Reno's $40 Solution
Our Town Reno profiled this new program. So we thought we’d publish an opinion based on their “what do you think” question.
When Public Safety Becomes a Private Purchase: In a move that perfectly encapsulates the dysfunction of Reno's city leadership, the Reno Police Department has launched a "No Loitering Program" that asks local businesses throughout the city, including the struggling downtown businesses to pay $40 each for signs that give police permission to do their jobs. Yes, you read that correctly: businesses fighting to survive in a downtown that city officials claim they want to revitalize are now being asked to purchase the privilege of having police remove loiterers from their properties.
This isn't just another bureaucratic misstep. It's a stunning admission of failure by a city government that has consistently prioritized everything except the basic municipal services that businesses and residents actually need.
Chief Kathryn Nance explains that "to enforce this as a crime without the person who owns the business present, we actually need the official sign, the proper signage, this lets our officers know that the business has signed up for the no loitering program."
Since when do property rights require a purchase receipt? Since when does preventing crime depend on whether a business owner can afford signage? The entire concept reveals a police department that has either forgotten the basics of law enforcement or created an elaborate scheme to shift responsibility for public safety onto private businesses.
Downtown businesses are already on life support. Reno's downtown business district has struggled for years. The COVID-19 pandemic decimated foot traffic. The emptiness of downtown has driven away customers. Homeless encampments and panhandling have created an atmosphere that many visitors find uncomfortable or unsafe. Property owners have watched their investments decline while city officials talk endlessly about "revitalization" without delivering meaningful results.
Now, as these same businesses fight to recover, attract customers, and maintain viable operations, the city's brilliant solution is to charge them $40 for signs that might convince police to enforce existing laws on their properties.
This is the real cost of failed leadership. The No Loitering Program isn't really about $40 signs. It's about a city government that has systematically failed to address the root causes of downtown's problems and now expects private businesses to subsidize solutions to public safety issues.
For businesses already operating on razor-thin margins, every unnecessary expense is a blow to their viability. Asking them to pay for basic police services is particularly galling when many of these same businesses are already contributing to city revenue through business licenses, property taxes, the Downtown Ambassador program, and sales tax collection.
More misplaced priorities. The loitering sign program fits perfectly with Reno's track record of addressing symptoms while ignoring causes. Instead of tackling the underlying issues that create loitering problems—inadequate mental health services, insufficient drug treatment programs, lack of affordable housing, and ineffective enforcement of existing laws—the city has created a fee-for-service approach to public safety.
This is the same city government that has spent years debating sign ordinances, noise regulations, and zoning changes while downtown businesses close their doors. The same leadership that talks about supporting local business while creating new bureaucratic hurdles and fees at every turn. And remember two of these leaders, Councilmembers Kathleen Taylor and Devon Reese are both eyeing running for City of Reno Mayor in 2026.
The most troubling aspect of this program is how it allows the police department to avoid accountability for inconsistent enforcement. By requiring businesses to purchase signs and "sign up" for the program, police create a paper trail that shifts responsibility away from their own performance.
Chief Nance claims that feedback from a test run on 4th Street has been "positive from business owners and that they're seeing less loitering." But this raises obvious questions: Why wasn't loitering being addressed on 4th Street before the program? What changed besides the signs? Are police now patrolling more frequently, or are they simply more willing to enforce existing laws when businesses pay for the privilege?
The program creates a two-tiered system of public safety: businesses that can afford $40 get police attention, while those that can't afford or don't know about the program continue to suffer from inadequate enforcement.
What message does this send? The No Loitering Program sends a clear message to current and potential downtown businesses: the city views you as a revenue source, not a partner in economic development. Instead of creating an environment where businesses can thrive, the city has created another obstacle they must navigate and another fee they must pay.
This approach is particularly counterproductive given Reno's efforts to attract new businesses and residents to the downtown area. What entrepreneur or business owner wants to invest in a community where basic police services require separate purchases? What message does this send to visitors who might consider relocating their businesses to Reno?
Is there a better path forward? Effective municipal leadership would address loitering and crime through comprehensive public safety strategies, not through fee-for-service programs that burden businesses. A competent police department would enforce existing laws consistently across all properties, not just those whose owners can afford special signs.
The greatest irony of Reno's No Loitering Program is that it undermines the very economic development goals the city claims to support. By forcing businesses to pay for basic public services, the city makes downtown business ownership more expensive and less attractive. By creating uncertainty about police response based on sign purchases, the city makes business planning more difficult.
In trying to solve a loitering problem with $40 signs, Reno has created a much bigger problem: a fundamental breakdown in the relationship between city government and the business community it claims to serve.
The No Loitering Program perfectly encapsulates everything wrong with Reno's approach to downtown development and public safety. Instead of providing the basic municipal services that businesses need to succeed, the city has created another fee, another program, and another bureaucratic requirement.
Downtown businesses don't need $40 signs. They need a city government that understands its basic responsibilities and a police department that enforces existing laws consistently. They need leadership that solves problems instead of monetizing them.
Until Reno's elected officials understand that supporting business means providing effective public services—not selling them piecemeal—the city's downtown revitalization efforts will continue to fail. And struggling businesses will continue to face the choice between paying for services they should already receive or watching their investments deteriorate while city officials wonder why economic development isn't working.
The $40 loitering sign isn't just bad policy. It's a symbol of a city government that has lost sight of its core mission and expects private businesses to pay the price for public failure.
Picon Staff