Jump to content

Richmond Resort & Casino


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 345
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Lord I hope we don’t get screwed and get the urban one proposal. Lord that would be extremely disappointing. I really hope it’s the cordish one. Bally’s id be okay with but I really want cordish at th

This is a very strong point, Icetera. Another facet about the residential breakout -- and the relative strength of opposition -- is the fact that likely most of the new residents of Scott's Addition a

The Bally’s location is the best of the three, IMO.  Unless you are on the parkway, you’ll never see the hotel.  It is an isolated location too, how anyone can buy a home adjacent to an 8-10 lane high

Posted Images

  • 1 month later...
1 hour ago, vaceltic said:

There's a community meeting on the casino development tomorrow night at 6pm. Go to voice your opinions yay or nay - regardless, its better to do ahead of time than trying at the last minute on the day of a council vote.

https://www.nbc12.com/2020/02/19/richmond-casino-concerns-meeting-set-thursday-night/

No casino, schools first! :P  In serious though, I may have to go check this out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2020 at 2:46 PM, vaceltic said:

There's a community meeting on the casino development tomorrow night at 6pm. Go to voice your opinions yay or nay - regardless, its better to do ahead of time than trying at the last minute on the day of a council vote.

https://www.nbc12.com/2020/02/19/richmond-casino-concerns-meeting-set-thursday-night/

Back from the meeting and witnessed NIMBY turned to 11.  The meeting  was led by City Councilor Robertson and the primary speaker was Pamunkey Chief Gray.  Kim and Reva were in attendance.  This was likely the chief's first public session of this sort and he appeared to be completely on his own.  The purpose was to make a formal announcement to the area civic leaders, mainly Oak Grove, Bellemeade and Blackwell, and answer questions.  Main complaints were centered around "why would you build a casino in a neighborhood?" and "build it somewhere else!"  Most reasonable questions concerned rising property taxes, crime and traffic.  The vice president of Oak Grove (or Bellemeade?) neighborhood passed around a petition for opposition and requested residents to contact state legislators to kill the bills.  Robertson encouraged them to do so but I did not take it as showing opposition herself.

At this time, the tribe does not have a definitive plan for the site and they have a short term contract to buy the property, pending results from a referendum held Nov. 3.  Any renderings are just illustrations of their ideas for the $350 mi. development.

CURRENT TIMELINE:

Both State Senate and House bills for allowing casino licences in Bristol, Danville, Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Richmond have passed general assembly voting and now are in committee to best combine the two.  Biggest differences between the two are tax rates and that in one Richmond has preference toward Pamunkey while the other is full open bid.  These are likely to be sorted out and passed in two weeks and expect Northam's approval.

Once General Assembly has done their thing, Robertson, Gray, and Trammel will be initiating an RFP for selection of a casino developer and location.  This is not limited to the tribe or the tribe's proposed site off Commerce.

Once a bidder is determined by City Council, the full vote for allowing a casino in Richmond with the attributed bid will be up for referendum on November 3.

In the event that the Pamunkey proposal is accepted, they expect construction to commence and take 1-2 years. 

 

Next Meeting:

Reva will be holding a separate meeting in March (date not decided but suspect the 19th), with Chief Gray attending, at behest of a civic representative from District 8 concerned with the work training center (resort casino is entirely District 6 land).


Some entertaining questions (paraphrased):

"Will the daycare center be in the casino?" (clearly thinking casino floor)

"How can we trust you when you keeping changing between building a casino or building a resort?"

"What do we get with our $350 mil.?" (thinking it was paid for by the city)

"Do you have any association with the casino going up on Semmes?"  No one had any clue where that came from.

"You come into our neighborhood wanting to build this for your tribe.  Why will you not let us build our own casino?"  Robertson responded well with "you are  welcome to put a bid into the RFP."
 

 

Edited by Icetera
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Icetera said:

Some entertaining questions (paraphrased):

"Will the daycare center be in the casino?" (clearly thinking casino floor)

"How can we trust you when you keeping changing between building a casino or building a resort?"

"What do we get with our $350 mil.?" (thinking it was paid for by the city)

"Do you have any association with the casino going up on Semmes?"  No one had any clue where that came from.

"You come into our neighborhood wanting to build this for your tribe.  Why will you not let us build our own casino?"  Robertson responded well with "you are  welcome to put a bid into the RFP."

This gave me a good chuckle.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Icetera said:

Once General Assembly has done their thing, Robertson, Gray, and Trammel will be initiating an RFP for selection of a casino developer and location.  This is not limited to the tribe or the tribe's proposed site off Commerce.

I'm confused about the City's RFP initiative. If the Pamunkey, or any other entity, hold property to build a casino on, how does the city get to dictate who the developer is and where it goes? Anyone know details of the GA casino legislation?

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, vaceltic said:

I'm confused about the City's RFP initiative. If the Pamunkey, or any other entity, hold property to build a casino on, how does the city get to dictate who the developer is and where it goes? Anyone know details of the GA casino legislation?

Isn't the bill in conference committee? I recall reading the primary difference in the language was specific to the bidding process. One of the versions (Senate maybe?) specified open bidding, whereas the Pamunkey were mentioned specifically in the other version. I'm not sure how that translates to the city's involvement in the RFP process though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, vaceltic said:

I'm confused about the City's RFP initiative. If the Pamunkey, or any other entity, hold property to build a casino on, how does the city get to dictate who the developer is and where it goes? Anyone know details of the GA casino legislation?

Due to the bidding requirement in the bills.  The city, specifically Richmond, has to allow bids in order to determine the one and only casino to be developed here and then if to build at all.  In Both bills we qualify in A.5 where Norfolk is A.4 due to net population loss.  Actually, each of the 5 requirements is clearly used to specify one specific city without naming it.  The RFP process is by city choice, likely via Gray and Trammel.

From HB4 https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+ful+HB4S1: "The bill requires each eligible host city to hold a referendum on the question of whether to allow casino gaming in the city and to hold such referendum at the November 2020 general election."

From SB36 https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?201+ful+SB36H1:

"

Article 2.
Eligible Host City; Certification of Preferred Casino Gaming Operator.

 58.1-4107. Eligible host city; certification of preferred casino gaming operator.

A. The conduct of casino gaming shall be limited to the following eligible host cities:

1. Any city (i) in which at least 40 percent of the assessed value of all real estate in such city is exempt from local property taxation, according to the Virginia Department of Taxation Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2018, and (ii) that experienced a population decrease of at least seven percent from 1990 to 2016, according to data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau;

2. Any city that had (i) an annual unemployment rate of at least five percent in 2018, according to data provided by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; (ii) an annual poverty rate of at least 20 percent in 2017, according to data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau; and (iii) a population decrease of at least 20 percent from 1990 to 2016, according to data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau;

3. Any city that (i) had an annual unemployment rate of at least 3.6 percent in 2018, according to data provided by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics; (ii) had an annual poverty rate of at least 20 percent in 2017, according to data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau; (iii) experienced a population decrease of at least four percent from 1990 to 2016, according to data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau; and (iv) is located adjacent to a state that has adopted a Border Region Retail Tourism Development District Act; and

4. Any city (i) with a population greater than 200,000 according to the 2018 population estimates from the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service of the University of Virginia; (ii) in which at least 24 percent of the assessed value of all real estate in such city is exempt from local property taxation, according to the Virginia Department of Taxation Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2018; and (iii) that experienced a population decrease of at least five percent from 1990 to 2016, according to data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau.

5. Any city (i) with a population greater than 200,000 according to the 2018 population estimates from the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service of the University of Virginia; (ii) in which at least 24 percent of the assessed value of all real estate in such city is exempt from local property taxation, according to the Virginia Department of Taxation Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2018; and (iii) that had a poverty rate of at least 24 percent in 2017, according to data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau.

B. An eligible host city shall certify a preferred casino gaming operator and, upon request from the Department pursuant to § 58.1-4109, submit to the Department the name of such preferred casino gaming operator.

C. In selecting a preferred casino gaming operator, an eligible host city shall have considered and given substantial weight to factors such as:

1. The potential benefit and prospective revenues of the proposed casino gaming establishment.

2. The total value of the proposed casino gaming establishment.

3. The proposed capital investment and the financial health of the proposer and any proposed development partners.

4. The experience of the proposer and any development partners in the operation of a casino gaming establishment.

5. Security plans for the proposed casino gaming establishment.

6. The economic development value of the proposed casino gaming establishment and the potential for community reinvestment and redevelopment in an area in need of such.

7. Availability of city-owned assets and privately owned assets, such as real property, including where there is only one location practicably available or land under a development agreement between a potential operator and the city, incorporated in the proposal.

8. The best financial interest of the city.

9. The proposer's status as a minority-owned business as defined in § 2.2-1604 or the proposer's commitment to solicit equity investment in the proposed casino gaming establishment from one or more minority-owned and the proposer's commitment to solicit contracts with minority-owned businesses for the purchase of goods and services.

D. An eligible host city described in subdivision A 4 shall provide substantial and preferred consideration to a proposer who is a Virginia Indian tribe recognized in House Joint Resolution No. 54 (1983) and acknowledged by the United States Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs as an Indian tribe within the meaning of federal law that has the authority to conduct gaming activities as a matter of claimed inherent authority or under the authority of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.

E. An eligible host city described in subdivision A 5 shall provide substantial and preferred consideration to a proposer who is a Virginia Indian tribe recognized in House Joint Resolution No. 54 (1983) and acknowledged by the United States Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs as an Indian tribe within the meaning of federal law that has the authority to conduct gaming activities as a matter of claimed inherent authority or under the authority of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.).

F. An eligible host city shall submit its preferred operator and owner based on the criteria in this section to the Department for a pre-certification of their qualifications to conduct casino gaming in the Commonwealth. An eligible host city shall also submit any written or electronic documentation considered as part of the criteria in subsection C, including any memorandum of understanding, incentives, development agreements, land purchase agreements, or local infrastructure agreements. Such pre-certification shall include a review of their financial status and ability to operate and properly support ongoing operations in an eligible host city, as well as current casino operations in other states and territories. The Department shall also consider as part of its review the best financial interests of the Commonwealth. The Department shall conduct such review and make a determination on pre-certification within 60 days of receipt of the request by the eligible host city. An eligible host city and preferred operator and owner shall fully cooperate with all necessary requests by the Department in that regard."

6 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

Isn't the bill in conference committee? I recall reading the primary difference in the language was specific to the bidding process. One of the versions (Senate maybe?) specified open bidding, whereas the Pamunkey were mentioned specifically in the other version. I'm not sure how that translates to the city's involvement in the RFP process though.

The difference is that the Senate Bill has preference toward selecting Indian Tribes for Richmond and Norfolk.  Both require some selection process and it looks like we are decided on RFP.

Edited by Icetera
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

How long before the preachers will start up on their soapboxes about the "evils" of gambling?

There are multiple categories of potential NIMBYs regarding THIS project, I'm afraid.

Most present were strict NIMBY rather than concerned with the casino in general.  I would not be surprised if MGM rolls out some "Schools First!" campaign, though.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

"The Pamunkey Indian Tribe is moving forward on its plan to build a casino in Norfolk and has not shelved its more speculative plan to try for a second casino in Richmond. Jay Smith, a spokesman working with the tribe on its development efforts, said that, unlike more established gaming operators, the tribe doesn’t have big revenue sources that have dried up due to the coronavirus crisis."

"the city of Richmond, a fairly new entrant to the casino discussion that has not yet begun the process of choosing a casino partner. Richmond spokesman Jim Nolan said the city is planning to hold its referendum in 2021 and intends to conduct a community engagement process on the issue over the summer."

https://www.virginiamercury.com/2020/05/11/casinos-are-shuttered-across-america-but-gaming-interests-say-theyre-still-coming-to-virginia/

Snagged from vdogg's Norfolk update.

Edited by Icetera
Stealsies!
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...
  • 4 weeks later...
  • Icetera changed the title to Richmond Resort & Casino

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By southernnorthcarolina
      An uncomfortable question, but one that needs to be asked, in light of 'rona and riots:  how bad a long-term hit has the demand for office space and hotel rooms taken?  I don't want to leave out residential, retail, bars and restaurants, parking garages, and public/cultural facilities, which are already having a tough time, but office and hotel  demand seems to be in a particularly difficult long-term spot.  
      Years ago, one of the big commercial real estate companies, in conjunction with, as I recall, the Central Charlotte Association (since absorbed by the Charlotte Chamber) kept a running count of office vecancy by building.  Is such a list still being maintained?  What's the real vacancy rate for uptown office space?  And by "real," I mean stats which avoid double-counting leases (counting as occupied both the space that Law Firm X is currently leasing but is scheduled to leave, and the space they will occupy in a new building).  Surely it has become a renters' market, given the massive office square footage recently added or under construction.  It seems obvious that the new buildings will have to slash their rental rates and/or increase their tenant upfit allowances, as well as offer deeply discounted or free parking.  But the real hammer might fall on the so-called Class B buildings which were built in the 1960s, 70s, 80s, and 90s.  Take, for example, the 400 South Tryon building, the gold and white building known as Wachovia Center in the 70s and 80s, and later occupied mostly by Duke Power (now Duke Energy).  is Duke still the major tenant there?  If so, not for long, I would surmise.  What about BB&T Center, at 200 South College?  Southern Bell was for many years its majority tenant; when they left, Bank of America took most of their space for back-office operations.  But now, in addition to BB&T leaving, BofA has greatly reduced its space, and I would guess might leave entirely.  Who would fill the building?  And the once-tallest and most prestigious office building uptown, the all-glass BofA Plaza, will certainly have some move-outs.  What about One, Two, and Three Wells Fargo?  Is Wells occupying more space than they need?
      If anything, the hotel situation may be more dire.  I trust the NFL and NBA will be fully back in a year or less, but it will be a long time before the convention business bounces back.  That's the life blood of hotels, of course, and new hotel rooms, from economical to luxe, are rapidly coming on line.
      I hate to be negative.  I've always been a Charlotte booster.  Would anyone like to demonstrate that things look better than I think they do?  
    • By HankStrong
      https://orlando.novusagenda.com/AgendaWeb/AttachmentViewer.ashx?AttachmentID=88733&ItemID=49208
      Just a link to the MPB staff report.
      I combined Ph 2 tower and Ph 3 former Church Street Station re-work as it seems they are both ramping up to start.
       
       
       
    • By KJHburg
      Photos from today this JW Marriott hotel at Plant Riverside  is getting ready to open in November of this year.  This is a great project new construction blending with renovated old power plant all along the Savannah River. This project will include an extension of the riverwalk further towards the bridge.  
      http://www.plantriverside.com/#home
       
       




















    • By Scribe
      I posted this under the general "Misc. Uptown Projects" but being a 226 foot tower on an empty surface parking lot, I think this has the potential to get things moving in re-developing the South Brevard/CTC corridor...
      I have been waiting for this project to publish the site plans....
      http://ww.charmeck.org/Planning/Rezoning/2018/048-063/2018-062 site plan.pdf
      Finally seeing some motion on the parcels across S Brevard from the CTC (this is just crappy surface parking lot now....)
      19 story tower (will be marketed as 20 story) according to @ricky_davis_fan_21 it will be a 226.67 feet tall!



    • By tamias6
      A 400 room 24 story convention hotel proposed for Devos Place? Hmmmm I'm surprised to see something like this one sliped under the Urban Planet radar.  http://www.mlive.com/business/west-michigan/index.ssf/2017/04/new_400-room_hotel_proposed_at.html
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.