Devon Reese met Valerie Truce and Steve Wolgast for coffee Friday morning. This was partly an opportunity to understand his vote supporting the Daybreak development (after the developer sued the city) and partly an opportunity to get to know him. Since he was appointed rather than elected, he did not introduce himself to the voters.
Council member Reese made the following assertions.
- While the neighbors of Wards 2 & 3 were persuasive, he heard from other people who wanted to have the project move forward. He didn’t tell us who those were who did not express themselves in public. Devon also stated he had many comments on form letters from those who don’t live in Reno. He said it was a “balancing act” to judge all the comments he’d received.
- Reese thinks information isn’t adequately shared on issues before the city council meetings. Since the Open Meeting Law prohibits the council from meeting in private, he feels like information comes out as a surprise at public meetings.
- He encouraged the neighbors’ activism claiming that their advocacy had a significant impact on Daybreak. The number of homes was reduced. There will be more open space. Less building in the most sensitive area for drainage.
- He thinks that Planned Unit Development (PUD) approvals should expire. He does not like to see zombie projects that remain on the books long after their approval.
- Reese expects the Army Corps of Engineers and FEMA reviews of Daybreak will force additional changes which will likely improve it.
- Reese has confidence in the engineering reports even though these are paid for by developers and have been frequently called into question. He has faith in human nature that engineers would not produce a misleading report for a client.
- Reese doesn’t think it was an ethical lapse to hire Angela Fuss from a developer to head Reno’s planning department. He is confident she is working in the best interests of the city.
- Reese claims that there are many bad projects that never get to the city council and that the council doesn’t have a record of consistently approving questionable projects.
- He does not think the other city council members are motivated by campaign contributions or other venal motives. He would not be swayed by a developer who contributed $500 to his campaign. He said “Developers are the only ones contributing to local campaigns.”
- He is motivated to serve in public office as a matter of public service. He wants to build bridges and form consensus. He wants to improve the quality of life for area residents.
- He will stand for election in 2020 for this “at large” city council seat. He expects to run an expensive campaign that might cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.
- He will continue his legal practice if elected. His practice involved union suits.
Valerie is hopeful:
- Reese stated he values science.
- Reese stated he believes in public service.
- Reese stated, “I build bridges and find common ground.”
- Reese is opposed to renewing the zombie projects indefinitely.
- Citizen activists need to remind Reese of those words. It’s important they align with his actions.
Steve is skeptical.
- Who are all the “people” that contacted him in favor of Daybreak? It is unlikely that they were residents seeking to buy a home in a floodplain. Any calls he got in support of Daybreak were likely from developers, builders, realtors, and others with a financial stake. Steve had a flashback to President Nixon claiming that there was a “silent majority” supporting the Vietnam war.
- As an experienced attorney and a politician (he ran for Nevada Senate in 2016), his faith and confidence in human nature is hardly credible. He was dismissive of specific examples of fraudulent traffic and hydrology reports. He wants the neighbors to prove the fallacy of the engineering reports to him, rather than take a skeptical view himself. His legal skepticism seems directed toward the neighbors.
- He encourages neighbors to continue to advocate through the “public comment” time in meetings and by contacting council members. The implication is that he does not want them to take more direct action to effect change. This works for the status quo which is to say it works for the developers.
- He might not be swayed by a developer who contributed $500 to his campaign. But, he might well be swayed by the developers as a whole denying his campaign tens of thousands in contributions if his decisions aren’t seen as “favorable”.
- The development projects that go to the Neighborhood Advisory Boards and the Citizens Advisory Boards generally go to the Planning Commission. It is implausible that there are many bad projects that are secretly denied.
“There are conditions of blindness so voluntary that they become complicity.” Paul Bourget, 1892
Council member Reese is new to the city council, so there’s little to use as a basis to understand him. He may be a complex person with deeply held views whose actions are hard to interpret. If you assume that he is an ambitious politician who seeks contributions from developers to win an expensive election, then his votes make sense. This also explains his criticism of council members who are skeptical of developer claims.
PS Reese has since joined the new Reno office of the Las Vegas law firm of Hutchison and Steffen practicing primarily in area of civil litigation.
great article steve you just found the wolf in sheeps clothing and as a citizen of reno I cannot thank you enough
jenny brekus for mayor!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great post, Steve. As the un-official WRAP campaign finance researcher, I checked Mr. Reese’s 2019 appointment Financial Disclosure Statement on the NV Secretary of State website. He has only filed one statement for 2019, in March after he was appointed to RCC. Other RCC and WCC members have received tens of thousands of dollars in collective developer and associated business interest donations, on a QUARTERLY basis so NO reason to think that Reese won’t benefit from donations of the same magnitude.
If we Washoe Residents could match donations of this magnitude, would our elected representatives start to take OUR interests (public health, infrastructure upgrades, schools, traffic, fire safety, etc) seriously, and vote in OUR favor?
I’m definitely skeptical of him as from the way he talks he’s definitely not for the constituents. Time will tell if he’s going to be just like all the other city council members or will he actually March to his own beat and stand with the constituents.
Please remember that the City of Reno has a requirement that they have to report campaign contributions quarterly. This is seperate from the Secretary of State. The most recent reporting was in October. Those can be accessed by a public records request to the City Clerk.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What did Reese’s October report of campaign donations show?
I haven’t checked…..
Reese is exactly what the city council wanted as well as Fuss. Thank God I live in the County. It’s not perfect but it’s one hell of alot better than the City of Reno. ( Gotham City) The Jokers are running it.
Go Steve !
Reese has made all the double talk statements required to now go out and do exactly as he pleases. He will provide the sub dividers and business population with exactly what they ask for and paid for with their contributions.
We have a problem similar to the outlying areas of the state when it comes to representation by politicians. As Gov. Steve Sisolak said: Other than Las Vegas and Reno the rest of the state did not support us in the election,” They Can Go To Hell”.
Excellent work! Thank you for all you do.!
Pingback: WRAP Election Edition 2020 | Washoe Residents for Appropriate Planning