PHOTO/FRANK X. MULLEN: Jacobs Entertainment bought 19 old motels and demolished them. Facsimiles of some of those motels' neon signs are now part of Glow Plaza in the Neon Line District development area.
Alicia Barber.

Construction is definitely on the upswing in Reno, everywhere from the heart of downtown to the edges of city limits. And although some of those projects might take residents by surprise, most are allowed “by right,” requiring only review by city staff to ensure conformance with the existing land development code.

Other projects require some form of “discretionary review,” where the Planning Commission and/or City Council evaluates them with respect to certain findings before they can move forward. These are generally projects that hold the potential to significantly impact the area around them. Discretionary review provides the opportunity not just to vote such projects up or down, but to add conditions to lessen or eliminate any negative effects.

Most developers naturally oppose what they consider burdensome public review, hoping to avoid project delays and potentially costly plan revisions. And in recent years, the city has taken many steps to accommodate them, minimizing levels of review for certain categories of projects, often in the name of “streamlining” or “reducing red tape.”

It’s a troubling trend. Reducing public review of major development projects greatly diminishes the city’s ability to safeguard the public good.

For example, the Kimpton Hotel soon to commence construction on the south bank of the Truckee benefited from a 2019 Council decision to overturn a prohibition against constructing any building that could cast significant shade over downtown parks or plazas. An alternative presented but not chosen would have required such projects to undergo discretionary review to address their potential impact. Freed of those constraints, the 20-story project went straight to the permitting stage.

In September 2020, City Council overhauled Reno’s policy regarding development agreements, mandating their public review by the council alone, despite the Planning Commission’s request to review them first. Accordingly, in October 2021, the council singlehandedly reviewed and approved the development agreement with Jacobs Entertainment, with staff scheduling a public meeting only after the fact.

Substantive review by relevant public bodies enables more informed decision-making. In November 2021, City Council voted to change the name of North Center Street to University Way, after hearing only inaccurate historical justifications from the applicant, UNR. An updated policy for renaming city facilities and streets had been initiated by the City Manager’s Office in 2020, generating a draft that would require all such requests to be reviewed by the Historical Resources Commission (HRC). And yet although that policy was ready to adopt, and even referenced in public comment, the council approved the change without soliciting input from the HRC, any historians, or the public.

Finally, around 2018, the city dissolved the Redevelopment Agency Advisory Board (RAAB), which for decades reviewed matters concerning the city’s redevelopment areas and advised City Council in their capacity as the Board of the Reno Redevelopment Agency. Its absence has further reduced public oversight and discussion of Council actions.

It’s a troubling trend. Reducing public review of major development projects greatly diminishes the city’s ability to safeguard the public good. To support responsible levels of review isn’t to oppose development; it’s a critical step to ensure that what gets built in Reno truly benefits those who live here.

Alicia Barber is a professional historian, consultant, and the author of Reno’s Big Gamble: Image and Reputation in the Biggest Little City. Her digital newsletter, The Barber Brief, analyzing urban development in Reno, can be viewed at

Alicia Barber is a professional historian, consultant, and the author of Reno’s Big Gamble: Image and Reputation in the Biggest Little City. Her digital newsletter, The Barber Brief, analyzing urban...

Join the Conversation


  1. Interesting article, so much change happening so fast makes my head spin. As a Reno native, I’ve been saddened to see entire city blocks razed for single-level parking lots, or just for landscaping. All the poor people kicked out of weekly motels can’t afford the expensive new housing that has replaced their last and only affordable option. I’m baffled by many of the decisions our City Council has made and I wish I had more time to be involved. Looking forward to electing a new mayor! Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

  2. We always hope it is true that development benefits the citizens. The new project at S. McCarran at Lakeside is NOT one of those projects. Traffic (when in the world did they do a traffic survey as the traffic is backed up to Greensboro often….) is already difficult at Lakeside. These luxury units will benefit the continuous in migration to our city and benefits those who sell their pricey homes elsewhere to live more cheaply here. So they will build it and they will come. We need affordable middle class housing. On NPR radio a Reno, NV garage installer talked about the expensive specialty garage doors he is putting in and the fact he could not buy a house for his family.

  3. I agree with the author wholeheartedly. Monitoring leadership is like baby-sitting; a thankless task. It’s unfathomable that a private hotel will be allowed to interrupt the shoreline along downtown Reno’s Single Greatest Asset – the Truckee River. And the general out of control real estate development and, for all intents and purposes, takeover of Reno by major corporations and techo-rich individuals, just because Reno was once more affordable than other attractive cities, is beyond sinful – it’s criminal. PS. Does the homeless population realize the hotel visitors won’t want to look out their windows, or sit on their balconies, and see Them? Further, will the hotel visitors know that the rooms they are occupying are unaffordable for a vast number of Reno citizens and that the lifestyles those visitors lead is part of the problem – and not the solution – to the climate crisis that is putting pressure on the sustainability of our regional natural resources like clean water and clean air?

  4. I support the author’s opinion and the follow-up comments. I participated in hearings prior to the wreaking of development safeguards. Some issues were controversial and the planning commission educated as well as determined whether a project followed the master plan. Greed has given power to developers leaving the city residents spinning wondering what happened. Where are the benefits for residents who worked on that master plan? I hope an investigative person can uncover how the mayor sanctioned such irresponsible development.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *