the Reno Neon Line. A vision of Jacobs Entertainment, this storied stretch of the Lincoln Highway is one of the largest redevelopment projects of its kind, transforming worn properties into a new pedestrian-friendly Reno arts district spanning an impressive 20 city blocks in downtown Reno.”
That breathless promise of things to come (that yet are not) is followed by this:
I’ve written before about the “stealth marketing” campaign to brand the “Reno Neon Line District” into existence but this goes beyond branding, describing “20 blocks” of attractions that literally are not there, and saying that “Jacobs Entertainment plans to complete Reno’s Neon Line by Summer 2021, unveiling a $1 billion mixed-use development,” something that obviously has not occurred. The website describes this supposed 20-block “district” soon to be (but not quite yet) chock full of attractions.
Even the VisitRenoTahoe.com website, produced by the Reno-Sparks Convention and Visitors Authority, suggests that visitors can find Burning Man sculptures scattered throughout an entire “district” from Interstate 80 to West Second Street, which is completely untrue.
It’s abundantly clear that Jacobs has major aspirations to be a branded district and a major tourist attraction. And if they actually become one, they should by all means market that. But you can’t just make things up, and it’s hard to understand why our tourism agencies would jump the gun like this, with their own credibility at stake.
Jacobs Entertainment Street and Alley Abandonment Request
Speaking of jumping the gun, another request from Jacobs is making its way through the City. This one would have the City of Reno abandon the public rights-of-way surrounding a number of properties the company has assembled on West Second Street, apparently without any specific project slated to be built there, simply the desire to control all the contiguous parcels and public space in advance of a potential residential project that they claim they will be developing themselves.
These abandonments surround the Nelson Building, the building most recently owned by UNR that Jacobs purchased a few years ago after a plan to convert it into a new home for the Nevada Historical Society fell through. The application can be accessed through the Accela website here. Click on the “Record Info” button, and select “Attachments.” The application appears as a PDF.
Here, Jacobs is requesting that the City abandon and grant to them Church Lane, the short section of Stevenson Street extending north of Second Street, and a 20-foot alleyway—a total area of 23,106 square feet. This abandonment would allow the company to control everything from Arlington Avenue (beginning with the former site of the Town House Lodge) to Ralston Street, with the exception of one parcel that the company does not own or control and would offer an easement.
I made a short video of the area in question, which you can view here. These proposed abandonments are scheduled for a presentation at the Ward 1 meeting on October 14 and for a City Council hearing on November 10, according to the September 17 Current Developments memo (see here). Abandonments of streets and public rights-of-way don’t have to go through the Planning Commission, and the City Council technically has to make only one finding: that the general public will not be materially injured by the abandonment.
But in this case there is no project, just stated intent. The City should have learned by now that they should never abandon a public right-of-way unless a specific project—one with plans and investors and a timeline—requires it. Intentions may be good, but plans and promises can fall through, leaving the City—and the public—with neither assets nor access. The application states that the Applicant “intends to construct” the residential development, so let’s see the plans before we give more City property away.
The Virginia Street “Urban Placemaking Study”
Just a quick update on this one, which I wrote about in my September 6 post. The City of Reno issued a Request for Qualifications with a due date of October 27, which you can view here. You can only see the full Request as a Prospective Bidder but it should be pretty close to what the City Council approved in September, which you can view here. You can view all of the firms identified as Prospective Bidders here.
My chief concern with this placemaking study, which is being jointly funded with RTC Washoe, is that the notion here is to try to enhance the “sense of place” of an area that has become problematic and unappealing as the result of decisions made by private property owners. While there are parts of the delineated area that are clearly public, most notably the City Plaza between City Hall and the river and the CitiCenter site (the former transit station) most of the problem lies squarely with private property—something the City has little control over.
What will be absolutely critical for the firm that acquires this contract is to embrace the broadest possible view of who constitutes “stakeholders” when it comes to downtown’s public spaces. Defining those stakeholders as “people who own property there,” can be a very limiting constituency when trying to determine what the people of the City truly want to see in the downtown spaces that ostensibly belong to them. So that means some truly substantial public engagement, not just a survey or two.
The Downtown Reno Partnership meeting on October 7
Speaking of downtown property owners, the Downtown Reno Partnership will be holding a town hall on October 7 that the public can attend, either in person or via Zoom. The DRP is the city’s only Business Improvement District (BID) and its membership is confined to downtown property owners. But its staff have been transparent in sharing what they know and do and are interested in accomplishing. The October 7 meeting will focus on Economic Development, including “recent efforts by developers and the Downtown Reno Partnership to continue building and investing in downtown,” and “updates on the general progress of the Partnership and future projects.” You can register here for free, but you do have to RSVP in advance.
The Redistricting of Reno’s Wards
The first community information session to discuss the redistricting of City of Reno Government municipal wards was held on Thursday, September 23 via Zoom (the recording is available). Boundaries of City wards are adjusted in accordance with the census in order to better equalize the number of constituents each Councilmember represents, and the changes are made through the adoption of an ordinance by a City Council majority. You can view information on the process and guiding principles, and the entire meeting calendar on this page. The next meeting is October 7.
Ethics Allegations against Councilmember Bonnie Weber
In case you missed it, Ward 4 Reno City Councilmember Bonnie Weber is under scrutiny from the Nevada Commission on Ethics, which will hold a public hearing on October 20 to determine whether she violated state ethics rules. Issues of concern include whether she accepted gifts that would “improperly influence” her decisions regarding major development in her ward, as well as improper use of government time, property, equipment or resources, and staff for personal gain. You can read the full story from the RGJ here.
That’s it for now. As always, you can view my previous e-newsletters, with more context, analysis, and tips, on my Substack site. I want to express my deep appreciation for everyone who has contributed to my Venmo account @Dr-Alicia-Barber. I have big plans in the works, and your support will help me get there. Thanks for reading and have a great week!