Richmond Resort & Casino

[I miss RVA]

52 minutes ago, eandslee said:

Yeah, that surprises me since that 4 other localities in the state passed this by a wide margin last year.

Of COURSE they did... wow... 

[ancientcarpenter]

As you all know, I'm fine with the most likely decision being NO on casino. However, I don't think the vote lost the casino, I think the process lost the casino. Why we didn't first vote on choice of land then separately picked a casino developer to go with is beyond me. Many people liked the southside design but wanted it in Scott's Addition... or any other combinations. Out of all my choices, that would have been my combo and may have swayed me. "One Casino" location was my last choice of the three and so was the developer.

Election is over. We will see what happens next. It's out of our hands. This thread can finally rest. 

[DowntownCoruscant]

Not really important, and there will be no surprises as far as this vote is concerned, but I got a chuckle out of the Richmond Biz Sense headline beginning with “It’s Official,” when even the article recognizes nothing is official until the registrar certifies the vote.

[I miss RVA]

Idk why - but I'm not at all surprised RVA voters didn't go for it - whereas all the other localities statewide, supported it.

What are the odds this would have passed if it were planned for Henrico Country and the county voters had the referendum?

 

[vdogg]

14 hours ago, eandslee said:

Yeah, that surprises me since the 4 other localities in the state passed this by a wide margin last year.

Delaying the referendum was a stupid move. Momentum is a real thing, and fleeting, often changing with the political climate of the country at large on a local level. I firmly believe that if they had held their referendum at the same time the other localities had, it would have passed by a wide margin.

[Icetera]

18 minutes ago, vdogg said:

Delaying the referendum was a stupid move. Momentum is a real thing, and fleeting, often changing with the political climate of the country at large on a local level. I firmly believe that if they had held their referendum at the same time the other localities had, it would have passed by a wide margin.

Agreed.  Unfortunately, we learned the wrong lessons from Navy Hill.

[I miss RVA]

6 minutes ago, Icetera said:

Agreed.  Unfortunately, we learned the wrong lessons from Navy Hill.

I fully agree with both of you, vdogg & icetera. Well said.

Once again, RVA gets the  unofficial "Earnest Byner Fumbles at the Goal Line Award" on how it handles these things.

[wrldcoupe4]

We fail at big things which is why we'll never be big or important. I think a majority of the citizens in the city are okay with that. So be it. My glasses are losing their rose colored tint for this place which makes me sad. Can't imagine how bungled the Boulevard RFP will turn out.  

[whw53]

I've really lost interest, nooo maybe hope in the relevancy if you will of these city-driven efforts, small area plans, endless visioning exercises etc. What keeps me optimistic is the slew of private sector proposals popping up that @I miss RVA has likened to 'mushrooms after a spring shower'. Yes - more narrow in scope, mostly residential as of now but these projects are revitalizing our neighborhoods block by block  creating a more modern, more energized senses of place. - something that strikes every visitor I've had here is how basically 'cool' Richmond is and of how much potential there is for more. I think in the long term that coolness will do what it did for Austin, what it's doing for Nashville etc. Richmond's renaissance will be 'bottom up' and in spite of the city government and other entrenched citizenry , not because of them. 

Edited November 3, 2021 by whw53

[wrldcoupe4]

Compare this map to a map showing how race is dispersed in the city, it's interesting. 

https://www.wric.com/news/politics/local-election-hq/richmond-casino-referendum-urban-one-rolled-the-dice-but-the-race-is-too-close-to-call/

[DowntownCoruscant]

1 hour ago, I miss RVA said:

I fully agree with both of you, vdogg & icetera. Well said.

Once again, RVA gets the  unofficial "Earnest Byner Fumbles at the Goal Line Award" on how it handles these things.

Ouch.

Byner did eventually get that ring, though, so the analogy does contain some optimism!

[123fakestreet]

1 hour ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

We fail at big things which is why we'll never be big or important. I think a majority of the citizens in the city are okay with that. So be it. 

Because these people want it that way. It's why they elect city council members with no vision.

[Icetera]

2 hours ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

Compare this map to a map showing how race is dispersed in the city, it's interesting. 

https://www.wric.com/news/politics/local-election-hq/richmond-casino-referendum-urban-one-rolled-the-dice-but-the-race-is-too-close-to-call/

At this point I hope Chesterfield gets a shot at it and puts it right across the highway from the Bally's site.

[123fakestreet]

Just now, Icetera said:

It this point I hope Chesterfield gets a shot at it and puts it right across the highway from the Bally's site.

All the people that voted against it are going to feel really stupid when the Pamunkey one goes up in Manchester anyway, and ONE just build theirs in East Henrico or North Chesterfield. their "no" votes won't stop gambling in the area it will just leave the city out in the cold on all the tax revenue.

[I miss RVA]

1 hour ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

We fail at big things which is why we'll never be big or important.

I think a majority of the citizens in the city are okay with that. So be it.

My glasses are losing their rose colored tint for this place which makes me sad.

Can't imagine how bungled the Boulevard RFP will turn out.  

To your points:

1.) Preach, brother!! I've been yelling this for decades now. RVA fails at things other cities have little to no problem turning into rousing successes. It boggles my mind as to how and why this is - and i still have no answer for it, except perhaps your second point explains why.

2.) Sadly - VERY sadly - I think you are correct in that assessment. I've held by this belief for as long as I can remember and, tbh, I flat out cannot understand WHY this mindset is as it is across the city. This mindset is SO anathema to me in every possible way, that I simply can't understand or process it. WHY would such a large swatch of the citizenry of this city be content with RVA flopping at everything big - and literally going NOWHERE? When for DECADES now, RVA has had all of this tremendous untapped potential to become a big, national (even international!!), name-recognized Tier-1 city - WHY not reach for the stars?? Why settle for far less than this city can achieve? I will NEVER understand it. Nor will I ever agree with it. And I reject it with every fiber of my being.

3.) Again, preach it, Coupe!! I've felt this way about the city I love dearly for close to five decades now. The petals began falling from the flower for me in the late 70s and really hit in earnest in the 80s & 90s. My level of disappointment over and frustration with the city's many failures to really take off and grow despite having the necessary urban infrastructure, concentration of Fortune 500 companies, and loads and loads and loads of potential - has made my love for RVA very bittersweet.

4.) I'm scared to ask how bad it will be, quite frankly. I just know it will be a train wreck of dumpster fires, no matter what happens.

[Kevin Cheph Randall]

I believe per state law Richmond is the only other local in VA that can build a casino. Does this become a yearly thing? How often can a vote be held until a casino is built? 

This issues isn't going to die, Richmond is still allowed to build a casino per state law. 

[I miss RVA]

Not to further stir the pot of drek - but the RTD had an interesting take on the casino vote -- and I thought it was worth posting it here for our thoughts.

Their graphic of just how the vote went across the city (for or against) - quite interesting. No idea if it's legitimately "telling" or not - but it is something that folks are vigorously debating in the RTD comments section as well as that of RBS.

https://richmond.com/news/local/i-was-expecting-it-to-pass-urban-one-casino-fails-despite-being-heavily-favored-by/article_4302929b-d3eb-5f20-b6a7-d2a23e97f304.html#tracking-source=home-top-story-1

[wrldcoupe4]

Well, I’ll ask the question. Why did predominately white areas of the city vote no and predominantly non-white areas vote yes?

[ancientcarpenter]

52 minutes ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

Well, I’ll ask the question. Why did predominately white areas of the city vote no and predominantly non-white areas vote yes?

I don't think this has much racism to do with it, at least the way it's being framed.

 

Just forget about the casino for a second. Imagine if this was a coal mine instead. Same city. Same site. Almost same everything except it's not a casino, it is a proposed coal mine we were voting for. You would see the same exact voting patterns for a number of reasons:

1. The "No" areas tend to be more wealthy

2. The "No" areas tend to have a strong number of college educated population

3. The southern "yes" areas tend to be more blue colored, non-college educated population

4. The southern "yes" areas tend to be more low skilled job dependent population

 

1 & 2 would likely not vote for a casino whether it was in their back yard or in Scott's Addition. 

3 & 4 would likely vote for a casino whether it was in their back yard or in Scott's Addition. 

1 & 2 would likely not vote for a coal mine whether it was in their back yard or in Scott's Addition. 

3 & 4 would likely vote for a coal mine whether it was in their back yard or in Scott's Addition. 

 

Casinos are fine short term but they have been known to leach from the localities long term. Populations in 1 & 2 tend to not be so dependent on a casino or a coal mine for work (or play) so they can take their time and make a decision that looks to the long term instead of short term gains. A 3 & 4 population group may be quickly enticed by jobs because they are strained by the economy and have to be dependent on lower wages and possibly unstable job markets. 

 

How many coal towns voted to have a coal mine? How many coal towns benefited long term? The local population (usually in 3 & 4 population groups) don't have the luxury of saying no and are more susceptible to billboard advertisements and "big money" influence. The local populations that voted for coal mines found their air quality, water systems, and health polluted one way or another. They found themselves essentially with no town after the coal mine dried up. These are those long term effects that usually 1 & 2 population groups have the luxury of planning for.

 

This is a race issue except it's not what many people think. This is a problem that goes back a hundred years where whites created laws that un(der)educated the (freed) black community, destroyed their communities with highways and laser-like red lining, disenfranchised anything black with racist banking practices, over-policies, targeted war on drugs, etc.

We need to change all of that systematically, not with throwing a casino at the local, minority population. I'm ecstatic that people are now concerned with systematic racism so I will assume they voted on Tuesday for a particular candidate with those types of policies.

I'm all for development in RVA but I will not be swayed by a fancy colored purple billboard and especially not a development that is known to leach off the local (low income) community.

Edited November 4, 2021 by ancientcarpenter

[vdogg]

58 minutes ago, ancientcarpenter said:

I don't think this has much racism to do with it, at least the way it's being framed.

 

Just forget about the casino for a second. Imagine if this was a coal mine instead. Same city. Same site. Almost same everything except it's not a casino, it is a proposed coal mine we were voting for. You would see the same exact voting patterns for a number of reasons:

1. The "No" areas tend to be more wealthy

2. The "No" areas tend to have a strong number of college educated population

3. The southern "yes" areas tend to be more blue colored, non-college educated population

4. The southern "yes" areas tend to be more low skilled job dependent population

 

1 & 2 would likely not vote for a casino whether it was in their back yard or in Scott's Addition. 

3 & 4 would likely vote for a casino whether it was in their back yard or in Scott's Addition. 

1 & 2 would likely not vote for a coal mine whether it was in their back yard or in Scott's Addition. 

3 & 4 would likely vote for a coal mine whether it was in their back yard or in Scott's Addition. 

 

Casinos are fine short term but they have been known to leach from the localities long term. Populations in 1 & 2 tend to not be so dependent on a casino or a coal mine for work (or play) so they can take their time and make a decision that looks to the long term instead of short term gains. A 3 & 4 population group may be quickly enticed by jobs because they are strained by the economy and have to be dependent on lower wages and possibly unstable job markets. 

 

How many coal towns voted to have a coal mine? How many coal towns benefited long term? The local population (usually in 3 & 4 population groups) don't have the luxury of saying no and are more susceptible to billboard advertisements and "big money" influence. The local populations that voted for coal mines found their air quality, water systems, and health polluted one way or another. They found themselves essentially with no town after the coal mine dried up. These are those long term effects that usually 1 & 2 population groups have the luxury of planning for.

 

This is a race issue except it's not what many people think. This is a problem that goes back a hundred years where whites created laws that un(der)educated the (freed) black community, destroyed their communities with highways and laser-like red lining, disenfranchised anything black with racist banking practices, over-policies, targeted war on drugs, etc.

We need to change all of that systematically, not with throwing a casino at the local, minority population. I'm ecstatic that people are now concerned with systematic racism so I will assume they voted on Tuesday for a particular candidate with those types of policies.

I'm all for development in RVA but I will not be swayed by a fancy colored purple billboard and especially not a development that is known to leach off the local (low income) community.

I don't think Coupe's point is about racism more than it is about self interest. Minority communities are typically poorer, have less economic opportunities, and welcome the investment in jobs and income that this project would have brought. This project would have directly affected and benefited those communities the most. Non-minority communities have the luxury of Nimbyism. They can reject such proposals for seemingly arbitrary reasons because there is no benefit to them as they see it, despite how it may have helped their fellow citizens. It's a matter of affluence vs. poverty that typically alines along racial lines. For a community to truly work at it's highest possible potential, the citizens of said community must adopt a policy of altruism, i.e. "Even though it doesn't benefit me, it benefits others, therefore I'm for it". I can tell you, Richmond is by far not the only community suffering from a lack of altruism. It's sadly an issue nationwide.

[ancientcarpenter]

14 minutes ago, vdogg said:

I don't think Coupe's point is about racism more than it is about self interest. Minority communities are typically poorer, have less economic opportunities, and welcome the investment in jobs and income that this project would have brought. This project would have directly affected and benefited those communities the most. Non-minority communities have the luxury of Nimbyism. They can reject such proposals for seemingly arbitrary reasons because there is no benefit to them as they see it, despite how it may have helped their fellow citizens. It's a matter of affluence vs. poverty that typically alines along racial lines. For a community to truly work at it's highest possible potential, the citizens of said community must adopt a policy of altruism, i.e. "Even though it doesn't benefit me, it benefits others, therefore I'm for it". I can tell you, Richmond is by far not the only community suffering from a lack of altruism. It's sadly an issue nationwide.

It's not so (pardon the pun) black and white, there is a gray area. Not wanting a Casino is not the same as not wanting broad st to have higher build zones and more density. Casinos are not good for the community in the long term, hard to make a jobs argument for the casino as jobs are dime a dozen right now. Higher density is good for the community. 

I voted no on casino and am happy to have more broad st density (thus rezoning) in my backyard. Casino doesn't help long term, higher density does help in long term. This is not NIMBYISM as it's literally not in most people who voted no's backyard. 

Edited November 4, 2021 by ancientcarpenter

[whw53]

Just now, ancientcarpenter said:

It's not so (pardon the pun) black and white, there is a gray area. Not wanting a Casino is not the same as not wanting broad st to have higher build zones and more density. Casinos are not good for the community in the long term, hard to make a jobs argument for the casino as jobs are dime a dozen right now. 

I voted no on casino and am happy to have more density (thus rezoning) in my backyard. Casino doesn't help long term, higher density does help in long term. 

Ok - not 'good for the community' is subjective and a wide claim - one that has a moral belief behind it more than objective fact. There were many people in the immediate are who would have  benefitted in their point of view. It's paternalistic to shut off a private business venture on such a claim.

[Icetera]

1 hour ago, ancientcarpenter said:

Casinos are fine short term but they have been known to leach from the localities long term. 

How many coal towns voted to have a coal mine? How many coal towns benefited long term? The local population (usually in 3 & 4 population groups) don't have the luxury of saying no and are more susceptible to billboard advertisements and "big money" influence. The local populations that voted for coal mines found their air quality, water systems, and health polluted one way or another. They found themselves essentially with no town after the coal mine dried up. These are those long term effects that usually 1 & 2 population groups have the luxury of planning for.

 

This is a race issue except it's not what many people think. This is a problem that goes back a hundred years where whites created laws that un(der)educated the (freed) black community, destroyed their communities with highways and laser-like red lining, disenfranchised anything black with racist banking practices, over-policies, targeted war on drugs, etc.

We need to change all of that systematically, not with throwing a casino at the local, minority population. I'm ecstatic that people are now concerned with systematic racism so I will assume they voted on Tuesday for a particular candidate with those types of policies.

I'm all for development in RVA but I will not be swayed by a fancy colored purple billboard and especially not a development that is known to leach off the local (low income) community.

I like a lot of your points but these are also terrible comparisons (even ignoring the fact that Southside Richmond was home to the first commercial coal mine in North America).  Poorly done casinos in smaller communities fit your your description, but Richmond is not a small region.  We are a mixed economy of 1.3 million people, not a small town reliant on a single industry.  We can handle large companies coming and going and a casino is in no way comparable to a coal mine.  While coal mines have the serious health, environmental, and the poor working conditions described, none of these exist with a casino resort.  If anything, the issues surrounding a coal mine already exist in the industrialized area.  Also notably, despite the serious negatives, coal mines were essential as we relied on the resources generated where as casinos are pure leisure.  There location is not reliant on a natural deposit so they can easily locate to a nearby community that will accept them.

If there is concern about gambling leaching off residents then this did nothing to prevent that as Richmonders are still going to gamble, they will just now take the soon to be greatly improved Amtrak service with a direct stop at Norfolk's casino.  In other words, another casino will be leaching off of Richmond. as all we have done is redirected money out of Richmond city while gaining no new employment or tax revenue.  Southside Richmond will see no improvement.

[Brent114]

I’m dispirited by all of the election results.  
 

When  I look at the voting and racial maps of Richmond I’m even more dispirited.  The people who would live near the casino wanted it.  White people elsewhere disenfranchised them again by deciding what is best for them.  I would feel much better about the outcome if those in the area rejected it.  They didn’t.   People who have never even seen this side of Richmond decided for them.    
 

I think the process was a good one. I think having a site, developer and plan decided upon before the referendum was the least creepy thing Richmond has done in a while.   Voting yes on a vague idea then settling for whatever location and operator the city chooses later doesn’t sound like a better option. 

Edited November 4, 2021 by Brent114

[wrldcoupe4]

30 minutes ago, Brent114 said:

I’m dispirited by all of the election results.  
 

When  I look at the voting and racial maps of Richmond I’m even more dispirited.  The people who would live near the casino wanted it.  White people elsewhere disenfranchised them again by deciding what is best for them.  I would feel much better about the outcome if those in the area rejected it.  They didn’t.   People who have never even seen this side of Richmond decided for them.    
 

I think the process was a good one. I think having a site, developer and plan decided upon before the referendum was the least creepy thing Richmond has done in a while.   Voting yes on a vague idea then settling for whatever location and operator the city chooses later doesn’t sound like a better option. 

This ^ verbatim. Let's channel our white guilt into what's best for working class minorities, since we know better than they do what is best for them. What a twisted mindset.

Edited November 4, 2021 by wrldcoupe4