Richmond Resort & Casino

[Icetera]

1 hour ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

Is the Pamunkey really pending? Assumed it was dead for now. 

As far as I know they still have the land, but not aware of any current plans.

[ancientcarpenter]

2 hours ago, Icetera said:

As far as I know they still have the land, but not aware of any current plans.

I assume they are waiting to see if One casino goes through... if it does then that will severely cut into their profits on that tribal land. Smart play by the city: Place a One Casino near tribal land b/c Pamunkey casino would not give any taxes to the city unlike One. Maybe someone can confirm my conspiracy theory...

[DowntownCoruscant]

If it’s anything like the sports books, the benefit received will be less than advertised.

[Icetera]

1 hour ago, ancientcarpenter said:

I assume they are waiting to see if One casino goes through... if it does then that will severely cut into their profits on that tribal land. Smart play by the city: Place a One Casino near tribal land b/c Pamunkey casino would not give any taxes to the city unlike One. Maybe someone can confirm my conspiracy theory...

Well, had the Pamunkey won the city's RFP process then they would have paid taxes.  It is only if they go the separate longer federal route that they avoid a lot of taxes.  If the city is in fact being smart here, then it is less about discouraging the Pamunkey casino and more about trying to get it as a second.

[123fakestreet]

18 minutes ago, Icetera said:

Well, had the Pamunkey won the city's RFP process then they would have paid taxes.  It is only if they go the separate longer federal route that they avoid a lot of taxes.  If the city is in fact being smart here, then it is less about discouraging the Pamunkey casino and more about trying to get it as a second.

The city would only want the Pamunkey if we voted no and had no licensed casino, to the degree it would just be some revitalization to an area and some jobs.

They decidedly do NOT want Pamunkey at all if we vote yes and have a licensed casino, because Pamunkey will compete with that licensed casino and take revenue away from it,  which means less tax money for the city.

[Icetera]

28 minutes ago, 123fakestreet said:

The city would only want the Pamunkey if we voted no and had no licensed casino, to the degree it would just be some revitalization to an area and some jobs.

They decidedly do NOT want Pamunkey at all if we vote yes and have a licensed casino, because Pamunkey will compete with that licensed casino and take revenue away from it,  which means less tax money for the city.

Certainly valid, though I do not think the proximity in relation to the region hurts here for a theoretical Pamunkey project.  Casinos tend to cluster and the Pamunkey property would actually be more visible for anyone approaching ONE, potentially syphoning off patrons brought in by ONE's media advertising.  If they were separated then each would be their own destination.  TLDR: I do not see a city conspiracy here or even any particularly smart moves by the city in play.

[ancientcarpenter]

27 minutes ago, Icetera said:

Certainly valid, though I do not think the proximity in relation to the region hurts here for a theoretical Pamunkey project.  Casinos tend to cluster and the Pamunkey property would actually be more visible for anyone approaching ONE, potentially syphoning off patrons brought in by ONE's media advertising.  If they were separated then each would be their own destination.  TLDR: I do not see a city conspiracy here or even any particularly smart moves by the city in play.

I may be on my own here in this forum at least, but I plan to vote NO on the casino. However, the only thing keeping me on the fence is it seems like we are getting a casino anyways (Pamunkey) and that will not pay taxes to the city since it's tribal land. Therefore, it seems to make sense to have One casino since then we can at least get tax dollars for a casino in that same area. 

I'm more of a "No casinos in general" type of vote...but if we HAVE TO have a casino then might as well be one that gives us great tax benefits. That's not to say Pamunkey still won't build if One does as well...And if we end up with two casinos then at least we make some tax benefits with One being there. Better some tax dollars than none. 

Edited September 30, 2021 by ancientcarpenter

[123fakestreet]

1 hour ago, ancientcarpenter said:

I may be on my own here in this forum at least, but I plan to vote NO on the casino. However, the only thing keeping me on the fence is it seems like we are getting a casino anyways (Pamunkey) and that will not pay taxes to the city since it's tribal land. Therefore, it seems to make sense to have One casino since then we can at least get tax dollars for a casino in that same area. 

I'm more of a "No casinos in general" type of vote...but if we HAVE TO have a casino then might as well be one that gives us great tax benefits. That's not to say Pamunkey still won't build if One does as well...And if we end up with two casinos then at least we make some tax benefits with One being there. Better some tax dollars than none. 

This is a very logical take. A lot of people are "no casino period" but can't seem to see the big picture in regards to Pamunkey coming in anyway.

[eandslee]

2 hours ago, ancientcarpenter said:

I may be on my own here in this forum at least, but I plan to vote NO on the casino. However, the only thing keeping me on the fence is it seems like we are getting a casino anyways (Pamunkey) and that will not pay taxes to the city since it's tribal land. Therefore, it seems to make sense to have One casino since then we can at least get tax dollars for a casino in that same area. 

I'm more of a "No casinos in general" type of vote...but if we HAVE TO have a casino then might as well be one that gives us great tax benefits. That's not to say Pamunkey still won't build if One does as well...And if we end up with two casinos then at least we make some tax benefits with One being there. Better some tax dollars than none. 

Then vote YES!  You seem to say that it's logical to vote yes, yet you are saying that you plan to vote NO?  That doesn't make sense!

[wrldcoupe4]

It’s a private business using no public funds for a purpose which is legal in the Commonwealth. I  doubt I’ll ever go, but I don’t see why they shouldn’t be allowed to give it a go. 

[whw53]

13 hours ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

It’s a private business using no public funds for a purpose which is legal in the Commonwealth. I  doubt I’ll ever go, but I don’t see why they shouldn’t be allowed to give it a go. 

This is ultimately why I'm voting YES - i find it silly that we're voting on this at all. 

[ancientcarpenter]

On 9/30/2021 at 5:17 PM, 123fakestreet said:

This is a very logical take. A lot of people are "no casino period" but can't seem to see the big picture in regards to Pamunkey coming in anyway.

 

On 9/30/2021 at 6:26 PM, eandslee said:

Then vote YES!  You seem to say that it's logical to vote yes, yet you are saying that you plan to vote NO?  That doesn't make sense!

 

I'm inclined to agree with both of you but I want to bring up the "dual casino scenario" because that seems to be what make logical sense for me... however, I feel like I'm missing something because, as smart as I think I am, I can't be the only one to think this is the city/state strategy? If this was truly the strategy then why isn't it being brought up as an incentive by those for the casino in terms of "Look, we either get the Pamunkey casino and we get no tax revenue OR we get the One casino and get tons of tax revenues and maybe the Pamunkey casino doesn't even get built or if it does it won't make much of a difference since we have One Casino."

[123fakestreet]

11 hours ago, ancientcarpenter said:

 

 

I'm inclined to agree with both of you but I want to bring up the "dual casino scenario" because that seems to be what make logical sense for me... however, I feel like I'm missing something because, as smart as I think I am, I can't be the only one to think this is the city/state strategy? If this was truly the strategy then why isn't it being brought up as an incentive by those for the casino in terms of "Look, we either get the Pamunkey casino and we get no tax revenue OR we get the One casino and get tons of tax revenues and maybe the Pamunkey casino doesn't even get built or if it does it won't make much of a difference since we have One Casino."

ONE won't say that for a few reasons, first they are trying to sell themselves as good, not tell people well we might not be good but it's better than the alternative. Second they don t want to muddy the waters. Navy Hill failed because the TIF was too confusing for people. They want to keep it clear and simple and about themselves, not add all these ifs and buts or may and may nots about 3rd parties. Third they would potentially be opening themselves up to a lawsuit from the Pamunkey for tortious interference.

 

Similarly with the city, they don't want to get accused of anti native bias and possibly be sued.

[I miss RVA]

Q & A regarding Urban One casino - in Richmond BizSense.

https://richmondbizsense.com/2021/10/27/alfred-liggins-qa-urban-one-ceo-discusses-casino-ahead-of-nov-2-vote/

[ancientcarpenter]

On 10/5/2021 at 9:43 PM, 123fakestreet said:

ONE won't say that for a few reasons, first they are trying to sell themselves as good, not tell people well we might not be good but it's better than the alternative. Second they don t want to muddy the waters. Navy Hill failed because the TIF was too confusing for people. They want to keep it clear and simple and about themselves, not add all these ifs and buts or may and may nots about 3rd parties. Third they would potentially be opening themselves up to a lawsuit from the Pamunkey for tortious interference.

 

Similarly with the city, they don't want to get accused of anti native bias and possibly be sued.

I don't want to get into it but I feel like I need to update my stance on this since I started this specific scenario conversation. 

My worry is One Casino can go up but when (not if) the Pamunkey tribe casino is built then One Casino will be undercut and run out of business by the Pamunkey Casino since Pamunkey do not have to pay taxes. I don't think the benefits are there for One since the Pamunkey tribe casino will be going up whether we like it or not, nothing we can do about it. I'm voting no. 

[wrldcoupe4]

That's interesting. Why no then? So a private business risks going out of business due to competition which may or may not ever surface? There is no public funding here and nothing reliant on this potential tax revenue (like a new arena bond). Why can't they be allowed to risk their money? That's like saying that you don't want there to be a Burger King built on a corner because if Five Guys shows up Burger King might go out of business.

Edited October 29, 2021 by wrldcoupe4

[ancientcarpenter]

19 minutes ago, wrldcoupe4 said:

That's interesting. Why no then? So a private business risks going out of business due to competition which may or may not ever surface? There is no public funding here and nothing reliant on this potential tax revenue (like a new arena bond). Why can't they be allowed to risk their money? That's like saying that you don't want there to be a Burger King built on a corner because if Five Guys shows up Burger King might go out of business.

I don't necessarily agree with that. I think there will be a lot of city infrastructure costs associated with this. RVA is unique and it doesn't need to try to be a Raleigh or Atlanta or Baltimore or whatever other city we are constantly compared to here. We are RVA because we don't do things the way others do. The coliseum and Navy Hill is a great example: I was happy to see those projects fail / be moved out west. In my view, we can do better and I don't necessarily agree with the general culture of "big tall buildings with nice windows is always the right way!" - I personally don't believe every build should be 50 stories tall but I am the outlier here.

I already don't like the idea of gambling in RVA. I think One's marketing campaigns have been sketchy at best and hearing about the 1000s of slot machines makes me think they are targeting low income instead of the high roller tables that good casinos have. I don't want a failed One Casino sitting there because Pamunkey took the One casino out of business and then we have to deal with that infrastructure, buildings, and land afterwards. There is just simply no way One can compete with Pamunkey. 

Again, I don't want to get into it. I already voted NO on One Casino. I just wanted to follow up as I may have painted a good scenario in my previous comments but the scenario didn't think through with the Pamunkey competition. Glad I had time to think about it... if anything, this is a great example of why we should do more mail-in ballot voting b/c my ballot sat around for weeks while I did more research and thinking on the issue. Good luck with everyone's vote whatever it is.

Edited October 29, 2021 by ancientcarpenter

[CitiWalker]

50 minutes ago, ancientcarpenter said:

I don't necessarily agree with that. I think there will be a lot of city infrastructure costs associated with this. RVA is unique and it doesn't need to try to be a Raleigh or Atlanta or Baltimore or whatever other city we are constantly compared to here. We are RVA because we don't do things the way others do. The coliseum and Navy Hill is a great example: I was happy to see those projects fail / be moved out west. In my view, we can do better and I don't necessarily agree with the general culture of "big tall buildings with nice windows is always the right way!" - I personally don't believe every build should be 50 stories tall but I am the outlier here.

I already don't like the idea of gambling in RVA. I think One's marketing campaigns have been sketchy at best and hearing about the 1000s of slot machines makes me think they are targeting low income instead of the high roller tables that good casinos have. I don't want a failed One Casino sitting there because Pamunkey took the One casino out of business and then we have to deal with that infrastructure, buildings, and land afterwards. There is just simply no way One can compete with Pamunkey. 

Again, I don't want to get into it. I already voted NO on One Casino. I just wanted to follow up as I may have painted a good scenario in my previous comments but the scenario didn't think through with the Pamunkey competition. Glad I had time to think about it... if anything, this is a great example of why we should do more mail-in ballot voting b/c my ballot sat around for weeks while I did more research and thinking on the issue. Good luck with everyone's vote whatever it is.

Let me start by saying I am not attacking you. I will say this as I have said it before. People in Richmond seem to have the mentality that we are missing things however, as soon as any project of substantial magnitude is proposed we find a way to shoot holes in it.  Richmond is in the midst major growth (13% in fact) with a lot of people moving in from outside areas. It is this thing called amenities that attract people to cities. Yes we have parks, museums, breweries and other things depending on your interest. I would say do you honestly think from a common sense standpoint, that an entity would build a half billion dollar  development and base the viability of that business model on poor people. For argument sake gambling is already in the poorer neighborhoods as well as affluent. Typically where there is a gas station or convenient store you are going to have access to lottery products. Radio/Casino One is not going to fail if they get the casino because they have too much media power. You don't think they are not going to use that reach and influence to push their business. Media is what they do and they are darn good at it. Look also at the residual effects it will have on helping to brand the city. Anytime they mention the location they have to mention The City of Richmond.  If you quantify the amount of marketing dollars associated with taking about Richmond the money used to ad any additional infrastructure is easily offset. They say variety is the spice of life. People want different things and different experiences. I am glad that Richmond seems to be getting out of the sleepy, tired , boring , we don't want anything to change mentality. We are finally moving in a direction that helps this city to realize its potential.

[Downtowner]

1 hour ago, ancientcarpenter said:

I don't necessarily agree with that. I think there will be a lot of city infrastructure costs associated with this. RVA is unique and it doesn't need to try to be a Raleigh or Atlanta or Baltimore or whatever other city we are constantly compared to here. We are RVA because we don't do things the way others do. The coliseum and Navy Hill is a great example: I was happy to see those projects fail / be moved out west. In my view, we can do better and I don't necessarily agree with the general culture of "big tall buildings with nice windows is always the right way!" - I personally don't believe every build should be 50 stories tall but I am the outlier here.

I already don't like the idea of gambling in RVA. I think One's marketing campaigns have been sketchy at best and hearing about the 1000s of slot machines makes me think they are targeting low income instead of the high roller tables that good casinos have. I don't want a failed One Casino sitting there because Pamunkey took the One casino out of business and then we have to deal with that infrastructure, buildings, and land afterwards. There is just simply no way One can compete with Pamunkey. 

Again, I don't want to get into it. I already voted NO on One Casino. I just wanted to follow up as I may have painted a good scenario in my previous comments but the scenario didn't think through with the Pamunkey competition. Glad I had time to think about it... if anything, this is a great example of why we should do more mail-in ballot voting b/c my ballot sat around for weeks while I did more research and thinking on the issue. Good luck with everyone's vote whatever it is.

I’m just going to say If the majority end up voting no once again they will just take there business to the counties just like navy hill developers did and I will tell you if it’s not urban one it will definitely be the pamunkey one way or another a casino will be built it’s kinda silly if you ask me why so many people are against it when one will get built regardless. If it were me I would rather have the one producing tax revenue something the city lacks and can’t seem to get straight than the one that is built by a federal recognized tribe that doesn’t even need to have a vote to get something done since they a federal Native American tribe and won’t produce any revenue for their casino. Just saying people want the schools and other things to improve urban one is a step needed to do that to fund better schools and roads and infrastructure. I can’t understand why all of these people in the city are desperate for tax revenue then drive it away to the counties. Reason henrico gets so much is because they have way more people way more businesses than the city and don’t have nearly as much wasteful spending as the city does. I will never understand how the city can’t figure out how to properly fund and run the city, it shouldn’t be this difficult to do but for whatever reason it is.

[Virginian11]

No personal attack on anyone, but unless you’re fundamentally at your core opposed to gambling, I can’t fathom a reason for a “no” vote in this scenario.  I think there is a lot of over thinking going on.  

[I miss RVA]

3 hours ago, ancientcarpenter said:

I don't necessarily agree with that. I think there will be a lot of city infrastructure costs associated with this. RVA is unique and it doesn't need to try to be a Raleigh or Atlanta or Baltimore or whatever other city we are constantly compared to here. We are RVA because we don't do things the way others do. The coliseum and Navy Hill is a great example: I was happy to see those projects fail / be moved out west. In my view, we can do better and I don't necessarily agree with the general culture of "big tall buildings with nice windows is always the right way!" - I personally don't believe every build should be 50 stories tall but I am the outlier here.

I already don't like the idea of gambling in RVA. I think One's marketing campaigns have been sketchy at best and hearing about the 1000s of slot machines makes me think they are targeting low income instead of the high roller tables that good casinos have. I don't want a failed One Casino sitting there because Pamunkey took the One casino out of business and then we have to deal with that infrastructure, buildings, and land afterwards. There is just simply no way One can compete with Pamunkey. 

Again, I don't want to get into it. I already voted NO on One Casino. I just wanted to follow up as I may have painted a good scenario in my previous comments but the scenario didn't think through with the Pamunkey competition. Glad I had time to think about it... if anything, this is a great example of why we should do more mail-in ballot voting b/c my ballot sat around for weeks while I did more research and thinking on the issue. Good luck with everyone's vote whatever it is.

With all due respect, RVA doesn't need to be Charleston or Savannah or the cute little Tiny Town of Make Believe as seen on the intro/outro to "Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood", either.

It is utterly ridiculous and abhorrent to me how so many old-school Richmonders seem to NOT want RVA to grow at all - and I frankly don't understand it. I never have understood that mindset.

Well, guess what? RVA IS growing. Maybe not as fast as I and most of us on here want her to, but she is finally growing. And she will continue growing.  RVA could be a city of over 1 million people and she will always be unique. As I've said on here before, I also don't want RVA "to be LIKE" Charlotte, Atlanta, Raleigh, Nashville..."  We can do WHAT they did and do it FAR BETTER than they did! We don't need to be LIKE them.

All I want is for RVA to be a BIG, NATIONAL, NAME-RECOGNIZED TIER-1 CITY.  I won't live to see it (not given my current age - unless the city gets hit with some kind of "Population Miracle Grow" or something )

As for the casino - I don't think a casino is or ever will be a make-or-break that will be an epic game-changer for RVA. Just another component - as CitiWalker said - an amenity. Folks are willing to invest in RVA because they feel they can get a good return on their investment. I have no problem with that. If the Pamunkey build, they build. In either case, I don't think one or even two casinos is going to fundamentally alter the urban DNA of RVA as a city.

[DowntownCoruscant]

5 hours ago, Virginian11 said:

No personal attack on anyone, but unless you’re fundamentally at your core opposed to gambling, I can’t fathom a reason for a “no” vote in this scenario.  I think there is a lot of over thinking going on.  

Ok, I’ll say it. I’m not a Richmond resident, but that’s kind of where I’d be if I were. I’m not morally opposed to gambling per se, but I’ve seen two lives destroyed by gambling, one ending in suicide, and I don’t trust any casino to be a good citizen beyond the gambling stuff. Beyond that, I think we’re entering a very dangerous societal phase where sports books are taking over sports. 

Downvote me all you want; I don’t care. Just how I feel. But like I said, I don’t have a vote. I’m not sure the Pamunkey situation would be pertinent to my hypothetical vote, even if I were otherwise inclined to vote yes, but I can’t say I’ve mapped that part out too well in my head. 

[wrldcoupe4]

I hear you and can understand a moral argument, it just won’t do any more to stop betting and gaming than prohibition stopped alcohol consumption. 

https://richmond.com/sports/local/virginia-hits-2-billion-in-sports-wagers-expects-to-license-five-additional-companies-soon/article_a3486556-1e3b-5009-8e63-bbbdbfb0b6f6.html#tracking-source=home-top-story-1

i just can’t seem to grasp the “there might be competition and someone may not succeed so I won’t even grant them the ability to try” argument. 

[Qdeathstar]

Not looking good for the Richmond casino referendem early.

[eandslee]

7 hours ago, Qdeathstar said:

Not looking good for the Richmond casino referendem early.

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

Edited November 3, 2021 by eandslee