Back in my blogging days, before Twitter was really a thing, I used to enjoy liveblogging debates.  It's challenging when you have to manually time-stamp and constantly update your post, but it's also an exercise in really listening to what candidates say and assessing the depth (or lack thereof) of their ideas.  

I decided it would be a fun way to digest and comment on this week's Reno mayoral debate between incumbent Hillary Schieve and challenger Eddie Lorton, in a modified more column-y sort of way. So if you missed the debate because you went to Vegas to attend The Indy's event with Chuck Todd, here's the next best thing!

Pre-debate impressions

I live outside Reno city limits, so I won't be casting a vote in this race. But the result will affect me nonetheless.  

It's an interesting contest, because neither candidate fits neatly into a partisan mold.  I didn't vote for Schieve four years ago (when I did live in the city), but she's grown on me quite a bit and has always been gracious and engaged every time I've talked to her. Reno has changed a lot, more or less for the better, I think, since she's been in office, even if I don't agree with her on everything.

I've never met Lorton, who always comes off as sort of Trumpian (in ways both good and bad).  He's definitely the underdog in the race, as any challenger is when things seem to be moving in the right direction. He bills himself as more conservative – so can he win a guy like me over? I am curious to watch. If I could vote, I would be undecided, leaning toward Schieve.

As interested as I am, I despise modern political "debates." Their formats are so restrictive as to merely allow time for scripted talking points, with almost none of the back-and-forth engagement that makes policy discussions interesting and fruitful. And I hate the intrusive presence of moderators – not even high school debaters need one, and part of what one learns from a true debate is the ability of a candidate to engage with other strong willed competitors without a chaperone. Alas, we are stuck with the formats we have, not those we wish we had.  And so let's get to it…

Opening Statements

Lorton's opener was terrible and a wasted opportunity.  The candidates got five minutes each for it, which is a great chance (and an unusual one in a debate), but he wasted half of it inviting people to other events before getting to the reasons he's running. Even then, he identified issues only ever so vaguely. And he didn't really seem to have anything prepared. While I understand speaking off the cuff, incoherence is a bad way to begin.    

Schieve wasted her opening in a different way, with her story about how she got into politics. I like the story, but it's more suited to a stump speech. It took her time to get into her groove.  When she did, though, she ran down a laundry list of specific accomplishments, which is exactly what an incumbent should do. She's taking a little more credit than is due, particularly for things like the economic impact of Tesla, but what politician doesn't? What she can take credit for is not getting in the way of those big economic drivers like some more left leaning city leaders might be tempted to do, and by encouraging growth and development within the city.  

Housing crisis

Lorton wants to sell off surplus city-owned property in accordance with his "Reno 2022" plan, so developers can build housing, indicating he's already identified dozens of such properties he would seek to sell. If what Lorton is saying is true, the fact that he's done his homework on policy details is admirable. Plans never survive contact with the enemy, but having one is more than most politicians have.  And he's right about aggressively developing blight areas in the in the city core.

Schieve, after wasting time quibbling about the rules of the debate, accused Lorton of wanting to sell park land and attacked his plan from when he ran four years ago. She did a good job pointing out how selling everything off will be challenging and won't be the magic bullet that solves all of our problems as Lorton implies. But she didn't spend a lot of time describing her own plans with any detail either, even though she's been an aggressive promoter of new housing developments.  

The two started to get into it, back and forth about some of these details, and I was loving it.  But the moderator, the Reno Gazette-Journal's Anjeanette Damon, cut them off to get back to The Format, which makes me crazy. The best, most interesting debates flow organically, and when candidates bring up specific numbers in contention, voters are best served when some back-and-forth is allowed to bring those specific facts to the surface for true comparison. (Have I mentioned how I hate modern "debates"?) This is less a criticism of Damon specifically than of the way we all have come to expect these events to be run (which makes politicians who don't think on their feet well perfectly happy, too, which is why this is the format they all agree to do).  

Homelessness

Ah, my first high school debate topic. Sad how little has changed in 26 years. But I digress…

Schieve outlined several plans, focused on providing services to the homeless, noting that addiction is a major driver.  This is exactly right, but I'd be curious to know if the problem has getting better or worse during her tenure (it feels a little worse, but I don't go downtown much and I have no data to support that impression). She talks about compassion, and I agree again.  But compassion without accountability is damaging in the end, and a lack of accountability will always make addiction recovery programs fail. She didn't use all of her two minutes on this topic, which was frustrating – where are the details and numbers?

Lorton, after talking about redeveloping blight on the last topic, called Schieve the "Bulldozer Queen" (God, I hate the new trend of lame grade school nicknames for political opponents, even if it does seem to work) for tearing down "affordable housing" (by which he means blighted, barely habitable weekly motels too-present in our downtown). But he wants to "get out of the homeless business," leaving it to Washoe County or federal services, which is just unrealistic. I am intrigued, though, by his idea to shelter them on the outskirts of town, instead of in the core where all the vice and temptation is. On the other hand, it's Nevada, where my suburban grocery store has slot machines and cheaper booze than downtown…

Schieve responded to the "Buldozer Queen" by pointing out that Lorton's "affordable housing" were craptastic and unlivable motels, and are still too expensive. She's absolutely right about this. But neither of them got into the numbers, the efficacy of past programs, or any sort of detail that would have been helpful in seriously assessing how effective they will be on this important issue.  Sad.

Plans to develop low income housing?

Lorton indicated that it's a prime time to sell off property, creating a "glut" and lowering prices.  I think he underestimates just how much growth we're seeing, but I'm not a real estate expert. He's OK subsidizing some housing, but opposes rent control, which he correctly points out will backfire. He then goes into how everyone's property taxes are going to go up due to the city lobbying to pass SJR14, which could make property more expensive.  It's a fair point, but I suspect he's overstating the tax bill forecasts.

The mayor takes a completely different tack, attacking no-fault evictions. She's dead wrong on this, though – no property owners should be forced to keep any tenant indefinitely, particularly if they want to do something different with the property, and to do otherwise will discourage potential future developers and landlords from getting into the renting business in the first place. She then blames the Legislature for SJR14 and said she never voted to raise property taxes – ah, they all want to be conservative at election time!  

Lorton retorted that the city was lobbying the Legislature for a potential tax increase, which was smart, but then made a weird pivot to accusing Schieve of trying to change the city charter (true) to make herself a "dictator mayor" (false and ridiculous).

Strip Clubs

Schieve said she opposed forcing strip clubs out of downtown, saying she'd rather have them present and visible, not out of sight out of mind. She suggested that otherwise they'll stay gross and expand, and she doesn't want more strip clubs in the city. Lorton largely agreed.

I think they're both wrong. To me, it smacks of "I'd rather my high school kid have a kegger at my house so I can watch him." And the idea that any business not in the middle of downtown becomes ungovernable because city officials can't see them on their commute is not only absurd, but it speaks to the biggest argument against Schieve – that she doesn't appreciate that there is so, so much more to Reno than the 30-block radius around our famous Arch.  

Lorton used his rebuttal time to talk about "all businesses," attacking Waste Management for keeping out other potential competitors. That would have been a fantastic discussion to see evolve – but alas, The Debate Format must be obeyed instead.  

More parks and rec?

You have to give Eddie Lorton this – he has message discipline, once again talking about selling off excess and/or blighted property (is he going to seize and condemn them using eminent domain?) which he said would free up city employees to focus on parks. Every time he uses it as a solution, though, is seems less and less realistic. But he also added in a little Bernie Sanders, talking about how billionaire developers should be paying more of their share and then attacking tax incentives. He railed against the Aces ballpark (taxpayer subsidized), and although I am dubious about subsidized sports venues specifically and tax incentives for rich people generally, I think that ballpark has been a great community asset that has been a net gain for Reno. Not everything of value can be measured strictly in dollars and cents.  

Schieve responded from the right, arguing that tax breaks for rich developers will lead to more tax revenue in the long run from the developed properties, and she has a great point. After touting a new dog park, she mentioned spending millions on a "park plan" – but not the parks themselves? She was right to point out that the dismal state of our public city parks is the result of decades of neglect, and can't be fixed overnight.  

$450 million in city debt

Schieve badly whiffed the debt question when it should have been a highlight for her.  Incumbents who want to be retained should focus on successful trajectories when possible, and Reno's debt, while still high, has decreased appreciably while she's been in office (it was $534 million in 2015). That's a lot more helpful information for voters than bromides about "diligence" – why not get specific?

Lorton blamed Space Whales (the cost of public art, not cetacean alien invaders), and once again went back to his plan to sell off surplus properties. But like Schieve, he shied away from any solid numbers, or how he would increase the rate of improvement. He pointed out that developers have led the economic upswing, not the government, but then Schieve noted slyly that the economic incentives Lorton opposed for those developers led them to do the developing.  

Crime in the City

There's a lot of value in being tough on crime, but most "tough on crime" politicians are absurdly simplistic about law enforcement.  orton feel into this trap, and it was frustrating. "Enforcing the Law!" and moving homeless shelters to the outskirts of town is not sufficient.

Schieve's response was the mayor at her rhetorical best, discussing specific plans unfolding like her "downtown ambassadors" to serve as force multipliers for law enforcement who now get stuck being uniformed social workers. I love this sort of innovative thinking. And finally – stats!  Schieve said that violent crime is down three times the national average in city. Unfortunately, this simply isn't true – Reno's crime rates are higher than the national average, and have risen since Mayor Schieve took office in 2014 (although those rates are trending back down slightly since 2016).  

She also touted federal grants to combat gun violence and address opioid abuse, although these appear to be more in the nature of research subsidies than direct crime prevention.

Lorton wanted to rebut, but The Debate Format prohibited rebuttals where no one was called out by name. (Have I mentioned how much I hate how we do modern political "debates"?)

Trump/Clinton endorsements

The debate really started to go off the rails with questions about the candidates' presidential endorsements. Lorton's a Trump guy, and Schieve preferred her fellow Hillary. The question to Lorton was from a Democrat who didn't like what Schieve was doing as mayor, but couldn't get past Lorton's Trump approval. Could there be a more banal question?  

To their mutual credit, both candidates were clearly annoyed by this appeal to partisan tribalism, with Schieve giving a great answer about respecting the office of the President. Lorton talked about his support from Jenny Brekhus, one of Reno's most left-wing, anti-development council members, who Schieve is frequently at odds with. (Point to Schieve in my book.) Lorton took the chance to make a smart pivot away from national politics and to discuss the sometimes toxic interpersonal relationships within the City Council, and Schieve just as smartly shrugged it off as passionate people disagreeing in good faith and still working together.  

Rainbow flag flap

Over three years ago, some city employee replaced the American flag flying over City Hall with a rainbow gay pride flag. Schieve immediately apologized and fixed the problem, acknowledging what the U.S. flag means to so many Americans, while continuing to give her full-throated support to the LGBTQ community, which is exactly how she should have handled it. It's one of those things that gives social media something to fester about for a few days, but in the real world, it's a non-issue. The fact that it was brought up in a debate three years later is ridiculous. Schieve talked about how it forced her away from Facebook because of the trolls – do I ever hear you, sister.  

Lorton was asked about a post of his own that had (gasp!) a flag with a (double gasp!) gun on it, and if gay people should feel threatened. Lorton said it was depicting NV Energy robbing the taxpayers, and there's no reason to doubt it. The idea that this is a veiled threat against anyone based on their sexual orientation is manufactured nonsense. We don't have time for rebuttals on actual topics, but we have time for this? Once again, both candidates were righteously annoyed.

Inadequacy of land sales

Damon told Lorton that she estimated the total value of his "surplus property" would only be about $20 million – not even close to enough to fulfill his wish list. I don't doubt that if Lorton were to win, he would quickly find his expectations at odd with reality. But he used the chance to discuss the vagaries of property appraisement and development, and looked knowledgeable and reasonable while doing it, and also made the question look silly. Sadly, there was no rebuttal on this topic, which should have been central to the entire debate.

Change of Reno charter

Hillary Schieve is only the mayor because the Supreme Court determined (in a lawsuit filed by one Eddie Lorton) that the Reno Charter makes the mayor just another city councilperson.  Schieve has made no secret that she disagrees with the Court, and has sought to change the law the old fashioned way – via legislation. I think she's right to do so – executive bodies do well with a clear leader. Lorton reasonably disagrees, and this would have been a fantastic part of the debate – if any debate had been allowed on it. But the only real question was about how Schieve went about asking for the amendment (the suggestion was that it was underhanded) to the Charter (which ultimately failed), and The Format marched duly along. Once again, what a waste.  

Public Art

Schieve argued passionately for public art, and I agree that city beautification is an important part of what city government does, and provides a lot of bang for the taxpayer buck in terms of creating an inviting downtown core. We are still a tourism economy, after all. I think Schieve overstates the impact a bit, but that's a quibble. But there does come a time when we focus on decoration at the expense of the health of what we're decorating.

Lorton is out of balance in the other direction, saying taxpayers shouldn't pay for art at all, at least not now when we're in debt. This is a bit much. We lease the Space Whale at $64,000 a year – that many won't make much of a dent in a $430 million debt, but more tourists paying sales taxes sure will. I'm all for limited government, but Lorton's call to limit the city's focus to "police, fire, public works" is a little too limited. He allowed that he would approve of "fluffy things" if and only if every other problem is solved. While I respect and appreciate prioritization, municipal governments can and should do more than one thing at a time.  

Zoning changes to allow low income housing on existing property

Both candidates were against allowing homeowners to erect tiny houses on their property, correctly pointing out this would clutter neighborhoods and likely have no impact on homelessness. It was a silly question, but one which demonstrated how not everything has to be tribally partisan.

Development in flood plains

Everyone agreed this is bad, although Lorton pointed out that the Master Plan is often ignored.  Schieve noted that new FEMA flood maps are coming out soon, which would help revise development plans. Lorton then went on about the dangers of urban sprawl for the profit of big developers – it's amazing how left wing Republican populists can sound sometimes, talking about "controlled growth." I kid (kind of), but I agree with him that new building permits must be granted with care and with an eye towards how we want the city to look in the coming decades.  

A suggestion from my own hometown's history, though: Rapid City, South Dakota, where I grew up, has a small river ("Rapid Creek," 'natch) running through it. In 1972, a dam failed after heavy rains, sending a wall of water smashing through the houses built in its flood plain, killing hundreds. After the flood, development along the plain was banned, and it became a city-length park easily accessible to almost everyone in a very sprawly city. Just a thought, if we're looking to improve parks and rec options in currently neglected parts of Reno along the Truckee River…

Fire Department's aging equipment

The interplay between the city and the county in providing fire and ambulance services is a critical and fascinating issue, and I wish it would have been explored more. Both candidates raised fair points – Lorton noting that we wear out fire trucks responding to paramedic calls, and Schieve discussing her push to make developers pay for fire stations when they build a neighborhood. I liked Lorton's suggestion to rethink the contract with REMSA for ambulance services, combining them with fire stations as they do in Incline Village.  

But he once again fell back on his "2022" plan to sell off excess property and limit city services to the bare essentials, and I think he is unrealistic about the fiscal math and the political realities involved. Schieve likewise is hoping marijuana money will solve more problems than it can possibly be expected to do, especially with California recreational marijuana coming on line in the new year.  

Closing statements

I have to admit, I love government officials who are unapologetic cheerleaders for the government entity they represent, and like Ronald Reagan with the USA or Brian Sandoval with Nevada, I find Hillary Schieve's Reno boosterism infectious. It matters a great deal, far more than her single vote on any given policy proposal, especially given the relative weakness of the mayoral role (it really is an extra-fancy city council member political power-wise). She ended the debate with her Reno love on her sleeve, and although I came away a little underwhelmed with her performance, she hit the right notes at the end.

Lorton ended how he began, with what sounded like an off-the cuff ramble. He did still remember there was a debate, though, pointing out that they are different candidates. He said Reno is at a crossroads, but while that true to some extent in every election, I think Reno's basic trajectory that has existed under Schieve (driven in large part by extrinsic factors like state level economic development efforts) is more or less here to stay. He exhorted people to vote for anyone as long as they voted, and brought up the primary results where Schieve won overwhelmingly. He argued not to "be fooled," because (and I'm paraphrasing only slightly), the only people who vote in primaries are unions, unions, special interests, and dastardly unions in non-presidential year. This is clearly is not true, and may have turned off a lot of more blue collar guys who would otherwise be his natural constituency.

Final Impressions

Have I mentioned that I really, really, really hate modern political "debates?" If the two had been allowed more direct engagement, this would have been a much better test of the knowledge and character of both candidates.

Mayor Schieve clearly did not want this debate (she agreed only at the last minute and after being basically dared by both Lorton and the RGJ), wanting to nurse her massive primary lead and not make any major mistakes. Politically speaking she was probably right to do that, but as a matter of good governance and treating voters right, she was correct to finally agree.  

I had fairly low expectations from Lorton going in, and he exceeded them. I had higher expectations for Schieve (she's a popular, personable incumbent with solid successes to point to, and presumably access to all the data), and she failed to meet them. To the extent that any debate is often a fight against expectations (fair or not) rather than an even playing field tete-a-tete (where I think the candidates basically tied), I think Lorton came out the winner in this one. I came away still undecided, but taking him more seriously, frankly, which in the end is a good thing. Having two credible, partisan tribe-defying candidates vying for office is a win for Reno no matter what, and for our political culture as a whole.

Orrin Johnson has been writing and commenting on Nevada and national politics since 2007.  He started with an independent blog, First Principles, and was a regular columnist for the Reno Gazette-Journal from 2015-2016.  By day, he is a deputy district attorney for Carson City. His opinions here are his own. Follow him on Twitter @orrinjohnson, or contact him at [email protected].