Richmond Resort & Casino

[Icetera]

1 minute ago, Brent114 said:

The Cordish proposal “looks” nice.  I just really hate this location for a casino (and all of their other projects look terrible and suffer from very high vacancy rates).  
A big project like this should expand Richmond’s urban foot print.  I don’t understand the reasoning behind cramming it into an already booming  area that is actually pretty tiny (Scott’s Addition ). 
 

  If this was just a few feet further north (across the tracks) I’d be much more enthusiastic.   There are hundreds of undeveloped acres there that if built upon would move the urban boundary of the city.  The height of the hotel and the flashiness of it would make it feel connected to SA without trying to be in the middle of it.  It could actually help make the 300 vision  of the area possible.  Placing it 1/16 of a mile farther from a pulse station wouldn’t change anything either.  This location feels really small-minded  and timid to me, and bad for nearby restaurants. 
 

I fully agree on that assessment.  Unfortunately, I believe this is more of a result of our RFP process and heavily weighing  the vendor having secured a site within a very short period of time rather than the ideal location.   City property seems to be out of the question, thus eliminating the Diamond property or Coliseum.  Bowtie was in the general area and very available.  Looking at other Live! projects, I suspect they would have liked to be closer to the future ballpark.  Their sites do range quite a bit from fresh canvas (Philly), far out malls with little activity (Pitt), malls that appear to now have high development activity (Ann Arundel), and urban centers that are developing or now developed (Arlington, Baltimore, Kansas City, Louisville).

[I miss RVA]

22 hours ago, Brent114 said:

The Cordish proposal “looks” nice.  I just really hate this location for a casino (and all of their other projects look terrible and suffer from very high vacancy rates).  
A big project like this should expand Richmond’s urban foot print.  I don’t understand the reasoning behind cramming it into an already booming  area that is actually pretty tiny (Scott’s Addition ). 
 

  If this was just a few feet further north (across the tracks) I’d be much more enthusiastic.   There are hundreds of undeveloped acres there that if built upon would move the urban boundary of the city.  The height of the hotel and the flashiness of it would make it feel connected to SA without trying to be in the middle of it.  It could actually help make the 300 vision  of the area possible.  Placing it 1/16 of a mile farther from a pulse station wouldn’t change anything either.  This location feels really small-minded  and timid to me, and bad for nearby restaurants. 
 

I fully agree. I would have a lot less indigestion over the project if it could be located just to the north, on the other side of the Acca yards. I'm not a preservationist by ANY means - but I really don't want to see the old locomotive factory buildings torn down. Something about moving the casino north of the bridge just makes more sense to me than putting it right in an already booming area. Of the three, I'm choosing this one by process of elimination simply because I'm not at all enamored with the other two proposals.

Edited April 1, 2021 by I miss RVA

[whw53]

Have their been any hints as to where Bally's backup or alternative site is? Sorry if i missed this.

[wrldcoupe4]

Is anyone listening to the presentation tonight? Can you provide a recap?

[Icetera]

3 minutes ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

Is anyone listening to the presentation tonight? Can you provide a recap?

Watching now.  Will add some after.

[Icetera]

Just finished watching the Casino ONE presentation (45 minutes presentation and  1 hr 45 min of Q&A).  Will have to catch up on Bally's Thursday presentation on a later date.  All should be up on YouTube later.

Some points from this presentation:
These presenters felt much more corporate and polished compared to yesterday's Cordish presentation.  That is not to say that the content was particularly impressive but it does highlight the marketing capabilities brought on by Urban ONE.

Though Urban ONE is heavily involved and the showrunner, this operation is very clearly ran by Peninsula Pacific Entertainment (P2E) of which has set up an office in the Gateway Tower.

P2E is confident that this project will not compete with their Rosie's / Colonial Downs enterprises as they feel that they are not comparable.  Urban ONE believes that capturing more Virginia residents here will not impact their stake in MGM National Harbor.

Alfred, of Urban ONE, is very interested in future development in the immediate area separately from the casino-resort project.  Definitely interest in working with area TV/movie studios (we have at least two shows filming in Richmond currently).

Whereas Live! could not commit to LEED standards, Casino ONE is committed  (however Live! does have heavy use of green walls and solar to please Scott).

They state they chose the location because it has highway access/visibility, is surrounded by industrial uses, and has many barriers to protect the nearest neighborhood (empty lots, wetlands, rail tracks, etc.).  They then state that the park could be an asset to that same inaccessible community.

Urban ONE touts this as the largest proposal of  the three but that is only because it is on the largest plot of land at 100 acres.  55 would be used for park with the rest containing the comparatively far smaller development surrounded by a sea of parking.

P2E claims they have built more ground up gaming establishments than either competitor but this seems disingenuous as only two are actual casinos and way below Richmond's caliber (ex: Sioux City Hard Rock Casino below).

They expect to hire 1500 employees averaging $55k/year plus $3-5k in profit sharing and minimum $15/hr.  50% would be local.  (For comparison Live! is expected to hire 3000 employees averaging $60k/year and minimum $15/hr.  80% would be local).

Reva Trammel has been present during both proposals and is pushing for this one, whereas, Jordan and Larsen are against their area proposals.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_S0u3obSg6TZpgGJmlemow
 

 

 

[vaceltic]

On 2/22/2021 at 9:48 AM, vaceltic said:

Is anyone else slightly uncomfortable with how the casino regulation is playing out in Richmond?

We now have a singular RFP pitting a Native American proposal against an African American proposal, versus some mystery third or fourth proposal.

While I would hope the objective merits of each would be the sole focus of the decision-making, this is doubtful with the politics in play. I can see whatever the resulting outcome being a win-lose situation with the optics/fallout of whichever proposal wins the casino project.

 

I’m actually convinced now that Richmond residents will vote against a casino development in the city at the November referendum.

Stoney is pulling out the race card, yet again on RTD articles (see also anything Navy Hill related) as an excuse for why some folks are opposing certain developments against the other.

He and the EDA grossly miscalculated the appropriate process (yet AGAIN) on how this shouldve gone.

1. Communicate the benefits of what a casino (any casino) could bring to drum up support BEFORE the referendum vote.

2. ONLY AFTER the referendum has passed, issue an RFP for casino operators to gin up competitive bids and see where they fall. Set clear RFP parameters and a transparent scoring mechanism that ALL residents can see once the EDA selects one operator over the others.

This messed up process is WHY richmond will lose out. I warned that race would be an issue and that this would happen. I Really don’t understand who is making these decisions at the EDA or administration. But race really isn’t the issue here.
 

A significant segment of at least two voting district residents will oppose the proposed casinos in their area and decide to vote no on the referendum. We shouldn’t have seen ANY proposals before the referendum vote. Who knows what the voting split will be in the other council districts that are caught in-between, but I see this as a major red flag.

i am leaning myself towards voting no simply because the race card is being played by Stoney, when it’s really HIS administrations fault there’s so much opposition already. 

Edited April 2, 2021 by vaceltic

[Icetera]

1 hour ago, vaceltic said:

1. Communicate the benefits of what a casino (any casino) could bring to drum up support BEFORE the referendum vote.

2. ONLY AFTER the referendum has passed, issue an RFP for casino operators to gin up competitive bids and see where they fall. Set clear RFP parameters and a transparent scoring mechanism that ALL residents can see once the EDA selects one operator over the others.

While I agree the process is not great, this is actually due to stipulations by state legislation, not the City.  The referendum requires a location, vendor and YES/NO on one question.  The race issue was brought up via media (and even us) before Stoney's statement.

http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/58.1-4123

[Icetera]

On 3/29/2021 at 8:28 PM, DowntownCoruscant said:

Any truth to the rumor (seen on Reddit) that Bally’s has a “backup location”? I hope so for their sake because their current location sucks out loud for a casino. 

It turns out a "backup" location is not possible, as per the RFP, they were only allowed one location for consideration.  The "backup" location may be referring to the property on the Chesterfield site that they are now looking to utilize for access.

[vaceltic]

1 hour ago, Icetera said:

While I agree the process is not great, this is actually due to stipulations by state legislation, not the City.  The referendum requires a location, vendor and YES/NO on one question.  The race issue was brought up via media (and even us) before Stoney's statement.

http://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/58.1-4123

Forum members and media Acknowledging that the race discussion was going to come into play is an entirely different point.

Only Stoney has directed accusations of racism to a specific group, in this case, opposition to these plans. 

Maybe the Pamunkey Indians would have something to say about Stoney and the EDA...

[DowntownCoruscant]

1 hour ago, Icetera said:

It turns out a "backup" location is not possible, as per the RFP, they were only allowed one location for consideration.  The "backup" location may be referring to the property on the Chesterfield site that they are now looking to utilize for access.

Ah. Thanks.

[I miss RVA]

I don't remember seeing Michael Paul Williams' column regarding the casino issue posted here. Snagged the link off the RVA/Reddit page. Agree or disagree, worth a read to get the RTD take on all of this (well, at least Willaims' take). A lot of debate happening on RVA/Reddit - which is to be expected.

https://richmond.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/williams-richmonds-casino-proposals-have-pitted-neighborhood-against-neighborhood-we-need-an-equitable-outcome-or/article_1487dacb-8c6e-590c-b876-6621be0a1671.html

[vaceltic]

13 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

I don't remember seeing Michael Paul Williams' column regarding the casino issue posted here. Snagged the link off the RVA/Reddit page. Agree or disagree, worth a read to get the RTD take on all of this (well, at least Willaims' take). A lot of debate happening on RVA/Reddit - which is to be expected.

https://richmond.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/williams-richmonds-casino-proposals-have-pitted-neighborhood-against-neighborhood-we-need-an-equitable-outcome-or/article_1487dacb-8c6e-590c-b876-6621be0a1671.html

The city paid a consultant to tell them where a casino should go. No surprise, the consultant recommended downtown (Navy Hill) and yet there’s no proposal before us in that location.

So many face palm emojis...

[I miss RVA]

3 hours ago, vaceltic said:

So many face palm emojis...

I couldn't agree more!

[majors2410]

Downtown across the street from the convention center is where it should go. We have this huge investment so why not enhance it. Its right in front of their face.

[Icetera]

On 4/4/2021 at 9:39 AM, vaceltic said:

The city paid a consultant to tell them where a casino should go. No surprise, the consultant recommended downtown (Navy Hill) and yet there’s no proposal before us in that location.

So many face palm emojis...

Which is so frustrating since the city required proposals to have control of their properties prior to submission, therefore, eliminating the best city owned locations.  I understand why the city wanted to avoid any involvement after the Navy Hill backlash but as usual, we end up eliminating the best options.

[I miss RVA]

7 hours ago, Icetera said:

Which is so frustrating since the city required proposals to have control of their properties prior to submission, therefore, eliminating the best city owned locations.  I understand why the city wanted to avoid any involvement after the Navy Hill backlash but as usual, we end up eliminating the best options.

Very true.

And as was mentioned earlier in this thread, it really seems like the cart was put WAY before the team of horses. Shouldn't a referendum been held first to even determine whether or not the citizens of the city would vote to approve it? Why lay all the proposals on the table now - sift through them - pick one - and then have a vote? I can't fully grasp how somehow the way this process has been handled was the correct way to go.

[Icetera]

17 hours ago, I miss RVA said:

Very true.

And as was mentioned earlier in this thread, it really seems like the cart was put WAY before the team of horses. Shouldn't a referendum been held first to even determine whether or not the citizens of the city would vote to approve it? Why lay all the proposals on the table now - sift through them - pick one - and then have a vote? I can't fully grasp how somehow the way this process has been handled was the correct way to go.

Because Richmond is not the one to initiate this process in the first place.  It sounds like Bristol triggered the legislation and subsequent referendums with the State opening it up to four further licenses.  All the cities, expect for Danville and Richmond, had deals locked in without any community engagement.  Danville did some bidding process (must have been really quick though).  Richmond could have just chosen to go with Pamunkey, or more likely Colonial Downs, and threw it on the 2020 referendum but we are at-least trying to create a competitive process.  The referendum process is clear (YES/NO, site, and operator), so we have to follow it even if we got the special allowances to delay a year.   After Navy Hill, in order to involve city property we would have been forced into a lengthy RFP before plans could even be in place and we only had an extra year to work with.  On top of that, we started during a mayoral election with Karen Gray still on council and still a threat of taking the reigns.  With the limited timeframe and the council at the time, I am not sure we could have created a much better process even though we can think of a million ways the results could be better.

Had we not had the results of the Navy Hill fiasco, then we may have had  a case where the city could have set a location, made the deal, and we would have had a  referendum last year.  We would now simply be waiting for construction details.  Unfortunately, the results of Navy Hill have made subsequent projects much more difficult and no casino developer would dream of touching the coliseum site.

[vaceltic]

6 hours ago, Icetera said:

Because Richmond is not the one to initiate this process in the first place.  It sounds like Bristol triggered the legislation and subsequent referendums with the State opening it up to four further licenses.  All the cities, expect for Danville and Richmond, had deals locked in without any community engagement.  Danville did some bidding process (must have been really quick though).  Richmond could have just chosen to go with Pamunkey, or more likely Colonial Downs, and threw it on the 2020 referendum but we are at-least trying to create a competitive process.  The referendum process is clear (YES/NO, site, and operator), so we have to follow it even if we got the special allowances to delay a year.   After Navy Hill, in order to involve city property we would have been forced into a lengthy RFP before plans could even be in place and we only had an extra year to work with.  On top of that, we started during a mayoral election with Karen Gray still on council and still a threat of taking the reigns.  With the limited timeframe and the council at the time, I am not sure we could have created a much better process even though we can think of a million ways the results could be better.

Had we not had the results of the Navy Hill fiasco, then we may have had  a case where the city could have set a location, made the deal, and we would have had a  referendum last year.  We would now simply be waiting for construction details.  Unfortunately, the results of Navy Hill have made subsequent projects much more difficult and no casino developer would dream of touching the coliseum site.

Point taken and totally agree with this statement.

I’m still dismayed that the city paid out money for a study requesting them to evaluate an appropriate location for a casino is that is not even in the scope of projects they have to look at.  What is the point of that?

The left hand never seems to talk to the right hand and it’s supremely frustrating to see money wasted on that study. 

[Icetera]

6 minutes ago, vaceltic said:

Point taken and totally agree with this statement.

I’m still dismayed that the city paid out money for a study requesting them to evaluate an appropriate location for a casino is that is not even in the scope of projects they have to look at.  What is the point of that?

The left hand never seems to talk to the right hand and it’s supremely frustrating to see money wasted on that study. 

I am not aware of a study for the purpose of choosing the best site of the casino, but if there is one I would love a reference.  I do know that the city hired a consulting firm in order to have an independent study on the likely revenue and affects of various locations before proposals were submitted.  The purpose was so that the city would have their own knowledge compared to what the proposers would determine themselves, which personally I think is a great idea.  Essentially the city wanted to be an educated customer.  During this study they used three areas: Downtown, Northwest, and Southside.  The Downtown location resulted in the largest likely revenue outcome while Southside showed the least likely performance, but the three sample locations were not too far off from each other.  Prior to all of this the Commonwealth also ran their own study through the Joint Legislative Audit & Review Commission.

[I miss RVA]

7 hours ago, Icetera said:

Because Richmond is not the one to initiate this process in the first place.  It sounds like Bristol triggered the legislation and subsequent referendums with the State opening it up to four further licenses.  All the cities, expect for Danville and Richmond, had deals locked in without any community engagement.  Danville did some bidding process (must have been really quick though).  Richmond could have just chosen to go with Pamunkey, or more likely Colonial Downs, and threw it on the 2020 referendum but we are at-least trying to create a competitive process.  The referendum process is clear (YES/NO, site, and operator), so we have to follow it even if we got the special allowances to delay a year.   After Navy Hill, in order to involve city property we would have been forced into a lengthy RFP before plans could even be in place and we only had an extra year to work with.  On top of that, we started during a mayoral election with Karen Gray still on council and still a threat of taking the reigns.  With the limited timeframe and the council at the time, I am not sure we could have created a much better process even though we can think of a million ways the results could be better.

Had we not had the results of the Navy Hill fiasco, then we may have had  a case where the city could have set a location, made the deal, and we would have had a  referendum last year.  We would now simply be waiting for construction details.  Unfortunately, the results of Navy Hill have made subsequent projects much more difficult and no casino developer would dream of touching the coliseum site.

Who knew a year-plus ago that the Navy Hill debacle would have such a domino/snowball effect regarding future development and city involvement? It feels like that blemish is going to be around with us for a while, and will only further complicate an already dicey process that seems to find itself in muddy water time and again.

Given the relative lack of success in the city's involvement in its own development projects over the last 50 years (a litany of failures from the 70s, 80s and onward) - I am reminded of the adage - "the definition of insanity is to do the same thing over and over while expecting different results."  Seems like the city government is stuck in this cycle yet again.

Edited April 6, 2021 by I miss RVA

[vaceltic]

4 hours ago, Icetera said:

I am not aware of a study for the purpose of choosing the best site of the casino, but if there is one I would love a reference.  I do know that the city hired a consulting firm in order to have an independent study on the likely revenue and affects of various locations before proposals were submitted.  The purpose was so that the city would have their own knowledge compared to what the proposers would determine themselves, which personally I think is a great idea.  Essentially the city wanted to be an educated customer.  During this study they used three areas: Downtown, Northwest, and Southside.  The Downtown location resulted in the largest likely revenue outcome while Southside showed the least likely performance, but the three sample locations were not too far off from each other.  Prior to all of this the Commonwealth also ran their own study through the Joint Legislative Audit & Review Commission.

MPW op-Ed in RTD stated so. He could be wrong, it’s not like RTD is the most accurate or unbiased news source out there.

https://richmond.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/williams-richmonds-casino-proposals-have-pitted-neighborhood-against-neighborhood-we-need-an-equitable-outcome-or/article_1487dacb-8c6e-590c-b876-6621be0a1671.html

[Icetera]

30 minutes ago, vaceltic said:

MPW op-Ed in RTD stated so. He could be wrong, it’s not like RTD is the most accurate or unbiased news source out there.

https://richmond.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/williams-richmonds-casino-proposals-have-pitted-neighborhood-against-neighborhood-we-need-an-equitable-outcome-or/article_1487dacb-8c6e-590c-b876-6621be0a1671.html

I see what you are referring to but I read the last line as William's personal statement:

"A consultant’s report by the New Orleans-based Convergence Strategy Group recommended that the casino be built downtown. The site of a demolished Coliseum, right off Interstate 95, would have done nicely."

I have actually been finding the RTD does a decent job of covering issues from both sides.  Whereas I have been finding  the local TV media tends to just parrot press releases (reporters rarely on site) or cater to fear-mongering suburbanites (great for ratings), RTD almost always has a reporter present at major city events with articles bouncing between views.  I really hope that as the city restores its prominence in the metro that city television media reporting will improve as well.

[Icetera]

At a Bally's meeting in Chimbarazo Park now.  They just stated they have the large plot behind Rosie's as an alternate site.

 

Update: City says no, which was my prior understanding. 

[eandslee]

15 minutes ago, Icetera said:

At a Bally's meeting in Chimbarazo Park now.  They just stated they have the large plot behind Rosie's as an alternate site.

 

Update: City says no, which was my prior understanding. 

Yeah, just read the RTD article saying that Bally's can't pitch an alternate site...none of the proposers can pitch an alternate site because it wouldn't be fair to the other 2 proposals still on the table, nor to the proposals that have already been eliminated.  My opinion is that Bally's is feeling the pressure of the NIMBYs (Richmond residents are very good at this) and they see that their site is their Achilles Heel...and might not be able to win this thing with their selected location.  The article also mentioned that the site in SA (the LIVE! Casino proposal) is also getting a lot of opposition.   The Urban One proposal is receiving the least opposition, but the opposition it is getting refers to the negative impact it would have on the poor black communities nearby.  Gee...Richmond will find a way to screw this up and no casino will get built.  It's really frustrating to see that most people who are opposing the casino projects cite this reason or that reason, but then when the developer resolves their concern, they still say they are against the casino (as if the reason why they cite is just a façade and they have no other real reason to oppose it other than they just don't want a casino at all).  It's ridiculous.  SMH