Jump to content

Richmond Resort & Casino


rjp212

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, eandslee said:

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

eandslee, I totally share your frustration. You hit the nail on the head - "they still say they are against the casino ... and they have no other real reason to oppose it other than they just don't want a casino at all." I get this feeling that this is the prevalent mindset across the board in the city - and it comes out in NIMBY fashion because no location is going to not face strong opposition. This is a VERY old Richmond mindset - and it's not just about things like casinos. This way of thinking has set Richmond back decades from a development standpoint, IMNSHO. And I've witnessed it, at least from the 70's forward. It really is a shame.

So other locales across the Commonwealth will get casinos... and Richmond, which obviously was viewed by developers as the pick of the litter will throw its collective hands up (as it always has) and will say - "No thank you. We don't want it. Let it go to Norfolk or wherever."

Just like losing Piedmont Airways to Charlotte in the late '70s - when no one supported the proposals to expand the terminal building at RIC and invest in parallel runways. Piedmont wanted to plop it's hub at RIC. A little more than four decades later, we see how this had all played out.

Edited by I miss RVA
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Oh come on guys. Let’s cancel the pity party. Opposition voices are always the loudest, but doesn’t mean they are the majority. There will be a referendum and the voters will decide whether we have a casino or not. That’s always been the plan. 

It does seem like Bally’s is acknowledging their location is problematic, which doesn’t bode well for their chances. So looking likely to be Arthur Ashe Blvd and Leigh Vs Commerce and Walmsley. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Site regardless, if referendum vote is a 'No' come the fall - is a casino forever forbidden? Or does city have an opportunity to start process from scratch under current legislation.

I dont know, Richmond is a lot different then cities prior which breezed thru, more activist network - it could be defeated-groups are already organized and have all year to campaign.. when is vote? Is it the same ballot as the governor's, delegates races?

Sent from my SM-A600A using Tapatalk



  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

and remember we aren't even to the referendum yet, city council still has to decide to move that forward first...real similar city council that voted down navy hill mind you, are we confident that the lineup now would have a majority to push it forward? City council is sensitive to NIMBY network, especially with the slew of equity/social justice themes being introduced by those coalitions

Sent from my SM-A600A using Tapatalk



  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, whw53 said:

Site regardless, if referendum vote is a 'No' come the fall - is a casino forever forbidden? Or does city have an opportunity to start process from scratch under current legislation.

I dont know, Richmond is a lot different then cities prior which breezed thru, more activist network - it could be defeated-groups are already organized and have all year to campaign.. when is vote? Is it the same ballot as the governor's, delegates races?

Sent from my SM-A600A using Tapatalk


 

Same ballot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, eandslee said:

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

So, Bally's claimed that they submitted two sites and renderings for both in the initial RFP, which was allowed at the time, from their understanding, but the city only published the Gravel Hill location.

This community meeting in Chimborazo Park showed a better representation of of the city as a whole as it lacked technology restrictions.  The crowd showed a clear physical divide between the diverse Richmonders that wish for opportunities and the small, but overwhelming, homogeneous group of Stratford Hills NIMBY's that show up at every meeting.  It is clearly the same few people that come off as being a much larger group.  The NIMBY's pretty much pulled all of the typical fake caring about social issues while holding "No Casino" signs and ignoring the responses from the very people they are supposedly advocating for.  They even brought up complaints that since the $100 million up front payment is not guaranteed to go to schools, as the city controls it, that we should not accept it at all.  Somehow $0 is better.  One even stated that we need to replace SIX schools and the $100 mil would only be enough to build TWO!  Seriously, somehow ZERO IS BETTER!  Considering THEIR schools are fine, this is clearly just BS.  Then we had "Please do not hurt our Mom and Pop businesses," like Target, Home Depot and Walmart!

At some point, one NIMBY claimed that no one wanted a casino in Richmond, while implying they represented everyone.   The Bally's rep finally snapped back, and though it came off as a bit unprofessional, damn it needed to be said.  He pointed out that after many meetings, he has met many more people that do want a casino and how these few NIMBYs are not representative.  This received much applause from the crowd.  Later a NIMBY stated they do not want to lose the wooded area that is such a great asset to the community.  The rep pointed out, very accurately (as I have walked the site), that the area is covered in trash, is clearly used as a dumping ground, and the only other use appears to be for ATVs (I definitely see large parties of ATVs/ Dirt Bikes convene there).

Between this and prior meetings it is clear that there is much larger overall support and I wish we could have faith that the City will recognize this and weigh the vocal minority appropriately.

EDIT: I forgot to add that a few of the NIMBYs are actually from Bon Air, but the representative may not have realized that that is Chesterfield and they get no say.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the report!  This is good to hear. The bad thing is that the media really give these NIMBYs too much press and makes it seem like there is overwhelming opposition to this site. With your report, I now think that this will get the support it needs to go forward, if it is selected to be on the ballot this fall.  Thanks again!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm as pro development as anyone, but I also don't see how anyone can be faulted for not wanting a casino in Richmond. 

Gambling is not inherently immoral. But a casino is also not inherently "progress".

It's not a straight-forward proposition, and I find merit in all points of view.

I personally don't want a casino anywhere in Richmond, but I'll also respect its development if the citizens approve it in a referendum.   

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Urbs42 said:

 I also don't see how anyone can be faulted for not wanting a casino in Richmond.

I can certainly respect that.  The issue I have is how its the same people that try to block everything as they do not want to see any change.  They use the same arguments for the casino that they use for every other opposition, whether applicable or not.  The fact that they are even trying to pull the old tired schools argument is infuriating when this time they are actually blocking additional school funding.  Its just proven that they never actually cared and its just an excuse to cover for their pure NIMBYism.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, whw53 said:

and remember we aren't even to the referendum yet, city council still has to decide to move that forward first...real similar city council that voted down navy hill mind you, are we confident that the lineup now would have a majority to push it forward? City council is sensitive to NIMBY network, especially with the slew of equity/social justice themes being introduced by those coalitions

Sent from my SM-A600A using Tapatalk


 

Well said, whw53. This is a very similar city council that not only voted down Navy Hill, but ALSO cowtowed to the south-of-Broad Street NIMBYs on upzoning Newtowne West/Carver/Allison and kept pushing off even HAVING a vote during the last quarter of 2020. And so far there's been no movement on this issue yet - and we're already to mid-April.

1 hour ago, Icetera said:

I can certainly respect that.  The issue I have is how its the same people that try to block everything as they do not want to see any change.  They use the same arguments for the casino that they use for every other opposition, whether applicable or not.  The fact that they are even trying to pull the old tired schools argument is infuriating when this time they are actually blocking additional school funding.  Its just proven that they never actually cared and its just an excuse to cover for their pure NIMBYism.

I have the same heartburn you do, Icetera. The small, exceptionally vocal groups of NIMBYs (who TOTALLY know how to work the Richmond press) squawk about any/everything that would push Richmond forward. The "but the schools" trope is their fallback when they have no legitimate argument otherwise. That they pull this trick out of the bag - even though, as you said, it's actually blocking additional school funding - shows that they couldn't care less about the schools. They just want to keep Richmond the way it is, are dug-in and entrenched, and will fight tooth-and-nail to try to not let Richmond take off and become a top-tier city. I honestly don't understand this mindset one bit.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, I miss RVA said:

The small, exceptionally vocal groups of NIMBYs (who TOTALLY know how to work the Richmond press) squawk about any/everything that would push Richmond forward. The "but the schools" trope is their fallback when they have no legitimate argument otherwise. That they pull this trick out of the bag - even though, as you said, it's actually blocking additional school funding - shows that they couldn't care less about the schools. They just want to keep Richmond the way it is, are dug-in and entrenched, and will fight tooth-and-nail to try to not let Richmond take off and become a top-tier city. I honestly don't understand this mindset one bit.

Keep in mind that I can understand protecting your property interests and that is of course in play.  Unfortunately, though, the mindset that I saw on display is that this is really a case of the "Haves" vs the "Have-nots."  These NIMBY's typically represent areas that flourished while the rest of the city was in decline.  They are already comfortable financially and have comparatively exceptional housing.  They do not need better opportunities of employment.  They already have the best schools in the city.  They are not worried about mobility.  They are where they want to be.  Unfortunately for them, now that Richmond is booming, they are quickly losing their prominence.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Icetera said:

Keep in mind that I can understand protecting your property interests and that is of course in play.  Unfortunately, though, the mindset that I saw on display is that this is really a case of the "Haves" vs the "Have-nots."  These NIMBY's typically represent areas that flourished while the rest of the city was in decline.  They are already comfortable financially and have comparatively exceptional housing.  They do not need better opportunities of employment.  They already have the best schools in the city.  They are not worried about mobility.  They are where they want to be.  Unfortunately for them, now that Richmond is booming, they are quickly losing their prominence.

!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Ballys site is definitely a mess. And yes , there are tons of atv/ dirt bike trails back there.  We would trailer in and ride for hours. I think it used to be some sort of dump perhaps? There is a small stream that runs through it though. It is in no way , shape or form some pristine piece of land.  Maybe they should purchase the property themselves to keep it as it is. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, majors2410 said:

I call them the keep Richmond empty crowd. The ones that are against everything are always the loudest. Its a miracle that the Pulse was approved. No ballpark in the bottom, no arena downtown, no casino. That dont like shiny things they like ugly asphalt parking lots.

They also don't want any tall buildings, and kvetch and moan vociferously about anything connected with density of development - because heaven forbid that there actually be a big growth in Richmond's population...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing I think is bad about the Bally's location is that it is nowhere near an Interstate...however, it is near major roadways.  If it were a choice between no casino and the Bally's location, I'd take the Bally's location.  They emphatically said that there would be no in and outlets onto Forrest Hill, so what's the big deal?  So residents will see a tall building behind some trees - big deal.  The complex would be quite isolated if you ask me and won't affect any of the residents in the area.  If they say it will - they're lying.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All this talk lumping Navy Hill and casino NIMBY’s into the same category is ridiculous. No one can make a judgement on that - people’s opposition are much more nuanced and particular for different reasons. For some, its fiscal responsibility (speaking Navy Hill here), for others, it’s incompatible land use, and yes, others maybe maybe environmental concerns. The opposition were seeing in Scotts Addition is not the same as Chippenham. A casino in Scotts Addition will trap tax dollars in, not enhance the area and small businesses nearby with more foot traffic. Surely there are many people opposing some of the casino sites adjacent to their neighborhoods who were very supportive of the arena development, as well.

Casinos are not designed to be open to the outside world - you will not see a clock, nor windows except at the front entrance of a casino, EVER. They want to draw all your hard earned money to themselves to make them money. That’s siphoning tax revenues from other businesses nearby. The best location to combat this is the one where out-of-town money is drawn to the casino. That would be the site off I-95. And it will only work well until the day North Carolina legalizes gambling. Casinos also promise all these community benefits as a payoff to allow the vice to operate willingly as an offset for taking peoples money and the socio-economic problems it exacerbates.

Its unfortunate that this process has laid bare divisions amongst this city’s residents, yet again. Real economic development should not be this controversial and unfortunately, I believe the best way to generate economic growth is a boring, long-range, and plodding effort to encourage small business and entrepreneurs.

IMO, no matter where you live, the big-flashy home run project is always going to overpromise and underdeliver on its real value to the community. Developers need a willing party to take advantage of and politicians willing to play along want that feather in their cap for the next gig.

Edited by vaceltic
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, vaceltic said:

Its unfortunate that this process has laid bare divisions amongst this city’s residents, yet again. Real economic development should not be this controversial and unfortunately, I believe the best way to generate economic growth is a boring, long-range, and plodding effort to encourage small business and entrepreneurs.

 

vaceltic: I agree with you that it is very unfortunate that this casino process has shone a very bright spotlight on the divisions among the city's denizens. You're spot on in saying economic development need not be this controversial - yet, unfortunately it is. And as much as I beat the tired drum of this is a "Richmond thing" (and in many ways, it is) - it really isn't. Many other cities - yes, even New York - have these kinds of knockdown, drag-out 15-round title matches between various citizens/neighborhood groups, the city and developers. Not every developer wins - even in as uber-progressive a city like New York.

However, I will have to respectfully disagree with you - in part - with the assertion that the best way to generate economic growth is via small businesses and entrepreneurs. At the neighborhood level, yes! Small business and entrepreneurial growth should ALWAYS be encouraged in every way possible. These opportunities do strengthen neighborhoods and communities. However, cannot and must not be the only fallback for citywide development. I think the Richmond300 Plan does an outstanding job of putting the foot on the gas pedal of the kind of economic growth Richmond needs going forward. Especially as we eventually emerge into a post-pandemic world, (and there are numerous statistical reports that bear this out) Richmond is becoming a hot, go-to, destination city for job recruitment and population growth. Pursuing larger companies and getting relos to Richmond will go a long way toward pushing the city forward. If city planners who developed the Richmond300 Plan are correct in their forecast of the city population reaching 340,000 in the next 16 years (and I hope and pray they are at least correct, if not perhaps even underestimated the rate of growth!!) - this will come primarily through the big influx of jobs that bring the influx of people from all points on the compass. THIS is where Richmond needs to go. 

I'll agree that this kind of growth doesn't require a casino to happen. A casino would be nice - but I believe the city has missed an opportunity with the Pamunkey location right on I-95. Regardless, we need more than just simple grass-roots, organic economic growth. To be sure, we need that kind of growth, too. But we need much bigger things to move this city a few notches higher. We're getting there. We just have to keep this momentum rolling forward.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Celtic said it better but my first response to trying to bring Navy Hill into the fight was: both the casino proposals and Navy Hill CAN be bad. There’s nothing wrong with being consistent in your opposition if your grievances are real. 
 

I personally hated everything about Navy Hill.  I’m mostly indifferent about the casinos but will vote no if the location is Scott’s Addition.   It will most defiantly siphon business from SA and won’t do anything to make the area more attractive for other businesses.   The Bally’s and Urban One sites won’t detract from the local businesses around them (because their locations aren't already destinations).  I like the Bally’s location better because it is the most isolated site. It’s also the most attractive design and setting, IMO. 
 

There’s nothing glamorous or edgy about having a casino in town.  Honestly I lost interest after the Pamunkey plan was ditched.  If a casino is voted down I won’t bat an eye. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Brent114 said:

Celtic said it better but my first response to trying to bring Navy Hill into the fight was: both the casino proposals and Navy Hill CAN be bad. There’s nothing wrong with being consistent in your opposition if your grievances are real. 
 

I personally hated everything about Navy Hill.  I’m mostly indifferent about the casinos but will vote no if the location is Scott’s Addition.   It will most defiantly siphon business from SA and won’t do anything to make the area more attractive for other businesses.   The Bally’s and Urban One sites won’t detract from the local businesses around them (because their locations aren't already destinations).  I like the Bally’s location better because it is the most isolated site. It’s also the most attractive design and setting, IMO. 
 

There’s nothing glamorous or edgy about having a casino in town.  Honestly I lost interest after the Pamunkey plan was ditched.  If a casino is voted down I won’t bat an eye. 

I'm with you - my interest really flagged after the Pamunkey plan got jettisoned. I was really disappointed that the city tossed them to the side so quickly, especially when they were the first to the plate. Mind you, I don't know all the ins-and-outs and particulars about these things - but I was roundly disappointed that the Pamunkey didn't even make the first cut.

Edited by I miss RVA
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

×
×
  • 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.