Almost got smacked by an impatient driver. This was just before I went to go have a word with him.

Edit: I toured BLBN!

Short version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWZQYLDFAT0

Long version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ruUWIF5f0A

The long version has a ton of my observations in the video description.

Eventually either delineators or physical barriers will be placed here, but in the meantime, watch out, people. (No, delineators are not defined as a physical barrier nor are they intended for such purpose by the MUTCD. They are merely for guidance, like near rock cliffs and lane merges, etc.)

I'm pushing for planters to be used instead of delineators.

Engineers use planters all across the globe when a removable solution is necessary. places around the country for "separated / protected bike lanes." Examples:

• https://sdg.minneapolismn.gov/design-guidance/bikeways/planter-protected-bike-lanes
• https://altago.com/separated-bike-lanes/
• https://www.reddit.com/r/SurreyBC/comments/v20d6j/bike_lane_planters_being_installed/

The mayor likes the idea of planters, and the City already bought them. It would save a massive amount of money, and it's way less labor intensive to move the planters back onto the sidewalk for special events rather than screwing/unscrewing dozens of plastic sticks, but unfortunately RTC is running the show and wants to spend more money than necessary. (These aren't cycle tracks, unfortunately. They're merely "protected bike lanes," which is a cop-out for the real deal.)

Unfortunately the BLBN project manager tends to ignore literally every suggestion I make that's not hers. She has for 3 years now. So I'm not holding my breath. But the good news is, nothing's ever set in stone (except stone of course).

Starting just before 6:30 PM, watch as burning ember re-ignite on Upper Peavine, caught on webcam approx. 2 hours ago.

This shows the danger of re-ignition during dry summer conditions like we're facing now, and it shows what fire responders are dealing with endlessly since this all began.

Currently the fire is active on the camera, which you can see here:

https://alertwest.live/cam-console/16482

.... but for tree cutting....

But the gate is now open. For now.

Edit: I have footage. Buckle in, everyone. Read the Description:

https://youtu.be/jZAeSfusu04?t=300

(Edit #2: It's a long, shaky video, I apologize. I wanted to upload it entirely raw to avoid claims of edited trickery or anything else, and I forgot to enable stabilization. I intend on go back out and finish what footage I intended on shooting once it gets cooler out, and I'll turn on stabilization.)

(Edit #3: At a Redditors' request I altered the link to begin at the point I arrive at the open gate. Sorry for not thinking about that before!)

(Edit #4: I've re-uploaded the video, stabilized, due to forgetting to apply stabilization)

I just took this video about 5 minutes ago.

I did some research. These poles do not conform to required standards for northern Nevada amendments regarding special wind regions like Washoe County and Lyon county.

I was able to accumulate 111 signatures in 5.5 hours, between Saturday and yesterday night.

By standing in place on the Riverwalk, and pointing two blocks over, I was able to convince people from across the globe that signing was the right thing to do.

All I had to say was: "We're trying to save our Riverwalk from being permanently blocked and abandoned by our City from AT&T to Lake Street."

The moment I said those words, people would turn back around and listen to what I had to say.

I explained all we're doing is demanding the City to file for an injunction and let a Washoe County District Court Judge resolve the property dispute legally. Easement by Prescription, Common Law Dedication.

I explained the detour, the history, the legal agreement, the bikeway master plan, the lost riverwalk plan, the Army Corp of Engineers flood control plan, the ADA accessibility plan, the terms of the deed, the property owner's admissions and his failure to post required signs, the Auto Museum's lost revenue, the risk of permanently losing our Easement at AT&T, and most importantly our homelessness / housing issues with balancing everyone's rights to free access to our public rights-of-way. Everyone got it. They understood.

Tourists and visitors from other places were concerned they weren't allowed to sign. But this isn't a ballot initiative, I explained. This is simply an informal petition to present to City Council to show that the public cares about our infrastructure and to fight this. This isn't a hard issue to understand.

United Kingdom, Canada, Massachusetts, Florida, Colorado, Montana, Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Oklahoma, California, and many Nevadans... everyone understood no matter where they were from that we can't allow the City to just roll over, give up, and allow us to lose our Riverwalk without putting up a fight.

Please sign this petition.

ALL of the details are there.

I am also asking for help. Can people please help me canvas the area and collect real-world signatures? I have the signature sheet PDF as well as the flyers I produced on Google Drive.

Or just spread the word.

There is a big meeting happening in two days. The Mayor directed the City Engineer to have me give a walk-through tour of the neighborhood to the City Manager, Planning Dept, Public Works, Redevelopment Agency, and most importantly the City Attorney's office at 12 PM Wednesday.

This is Reno and Joe Hart will be there. Fil Corbitt from The Wind will be there.

I am going to show the issues of not just this walkway but also the encroachment at the Auto Museum and deactivation of retail use from Lake Street which is required by law.

If I was able to acquire 111 signatures in less than 6 hours, think of what we could accomplish in two days? Think of the mandate that would show the City that we mean business.

In my last post, I speculated if these were installed improperly.

Update: I posted a video examining the collapsed pole, comparing it to another even BIGGER pole that is going to collapse eventually a block away.

Turns out improper installation might be the cause after all.

Days after reporting this through Reno Direct and Public Safety Dispatch, nothing was done to fix it, and it collapsed right into the sidewalk. I think I know why this is happening, too.

This morning, I looked through my window to see how many people were on the street, and I spotted a DRP Ambassador taking photos of this downed Flock camera.

I went down to inspect it. Took pics and video (which I'll be uploading shortly).

I pulled out the aluminum 8" sleeve. They didn't use a sleeve with a metal flange. It relies entirely on the bolts and the rubber gasket to stay in place. It's a smooth internal sleeve that can slip down entirely into the shaft, unable to be recovered.

It turns out once the bolts are removed, the sleeve slowly slides down into the shaft until there's nothing for the top portion to grip onto. So at first, the pole will tilt over, then once enough sleeve has slid through, the 30-50 lb. upper half will collapse.

So then after studying this one, I walked over to the one installed on Virginia Street in front of the old post office, and I observed that the bolts are coming loose. One is entirely missing.

The bolts types being used aren't consistent, either. Some are hex, and some are tamper-proof.

It's not tampering. It's oscillation.

I realized, with all the wind we've been having, that is the likely cause.

When wind hits the solar panel up top, it catches like a wing. It causes oscillation. Oscillation is probably causing the bolts to come loose, and once all bolts are missing, the sleeve slowly slides down into the shaft, held onto by nothing but the rubber gasket. It becomes a ticking time bomb. The sleeve slowly slides down, and once there is nothing for the upper portion of the pole to cling onto, the upper pole collapses onto the ground, right into pedestrian or automobile traffic, parking lanes, bike lanes, etc.

Built poorly, improperly, and are all public safety hazards.

How many of these are installed around the Reno/Sparks metropolitan area? They all need to be retrofitted or removed entirely for public safety. It's a liability for the city.

https://c.org/4MTMbKccyV

I've made a petition on Change.org to demand the Reno City Council to take legal action and save our Truckee Riverwalk walkway and bike path along the Truckee River between AT&T and Lake Street.

The Riverwalk Plan is decaying.

There is a staircase that needs to be gone. The plan was to remove it.

In 1995, the City formed a strategy to improve the riverwalk, aided by Public Workshops. This path was to be eventually widened and improved, and the TRFMA Lake Street Bridge Replacement will raise the bridge to clear room for flood water to pass underneath. When that happens, no more staircase. ADA accessibility!

It needs to be improved, not gated and detoured.

Public Works' current plan is to post detour signs around the block and direct bicycles and pedestrian traffic around 1st Street.

With the additional detour and encroachment at the National Automobile Foundation, this results in a 4-block long detour to reach the Truckee River Path and Tahoe-Pyramid Trail! It is not "one block" like public works is claiming.

Easement by Prescription

But there is 54 years of legal evidence proving it belongs to the public, which a judge would likely find in favor of the Public and order the fence be removed.

Nevada Law (NRS.11.165), in 2017, the owner had 5 years to post signs saying the walkway was used with permission and was subject to control. He never did. In 2022, I took photographs that prove this. The walkway became a public easement "by prescription" meaning permanent.

Commercial Activation Lost

The current tenant, Guadalajara Grill, wants to open their patio for patrons to dine on the riverwalk. How can anyone enjoy this space with two ugly fences and no traffic on the river corridor?

It's against code!

This fence, and the locked gates on AT&T's property are against code. RMC 18.04.1004(c)(4)a states that there must be a minimum of 12' feet room to allow passage on the esplanade between Arlington and Lake. And, according to Public Works' own Design Manual, all bike paths (which this is) shall be designed in accordance with AASHTO, which this is, and must remain 14' feet wide.

All the details are on the petition page.

On the petition page I go into more detail, and I link to documents supporting my claims.

The City Council needs to place this as an agenda item and vote to instruct the City Attorney's Office to pursue legal action, or else the AT&T public easement contract terminates!

We need to IMPROVE our infrastructure, not let it go!

Light it! Patrol it! Beautify it! Don't abandon it! Demand the City Council take action!

Please sign the petition and rally support for removing the fence, and spread the word.

Thank you.

2 months ago, I first posted about Joe Hart's report on the obstruction of a Public Walkway at 180 E. 1st Street. Joe continues to cover this story in an on-going investigation. After the fiasco with The Eddy wanting to develop on a City Park and Public Right-of-way, it seems like the public is thirsty to maintain our spaces, and that is wonderful.

Here's the latest:

This Memorandum has been released from Public Works to the Mayor and City Council.

Public Works' plans to re-route and detour around the illegally obstructed Public Walkway along the Riverwalk through 180 E. 1st Street. They sought no consultation from any organization from the cycling communities. They conducted no feasibility studies, wrote no reports, gathered no public input, and held no workshops.

There has been no public hearing for abandonment of a public right-of-way. No approval from the city council before planning this redesign of the Truckee Riverwalk or Tahoe-Pyramid Trail.

Not all facts were revealed in the Memo & begs questions:

Public Works did not acknowledge in the memo that the property owner himself admitted in 2024 that the walkway belonged to the city and was part of what he called the "Truckee Boardwalk." He demanded the City pay for repairs to his fence, insisting they shared in the responsibility to improvements on his property. These statements were acquired through a Public Records Request.

Public Works also misidentified the time at which the fence and locked gate were constructed. Witnesses say they first saw the fence present in January, 2026, not 2025. (If you have additional facts or records, please correct me on this.)

The memo says that The Tahoe-Pyramid Trail Organization will "assist the City in restoring full access." This makes no sense. If they are assisting to restore access, why is a detour being planned?

Not all legal considerations were acknowledged in the Memo:

Although Public Works made acknowledgment of the 1972 binding agreement to construct the Public Walkway, they mischaracterized the legal status of the Public Walkway in the memo by claiming it is "with no public easement;" however, it is important to acknowledge that the 1972 agreement is a signed, binding, bilateral contract in 1972 establishes an irrevocable license and non-exclusive easement by estoppel. This is because the property owners agreed to allow the improvements to their land at no cost to them, gained a free flood retaining wall, in exchange for allowing the public walkway, which it states as such four times in the agreement.

This express agreement gave permission to allow the public to use walkway to cross private land from the adjacent property to Lake Street. The walkway remained unmolested for 54 consecutive years. This means that by 1978 it become a public easement by prescription at the very earliest. But then in 2017, once NRS 11.165 was written to establish additional protections for land owners, the property owner Mr. Schenk had the opportunity to post legal notices at the entry-points to his land, but failed to do so! He did not post the required signs on his land, and thus by any court, the likely judgement would be that Mr Schenk allowed the land to ripen over 5 consecutive years into a public easement.

I have photographs taken of this very walkway from 2022 which proves no notices were posted at the time in which the land would have ripened into a public easement, which I've attached, along with both pages of the 1972 agreement for public inspection.

The memorandum does not complete the story.

• The detour is not a single block as is being told to the media and community. It is a 4-block detour, because remember:
• The Encroachment at the Auto Museum has also resulted in a path unsuitable for bikes, and frankly unsuitable for pedestrians either. It has no railing, and erosion continues to narrow the path, with asphalt overhanging a 10' foot drop down a rocky embankment.
• The City has excused and permitted the museum to encroach within a 20' foot Public Easement established in 2015.
• The city has allowed complete deactivation of retail commercial use from the easterly frontage of Lake Street as required by 18.04.1004(c)(3)a.
• The City painted Sharrows on Museum Drive in 2023, now designating that as an official bike route to reach the Truckee River Path east of Lake Street.
• The City permitted Michael Schenk to install a gated fence on the Public Walkway through 180 E. 1st Street

The true length of the detour is 4 city blocks, not 1:

• University Way to 1st Street
• 1st Street to Lake Street
• Lake Street to Mill Street
• Mill Street to Museum Drive

I presented an improved, revised detour plan to Public Works, CCing multiple concerned/related parties including representatives from Tahoe-Pyramid Trail, Truckee Meadows Bicycle Alliance, Nevada Bicycle Coalition and Bike Night Reno. I advised Public Works that if they do not properly sign and wayfind this 4-block detour, they are improperly advising cyclists how to maneuver this detour.

Revised Plans

Although I am 100% against this detour plan, the flaws I recognized were of concern that I took approximately 2 hours to revise these plans to:

• re-draw and re-route the detour,
• advise Public Works on a reasons this implementation is appropriate according to best practices,
• make best use of available land with fewer collisions points and smoother curves,
• better traffic control and safety,
• reduction in potential bodily harm,
• compatibility with the upcoming Biggest Little Bike Network design plans,
• advisement on non-ADA-compliant paths that endanger the public,
• retention of existing street-level parking which retains revenue for the city,
• gave notice that no attempt of feasibility or public outreach was conducted prior to designing this detour,
• and identify flaws and dangers in the official proposed design that could have otherwise been properly mitigated if gone through a proper public process.

I'm presenting these revised plans, and this news, to help draw public awareness to the community, to engage in feedback, brainstorming, and to inform of the latest events in what has been a travesty of maintaining the public trust.

I want to point out again the importance of maintaining this walkway and path through two opposing properties on Lake Street in context to their relevance for maintaining the Master Plan and 1995 Revitalization Strategy for the Downtown River Corridor.

I've recently uploaded the full-resolution report from 1995 for the public to read and study.

I have a feeling this isn't over yet.

There will be a walk-through meeting with City Staff on the 19th at 12 pm, starting at City Hall. Local news will likely be on hand to cover the story.

There is more likely to come. If this is something that affects you and which you are concerned about, get involved! Prepare to make public comment and express your support for maintaining our public rights-of-way.

And as always, Stay Tuned.™

... or are these being tampered with?

The same thing I observed here on u/thisisreno's thread, I am observing as we speak on Island and Sierra Street. The bolts are missing, the pole is rotated 90 degrees from its usual orientation (the camera usually points south at people's back license plates), the solar panel is facing to the west rather than at the sun to the south, and it is tilting precariously over the pedestrian area.

So either these are not being installed properly, or they're being tampered with.

I'm all for taking these things down, but not at the cost of endangering pedestrians on the sidewalk. When a big gust of wind comes by, it will collapse just like the one on Arlington, but in this case, directly into the path of people walking. It can seriously injure someone.

But with all this weather going on, could it be the wind? Are they installing these properly with the bolts in place? Are these bolts even used when installing? Any other camera poles around town that anyone can observe to see if these bolts are in place?

Walking through Whitewater Park, and I saw this.

Biggest Little Bike Network will be built soon. Bids for construction contracts are open.

But improvements to the Virginia Street Bridge at the Riverwalk / Truckee River Path will have no improvements from existing painted lines.

The 30% – Design 60% Phase

In 2024, at 30% design phase, the bridge's roll plot showed concrete barriers which turn the lanes into cycle tracks, with additional concrete barriers along the red zones on the north and south approach.

IMO the barriers on the bridge itself are bad for several reasons:

• Bikes need to change lanes mid-block to make left and right turns onto the Truckee River Bike Path / Riverwalk Esplanade.
• The turns would be extremely sharp and difficult.
• The arches make blind spots. Pedestrians and bikes cannot make eye contact until the last minute because the cycle tracks were placed directly against the arches.
• Plowing and de-icing is impossible, which render the cycle tracks useless during the winter.

No Loading Zones

We lost all parking and loading when the new bridge was built in 2015.

Commercial, rideshare, parcel delivery, and personal vehicles have no space to load/offload.

This means vehicles enter, stop, idle, park and load in the red zone, blocking fire hydrants, blocking bike lanes, blocking the crosswalk, and Reno PD has stated on camera that they nor Reno Parking Enforcement will issue citations, even though this violates multiple portions of RMC 6.30.140, and NRS 484B.450. They directed me to talk to City Council and Public Works. Public Works has denied every improvement request I have made on the subject, for reasons including "Talk to the Biggest Little Network Project Manager."

The BLBN Project Manager disregarded my requests. I drafted plans to improve this area in 2024 and handed them to her directly, in person.

The 90% design phase

The 2024 BLBN plan or current 2026 plan makes no provisions to improve these matters. In fact it makes them worse. No improvements have been made for:

• The crosswalks
• The Truckee River Bike Path / Riverwalk
• The cycle tracks
• Speeding on Virginia Street
• Snow plowing

The only changes made was to convert the concrete barriers into a painted buffer. The only thing this improved is that bikes can change lanes. But the updated design still does not solve other issues, or improve features that are cheap and easy to do.

My Plan and its Improvements and Benefits

I recognized all of these problems early on, and in 2024, I revised RTC's plan and submitted it for the public record to the RTC Project Manager, (along with many other improvements to this corridor).

Speed Reduction

• Max 20mph—appropriate for:
  • The CORE of Riverwalk
  • pedestrianized right-of-way adjacent to a park and free-speech zone (City Plaza)
  • shared-use commuter path
  • mid-block crossing

Crosswalks Improvements

• Widened to 30 feet to match the Esplanade
• Gives more room for pedestrians and bikes to cross and not collide
• Zebra-striped rather than parallel lines for higher visibility / prominence.
• Yield lines and signage at this crucial junction next to City Plaza.
• Modest 2-3" inch tall PEVR-friendly Raised Crosswalks are placed here
  • copies existing mid-block crossing a block north near City Hall.

Lane Reconfiguration

All I did was switch the lane configuration to improve matters. From middle-of-road to bridge-arch:

1. Travel lane
2. Bike Lane
3. Buffer
4. Steel barrier

instead of...

1. Travel lane
2. Buffer
3. Bike Lane
4. Steel barrier

Just doing that makes improvements because:

• Buffer is where plowed snow will end up, out of the way, making bike lanes functional during winter
• Daylighting for visual eye contact at Esplanade/Bike Path crossings
• Acts as virtual curb extensions to reduce crossing distance. Pedestrians can PASS the arch and be seen by oncoming traffic.
• It allows for a wider turning radius so bikes can make the turn instead of a sharp 90° turn at the last minute.

So when people say they have a choice between "fewer, high-cost bike but higher quality facilities" and "many low-cost facilities," you can see this example breaks that mold. Even with lower cost facilities, you can get more for your money if done properly.

RTC Ignored my Change Requests

I printed out roll plots and handed them to her directly at one of the meetings, so the designers could study the changes. Unfortunately, none of my ideas were implemented. All the designer did was tap and toggle the existing feature on the CAD program from concrete to paint.

I spoke with Mayor Schieve, and she was dismayed that RTC did not give the improvements I submitted any visibility. Mayor Schieve did not even see the improvements until I brought them up to her during a phone conversation.

The Project Manager gave no responses, no correspondence, no interest.

Josh from RTC Public Affairs told me to "get on my pennyfarthing" at the Idlewild Park pop-up outreach.

Instead of working with me and acknowledging the improvements, the Project Manager said "people from the city liked what we have done." So I guess... I'm voted off the island? I don't understand this type of mentality. Maybe those other people didn't see the problems. Plus what does it matter if people like something? I'm sure they do! But that is mutually exclusive. People likeing something does not exclude the possibility of making improvements.

This sort of thing requires public workshops and collaboration, not centralized design and PR pop-ups.

What to do:

If you agree RTC / Alta's designs are lackluster and you want improvements, I urge you to submit public comment here:

https://www.biggestlittlebikenetwork.com/get-invovled

(yes, they misspelled "involved")

Here: https://www.reno.gov/government/departments/public-works/

and of course here: https://www.reno.gov/government/city-council/

I do not settle for the "it's too late to make changes" crap. This is a Ship of Theseus, not an Ark of the Covenant. Improvements can always be made. How quick was it that the City of Reno painted lines for the Micromobility Pilot Program? It was quick and easy.

1972 we had a Public Walkway along the river proposed, planned, and constructed within 8 months.

People need loading zones. People need safe places to walk and enjoy the river.

These things are possible. We just have to fight for them.

So that makes... what.. 5 simultaneous fires going on?

• GSR
• Save Mart
• Peavine
• Byars Lane near 21st / Glendale in Sparks
• Pyramid / Queen Way(?)

Reno/Sparks Police/Fire radio is going off the rails right now.

https://www.broadcastify.com/listen/feed/7364

https://scannerradio.app/?l=MjYwODY

(We're having a little listening party in #stormwatch on Biggest Little Discord Server.. DM me if you want to join :))

Following up on my previous post...

tl;dr

It was the City of Reno, in 1972, for the use of the public, agreed to by Ray Cavallo, who owned the property and reached a formal agreement with City Council.

The current property owner Michael Schenk can't close it off. It was paid for, built by the city, and likely constitutes an Express Public Easement or Implied Dedication.

But even if none of those apply, it became an "Easement by Prescription" within 5 years of being opened.

What's an Easement by Prescription?

It means even if nothing was recorded on paper, it becomes a public easement if a land owner knowingly allows the public to cross his property for 5 consecutive years. The only way it can't is if the owner posts a legal sign that says:

>Right to pass by permission, and subject to control, of owner: NRS 11.165.

But now that I discovered the property owner and city reached an agreement, it is an , steps above and beyond an easement

How did I find out who and when it was built?

After I noticed a 1977 aerial photograph of the city featuring the airport, I noticed in the top left corner showed this property. It was faint but telling. A straight line from AT&T's building to Lake Street revealed the walkway existed years earlier than I had suspected. I knew the telephone equipment building opened in 1972. That narrowed down my search, so I logged into Washoe County Library's newspaper archives for the 1970s and found several stories about the walkway.

When Nevada Bell built their central office in 1971, they built a walkway along the river for the public to use. (This also means, by the way, the city really didn't even need to enter an agreement with them in the year 2000, because it also would become an easement by prescription, but I digress). The retaining wall became a contentious issue in 1971 because it was built 4.5 feet too far out into the river. They had to move it back.

In February 1972, a newspaper story came out in Reno Evening Gazette:

River frontage purchase possible with city fund

>Funds which the Reno Recreation and Parks Commission wants for a tennis complex might — if the Reno City Council sees fit — go instead to acquire Truckee River frontage.

>City Manager Joe Latimore said Wednesday preliminary estimates indicate the city could build a plain walkway for $18,000, while for $50,000 it could have a walkway with retaining wall and fill.

>The city has just $50,000 left from its 1971 share of Washoe Fair and Recreation room tax monies. The recreation commission has asked the city to earmark this to start a tennis complex which it says it badly needed.

>However, the Reno Mayor's Citizens' Advisory Committee Tuesday passed a resolution asking the city to complete the walkway.

>Rowland Oakes, the committee member who originated the resolution, said the city "walked Bell into building its walk, and now it just dead-ends." The city should keep faith with Bell, he said.

>The Nevada Bell walkway runs along the Truckee River's north shore from Center Street to the end of Bell's property some 30 feed from the Lake Street Bridge. The remaining river front property is owned by the family of Ray Cavallo, with whom the city has been talking.

>The city is not seeking to buy the strip but only to have permission to build the walkway on it.

Then there was a clickbait article from Nevada State Journal, a day later, trying to make a big deal about a "feud" between tennis lovers and the riverwalk lovers about who would get the money, but that didn't last long. Those tennis courts got built eventually.

Two more articles came out during summer about the walkway.

June 14, 1972, Nevada State Journal, Page 12:

River Front Walkway Plan Gets Approval

>Reno councilmen have approved an agreement with the property owner at First and Lake Streets to allow construction of a concrete wall and walkway from the Lake Street Bridge to the new Bell Telephone building.

>The action has no time limit on when such a walkway would be built, but it paves the way whenever funds are committed. Design of the walkway, which would complete the job of the bridge between Lake an Center Streets, paralleling First Street, is under way.

>The next council move, following approval of the design, would be to allocate funds and let bids for the construction work.

July 26, 1972, Reno Evening Gazette, Page 23:

River front walkway to be extended

>The Reno City Council this week awarded Roberts and Shaver Construction, Inc. a contract to extend the Nevada Bell river front walkway. The construction company was the low bidder at $35,941.

>Architect Graham Erskine, designed the walkway without charge.

>Nevada Bell earlier built a public walkway along the river's north shore from Center Street to the end of its property. The extension runs from that point to the Lake Street Bridge, about 64 feet distance.

>The Nevada Paving Co. was awarded a contract for the removal and the disposal of temporary patching materials and placing of permanent street patches in utility trenches at various locations on a low bid of $69,800.

Then on September 26, 1972, Nevada State Journal, Page 12, a photo with a caption:

Walkway:

>A new walkway under construction along the Truckee, between Center and Lake streets, is nearing completion. The City of Reno project will join a walkway already completed by Nevada Bell, adjacent to its new downtown facility. (Journal Photo).

Just imagine... a city improvement project costing somewhere around $407,000 of today's money, proposed in February, approved in 4 months, then built in 3 months.

This walkway is a public right-of-way.

It is illegal for the property owner to lock the gate. It is a pedestrian and bicycle route just like any sidewalk or street. There are no "park hours" under which it should operate. It's illegal for the City of Reno or Downtown Reno Partnership to lock the AT&T walkway gates.

I've heard that the city is looking to make the entire river corridor a park. Undoubtedly, they would do so in order to control access hours.

And yet the city and RTC Washoe have stated their intent to make this a mobility corridor.

First of all, it already is a mobility corridor. It has been for 50 years. The floodwall and walkway were built by City of Reno, allowed by the property owner, became part of public infrastructure, and was later signed as Bike Route 2, a municipal transportation corridor which was established in 1976 via the 20-year bikeway plan that arose from 5 years of planning and negotiations, and the creation of the Reno Bicycle Council in 1975.

Imagine closing off the sidewalks to Arlington Street as it passes through Wingfield Park. Or imagine shutting down the Truckee River Path from commuter access.

The AT&T walkway is not part of any "park" and must be kept open 24/7 by the city of Reno. It is a sidewalk, just like any other public right-of-way. It is a transportation corridor for bicycles and people.

To close off pedestrian walkways simply due to vagrancy is discriminatory

But moreover, I also realized that due to Riverwalk District MD-RD zoning requirements for the esplanade, the 5' foot wide gates are too narrow for code. Code requires a minimum of 12' feet width, with another 6' feet on each side allowing for buffers. But since the gates need to remain open 24/7, there is no purpose for gates.

Any issues of loitering, sitting, laying, camping, need to be handled by enforcement like any normal sidewalk. The gates and fence that AT&T and Michael Schenk have installed need to be removed.

Additionally, I discovered that the fence at the auto museum breaks code as well, as I mentioned in my previous post.

All of this has been a detriment to the the neighborhood, violates the very purpose of RMC 18.02.304(a) and needs to be rectified. The public access walkway needs to be reopened.