The Daybreak project faced strong opposition from residents.  It brings an increased hazard of flooding, a potential for widespread Mercury contamination, and gridlock-traffic.  Residents presented detailed arguments with maps and analysis at each step.  See the Daybreak history page for details and links.

• 7/19/18 The project is approved by the Reno Planning Commission.
•  9/11/18 The city council first postponed (continued) a decision.
• 11/28/18 The city council voted to deny the project.
• 2/16/19 The developer sues the city.
• 3/5/19 The developer submits the project in pieces to the Neighborhood Advisory Board.
• 8/26/19 The developer’s suit is settled placing restrictions on Reno.
• 9/23/19 The city council voted to approve the project after the developer went to court and got a judgement limiting the city’s options.  It did not oblige the city to approve it.
• 10/23/19 The project approval is challenged at its second reading.
• The project was approved by the regional planning authority (TMRPA).
• 6/11/20 Residents then appealed the decision of the planning authority to the regional governing board.  The board voted to approve the project.

It was a long haul.  For the officials who supported the project, it was a source of public embarrassment.  They supported a terrible project that clearly presented a threat to public safety.  It looks like they got compensation for their … uh, service.  See what they got from the Daybreak developer and related interests in the last quarter.

Delgado;

• • $10k from Newport Pacific Land (Daybreak) ,
  • $10k Lyon Management Group (Newport Beach builder)
  • $5500 from AGC (local contractors)
  • $5k from Reno Land LLC [not Daybreak]

Nevada Secretary of State report

Jardon;

• • $10k from Newport Pacific Land (Daybreak) ,
  • $10k Lyon Management Group (Newport Beach builder)
  • $5k from Reno Land LLC  [not Daybreak]

Nevada Secretary of State report

Reese;

• • $10k from Newport Pacific Land (Daybreak)
  • $10k from NPC Investors (Newport Beach)
  • $4.5k from Wood Rogers (Daybreak Planning)
  • $10k from Lyon Management Group (Newport Beach builder)
  • $5k from AGC PAC

Nevada Secretary of State report

Apparently, there were no Daybreak contributions to Mayor Schieve who voted for the project at one point and against it later.  Schieve voted for a continuance which is what the developer requested, not for the project itself.  There were no contributions to council member Weber who is the most outspoken supporter of all development.  Neither of them are up for election this year.  We may see a contribution from Daybreak for the next election.

Prostitution is legal in Lyon County.  It looks like prostitution by officials is thriving in Reno.

It might be time for a RICO (Racketeering-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) investigation of the Reno City Council.

The “Shameless” post seems to represent the character of these officials.

When it comes to the city council or the county commission, concerned residents have explained, pressured, embarrassed, and shamed officials of these bodies to no avail.  Most of these officials are shameless.  They are either wholly owned by the special interests, or they act like they are wholly owned by the special interests.  It’s possible that they have some obscure underlying motive.  The maxim “It’s the exception that proves the rule.” applies here too.  Several officials consistently uphold the zoning and approval standards, but these officials can be counted on one hand.  Recent egregious decisions have only affirmed the base motives of the majority of our officials.

The Daybreak appeal before the Regional Planning Board:

• The flood control measures proposed were implausible.  The developer even admitted that  their scheme would increase the flood risk to downstream neighbors.
• The Mercury testing was completely inadequate.  It appeared to be designed to miss known Mercury contamination sites on their property.
• The traffic study was misleading at best, but probably outright fraudulent.  It used limited data from 2010 when data from 2017 was available.

In the face of these facts, voting with the developer were Abbot, Bybee, Hartung, Lawson, Reese, and Weber.

The Meridian 120 Appeal before the Reno City Council:

• The community hired a traffic consultant that concluded that the developer-commissioned report substantially underestimated the traffic increase.
• The infrastructure needed is lacking to support this development.
• Funding for the new fire station is obviously inadequate.
• There is no secondary fire access.

In the face of these facts, voting with the developer were Delgado, Jardon, Reese, Schieve, and Weber.

The conclusions are inescapable: it’s black and white.  Some neighbors will say “We need to explain to our council member (or commissioner) why this development is a bad idea.”   This is the honorable approach, but the few true public servants understand the issues.  The others understand that they are the servants of the developers and that these concerns don’t matter to their campaign contributions (Reno Swamp).

The carefully reasoned arguments along with the detailed research and expert reviews have almost no impact on official decisions.  “The fix is in.”  It’s time to look for other avenues to block the dangerous and destructive development that gets a rubber stamp from the majority of our elected officials.  There are avenues to block these plans through the courts.  There are also some political challengers that would not be the servants of the developers.  Some of the challengers are no better than the incumbents: they just want their “turn at the trough”.

The way the Nevada statutes (NRS) are written, it’s impossible for residents to petition for judicial review of an arbitrary decision by the city council or county commission if the planning commission decision favored the residents.  I propose a Bill Draft Request to correct the quirk in the statute.  So far, no state assembly or state senate member is willing to introduce it.