Urban One’s proposed casino and resort on Philip Morris-owned land just off Interstate 95. (BizSense file)
Two entertainment venues on the table for Richmond were given the City Council’s endorsement at its meeting Monday night, one of them two years after voters narrowly rejected it.
Councilmembers unanimously approved a performance grant agreement for the planned Richmond Amphitheater on the riverfront near Tredegar, and almost unanimously approved ordinances authorizing agreements that set the stage for a potential second referendum in November on Urban One’s proposed casino in South Richmond.
Katherine Jordan of the Second District voted against selecting Urban One’s RVA Entertainment Holdings LLC as the city’s preferred operator for the casino, but voted in support of two related agreements between the LLC and the city that revive the prospect of the $600 million One Casino + Resort, should it go again to a referendum and voters approve it.
The approvals come over a year since the council voted to pursue a second referendum for the project, which voters had rejected in November 2021 with 51.4 percent against the project.
Councilmembers contended that misinformation about the project the first go-round warranted putting it to the voters a second time. They stressed that the development, planned off Walmsley Boulevard, would not involve funding support from the city and would create jobs and economic opportunities for Southside and the rest of the city.
“I’m in support of a project that isn’t going to cost us anything,” said Ann-Frances Lambert of the Third District. “This is something that can actually help us bring our tax rate down. We’ve got to say yes to projects like this in order for us to do so.”
Kristen Nye
“The vote was really narrow last time, and I think it’s good to put it out to the residents again,” added the Fourth District’s Kristen Nye.
“One of the big misconceptions during the referendum the last time was that the City of Richmond was making fiscal investments, was giving away land, was doing all of these things and we weren’t,” Nye said. “This is purely revenue for us. I haven’t seen a deal like this since I’ve been on council.”
The council has previously committed to a 2 cent reduction in the city real estate tax rate if the second referendum passes, and $560 million in capital investment specifically to Richmond Public Schools and city projects. Urban One also had committed to pay the city $25 million upfront, and the project has been projected to create 1,500 permanent jobs and 3,000 construction jobs.
Council President Michael Jones maintained Monday that holding a second referendum isn’t an affront to the will of the voters.
Michael Jones
“We did listen to the people in the last referendum. Democracy was served, because no shovels went into the ground the next week,” Jones said. “We can talk about all the issues about why it did and didn’t. Ultimately I believe the citizens should have an opportunity to vote on this this next time. I just firmly believe that.
“There’s no comparison to this deal. There just isn’t,” Jones said, “whether it’s the amphitheater, whether it was old Navy Hill, whether it’s the Diamond District. Not one penny of taxpayer dollars is going into it. There is no tax increment financing at all. We start making money day one as a city.”
The approvals allow the city to meet state deadlines for putting a referendum on the ballot this November. According to the city, the Virginia Lottery and Richmond Circuit Court will need to review and approve the referendum before it can be placed on the ballot.
Amphitheater deal approved
A rendering of the Richmond Amphitheater in the works for the hillside beside Tredegar Iron Works. (3North images)
Also approved at Monday’s meeting was the performance grant agreement for the Richmond Amphitheater project that Coran Capshaw’s Red Light Ventures is proposing beside the Tredegar Iron Works complex. The agreement provides a 20-year performance grant from the city based on the new incremental real estate and admissions tax revenue generated by the project to help offset the project cost.
The $30 million project is to be paid for by Capshaw’s group, which would lease the 4-acre site on the hillside behind Tredegar from property owner NewMarket Corp. The 7,500-capacity venue would host 25 to 35 acts a year, and the arrangement with the city allows Richmond and local nonprofits to utilize the venue for civic events and other gatherings.
Red Light Ventures is aiming to start construction this summer to open the amphitheater in time for the 2025 outdoor concert season. The group has compared the Richmond venue in size to Nashville’s Ascend Amphitheater and the Live Oak Bank Pavilion in Wilmington, North Carolina.
Capshaw, who manages the Dave Matthews Band and is involved in the ownership or management of similar venues across the country, led the development of Ting Pavilion, the 3,500-seat amphitheater on Charlottesville’s Downtown Mall. His Red Light Management group also co-manages the 6,800-capacity Ascend Amphitheater in Nashville.
A rendering of the 7,500-seat outdoor amphitheater proposed for the riverfront.
In a public hearing before the vote, two speakers voiced concerns about the amphitheater project and site.
Joseph Rogers, who once worked at the American Civil War Museum at Tredegar, asked that signage interpreting the site’s history be returned or replaced as part of the project. Oregon Hill resident Charles Poole asked that the vote be continued to allow time to tweak the project to mitigate sound and other impacts on the nearby neighborhood.
Fifth District Councilmember Stephanie Lynch expressed support for the historic interpretation, as did the Seventh District’s Cynthia Newbille, who encouraged commitments from the developer to add interpretation to the project. Lynch added that a meeting about mitigation for the project was scheduled to be held today.
Urban One’s proposed casino and resort on Philip Morris-owned land just off Interstate 95. (BizSense file)
Two entertainment venues on the table for Richmond were given the City Council’s endorsement at its meeting Monday night, one of them two years after voters narrowly rejected it.
Councilmembers unanimously approved a performance grant agreement for the planned Richmond Amphitheater on the riverfront near Tredegar, and almost unanimously approved ordinances authorizing agreements that set the stage for a potential second referendum in November on Urban One’s proposed casino in South Richmond.
Katherine Jordan of the Second District voted against selecting Urban One’s RVA Entertainment Holdings LLC as the city’s preferred operator for the casino, but voted in support of two related agreements between the LLC and the city that revive the prospect of the $600 million One Casino + Resort, should it go again to a referendum and voters approve it.
The approvals come over a year since the council voted to pursue a second referendum for the project, which voters had rejected in November 2021 with 51.4 percent against the project.
Councilmembers contended that misinformation about the project the first go-round warranted putting it to the voters a second time. They stressed that the development, planned off Walmsley Boulevard, would not involve funding support from the city and would create jobs and economic opportunities for Southside and the rest of the city.
“I’m in support of a project that isn’t going to cost us anything,” said Ann-Frances Lambert of the Third District. “This is something that can actually help us bring our tax rate down. We’ve got to say yes to projects like this in order for us to do so.”
Kristen Nye
“The vote was really narrow last time, and I think it’s good to put it out to the residents again,” added the Fourth District’s Kristen Nye.
“One of the big misconceptions during the referendum the last time was that the City of Richmond was making fiscal investments, was giving away land, was doing all of these things and we weren’t,” Nye said. “This is purely revenue for us. I haven’t seen a deal like this since I’ve been on council.”
The council has previously committed to a 2 cent reduction in the city real estate tax rate if the second referendum passes, and $560 million in capital investment specifically to Richmond Public Schools and city projects. Urban One also had committed to pay the city $25 million upfront, and the project has been projected to create 1,500 permanent jobs and 3,000 construction jobs.
Council President Michael Jones maintained Monday that holding a second referendum isn’t an affront to the will of the voters.
Michael Jones
“We did listen to the people in the last referendum. Democracy was served, because no shovels went into the ground the next week,” Jones said. “We can talk about all the issues about why it did and didn’t. Ultimately I believe the citizens should have an opportunity to vote on this this next time. I just firmly believe that.
“There’s no comparison to this deal. There just isn’t,” Jones said, “whether it’s the amphitheater, whether it was old Navy Hill, whether it’s the Diamond District. Not one penny of taxpayer dollars is going into it. There is no tax increment financing at all. We start making money day one as a city.”
The approvals allow the city to meet state deadlines for putting a referendum on the ballot this November. According to the city, the Virginia Lottery and Richmond Circuit Court will need to review and approve the referendum before it can be placed on the ballot.
Amphitheater deal approved
A rendering of the Richmond Amphitheater in the works for the hillside beside Tredegar Iron Works. (3North images)
Also approved at Monday’s meeting was the performance grant agreement for the Richmond Amphitheater project that Coran Capshaw’s Red Light Ventures is proposing beside the Tredegar Iron Works complex. The agreement provides a 20-year performance grant from the city based on the new incremental real estate and admissions tax revenue generated by the project to help offset the project cost.
The $30 million project is to be paid for by Capshaw’s group, which would lease the 4-acre site on the hillside behind Tredegar from property owner NewMarket Corp. The 7,500-capacity venue would host 25 to 35 acts a year, and the arrangement with the city allows Richmond and local nonprofits to utilize the venue for civic events and other gatherings.
Red Light Ventures is aiming to start construction this summer to open the amphitheater in time for the 2025 outdoor concert season. The group has compared the Richmond venue in size to Nashville’s Ascend Amphitheater and the Live Oak Bank Pavilion in Wilmington, North Carolina.
Capshaw, who manages the Dave Matthews Band and is involved in the ownership or management of similar venues across the country, led the development of Ting Pavilion, the 3,500-seat amphitheater on Charlottesville’s Downtown Mall. His Red Light Management group also co-manages the 6,800-capacity Ascend Amphitheater in Nashville.
A rendering of the 7,500-seat outdoor amphitheater proposed for the riverfront.
In a public hearing before the vote, two speakers voiced concerns about the amphitheater project and site.
Joseph Rogers, who once worked at the American Civil War Museum at Tredegar, asked that signage interpreting the site’s history be returned or replaced as part of the project. Oregon Hill resident Charles Poole asked that the vote be continued to allow time to tweak the project to mitigate sound and other impacts on the nearby neighborhood.
Fifth District Councilmember Stephanie Lynch expressed support for the historic interpretation, as did the Seventh District’s Cynthia Newbille, who encouraged commitments from the developer to add interpretation to the project. Lynch added that a meeting about mitigation for the project was scheduled to be held today.
perhaps this is just my opinion but I think the amphitheater is more important for the city than the ballpark and certainly more so than the casino. There will be an array of events and shows at the amphitheater for people of all ages and tastes. It’ll bring people to the River. Add to that the redevelopment of the City owned Mayo Island into a natural passive recreation feature for the region. Cap that off with closing The Mayo Bridge to vehicular traffic! Make it a real park without a dangerous highway crossing.
You realize that the Casino project includes a theater, right? With the connections Radio One has they can get name brand acts. Just an FYI. However, I think that both could co-exist.
Casinos in-general aside, the argument that the party that is sponsoring the winning bid is allegedly uniquely equipped to separate African Americans from their money through their unquestioned Influence on a certain species of chauvanistic identity culture has some merit, though I am not sure the spirit of this has much merit. There is a REASON why certain religious groups AND idealistic political groups oppose things like Casinos even more than gambling in-general. If me and my friends decide to get a monthy poker game going in my Man-Cave, everything else being equal, I will have an equal chance of… Read more »
As I recall the theatre and hotel components were in later phases. Don’t count them yet.
Not sure if you understand the scope of Raio One’s media reach and power within the urban communities across the United States. It would make a lot of sense to have an entertainment venue where they can promote acts and help to draw more people to the casino. They are innovative, creative, and very smart.
I’m not a proponent of the Casino due to my aversion to aiding addictions – but on the other hand, the MGM casino in Ft. Washington MD is a HUGE success. The MGM venue is pretty wonderful, and as Keith said, the theatre/live music at MGM is impressive! So,….whatever the voters decide!
We are pretty much of like mind on this, with me being perhaps a little bit more fatalistic. I am against smoking, but I know I can’t stop it, only make it work best for society as possible, maybe, and smoking in general DOES still help the Richmond region in particular!!
I agree.
Maybe we need a “Do Over” for the city council vote……..
Agreed. I was surprised it failed the first time, but it did despite no organized effort to defeat the referendum despite millions spent to pass it. If opponents organize this time then city council might be in for another election day surprise. It’s bad practice to overrule the will of voters.
Yes, I forgot to mention this in my long-winded post — there WAS no organized effort to beat a proposal that was HIGHLY organized and expensive to get people out to vote for it.
Maybe they will stuff the ballots this time. Not like this hasn’t happened before.
Agreed that the project supporters were highly organized and resourced, but there was a concerted opposition effort — albeit less resourced — led by voices from the grasstops (Jim Ukrop) to the grassroots. All those No Casino signs didn’t print and place themselves. And I’m sure they’ll return this fall.
Interesting. I did not see any signs, but I’ll take your word for it since I do not live in Richmond Proper and am somewhat isolated if there is success or failure in the city. Knowing what I know about the Ukrops though, I know that One, they would be biased against it on moral/religious grounds and Two, their opinion (if you take out the morality/religious stuff) likely should be listened to more than my own, or most people’s, frankly. They are a successful family; they are a long standing Richmond area family very invested in its future and have… Read more »
Maybe we need a mayoral vote that isn’t crowded by too many candidates so we could get a competent person like Mayor Wilder in again.
Anybody know how to interpret the phrase “historic interpretation”?
lol!
“Council President Michael Jones maintained Monday that holding a second referendum isn’t an affront to the will of the voters.”
You keep telling yourself that, but I’ll explain how they are the same – “Casino.” The people voted that they didn’t want a “Casino” Mr. Jones and your round two is for the same thing.
Sure, the people who voted last time, voted against it. Now, they get the opportunity to vote again. Under the fractured logic used to oppose this, a politician who loses a race can never run again. Having something up for a vote and having that vote control the action that follows is the very definition of a democratic system but I’m not aware of any principle of democracy that says there can only ever be one vote.
Granting that what you say is true for a second, the obvious question then becomes: What do you or they think has changed? I mean, has sentiment changed, is there any evidence of this? Should EVERY referendum be given a relatively quick do-over if the local politicians are not happy, for some reason, with how the majority of the voters voted? If anything, I think recent demographic changes making Richmond in general more middle class will mean that this outfit will have to spend a LOT more money, targeting the emotions of a LOT more people, to get to their… Read more »
the argument which was fair IMO was that the highest turnout in the 1st vote was from the higher income council districts with fewer minority representation and those folks decided in parens patriae-esque fashion what the poorer/higher minority concentration areas of the city should and should not have to generate jobs, amenities, etc in their district. If I recall the actual district where it will be located voted heavily in favor of it. Not sure how the revote will address or remedy that issue when its being held along side elections in every general assembly seats touching the city.
You are correct in that the narrative, and likely the truth, is that the residents around there (and that is likely just about the poorest part of Richmond — I suspect it includes some small nameless Historic trailer parks even), the ones that voted at least, voted for the casino. I know a bunch of lower-middle-class people, both “Black” and “White” that are against Casinos, for what it is worth, but, yes, the more affluent would only support a casino if it resembled a Ian Flemming setting. But here’s the rub, I guess, ALL of these casino referendums take the… Read more »
How long do you think it would take for out of town visitors to a Casino in an industrial area to get the message out that it’s not worth the trip. In my opinion this is an awful location for a Casino .Richmond voters should take that into consideration when they have their do-over vote. A failed Casino would be a black eye for the City.
Here is a crazy thought Brian. Just maybe if the casino is built it may encourage further development on the southside. After all the particular area that it will have its footprint on is not run down or ragged. My issue with the mentality of some of the people in Richmond is anything new or innovative or not the same old blah blah blah, gets frowned upon. Always something negative to say. In order for any metro area to grow you have got to adapt to change. I believe it is called survival of the fittest.
Keith, you will see above that I disagree with the original poster, but the idea that Casinos are any newer or innovative than….. Riverboats, sounds a bit like a “crazy thought.” to me. Indeed, pinning hopes on a Casino sounds a bit like Schenctady, NY or….. Missouri, which may have been a new or innovative place at SOME point. My big beef with the local culture of Richmond, and much of Virginia in general, is THINKING that something is innovative when in reality it is bringing the area into the 1960s — you see this in archetecture here all the… Read more »
One fatal mistake people make is comparing Richmond to cities that are not like Ours. They have a different culture and different logistical position. The innovation is not a casino. There are plenty of casinos. The innovation comes in the reinvention of that area. Since Richmond is landlocked it makes sense to maximize opportunities to provide avenues of entertainment and things to do. Different people want different things to do. Although I love museums and parks that’s not everyone’s thing. Variety is what attracts people to different areas. I am not going to comment on architecture as that is a… Read more »
I only bring up architecture in that it is a very VISIBLE example of what I am talking about, and when people sanctify what to outsiders see as mediocrity, I take notice. I am NOT talking about the architecture of the Casino — no one expects much from that anyway. I think somehow we think similarly. Variety attracts….. hmmmmm…. maybe. Probably sometimes, in some cases. People historically have LOVED the variety of NYC, but yawned at it in Chicago. And we are talking about VISITORS, and not prospective RESIDENTS, correct? Because it is my observation that people choose to move… Read more »
That’s like saying Nationals Park in DC was going to be a black eye because they built it in what looked like some bombed out area in Syria. Once the stadium was finished and the team began playing that area turned into one of the hottest development areas in DC and is now surrounded by retail, housing, etc.
I agree. And so would Donald Trump.
no clue what donald trump has to do with it but folks seem to find reasons to work him into most conversations
Ha! Well, in my case, I am from NYS and remember a lot of what he had to say in the Art of the Deal, which was a best seller at the time. He spoke at length in one of the chapters about how the worst site can be made valuable, even prestigious with enough money, hype, and buy-in from people who add value to whatever it is the associate themselves with. Trump was never considered “High Class” more “new, loud money” none of the elite of NYC would buy a condo from HIM, but he was good at selling… Read more »
I disagree. It is not in a HORRIBLE area, just a rather desolate one — it’s not right next to the exhaust of the industrial stuff. The fact that Atlantic city had fallen into ruin did not stop people from taking the bus from Philly to lose their money there while the casino boom there continued. I suspect that a LOT of the business would actually be people drawn from the I-95, and much of the rest from the Entertainment venue. That location is isolated enough from the “bad areas” for them to not have much effect on each other.… Read more »
I do not recall anyone arguing against the casino last time because the city was going to give some direct monies or land but now that is said it will NOT include City financial assistance based on his and Council (and Stoney’s record), I am going to now assume that when it comes down to the actual deal the City will probably pay for the utilities for the site or improvements around the site as it pertains to infrastructure. Just basing it on the city’s record of saying no monies pre-agreement and the actual result after the agreement is drafted.
Well, if what you say is true, then this is likely a stupid waste of time for everyone and they should just give it to Petersburg unless the only goal now is to get rid of Joe Morrissey. Why? Well, if there are no incentives offered to the taxpayers, then WHAT will make otherwise un-interested parties vote for a Casino? Further, I am not sure there is any conception that there have been MORE people convinced to vote For than last time, and, considering that it is all the same people and not a slightly new mix of potential voters,… Read more »
As much as this area of Walmsley and Richmond Hwy needs TLC and growth overall. I kinda feel like the ONE casino would be better off near the Diamond
I have to say that what I like the most about the proposed Casino is the location. But the one proposed for Petersburg actually offers more to the area than the Richmond one, which most people suspect the thumb was put on the scale on the selection of for some reason. What I would like to know, and I must say I really do not know, is which way a 2nd referendum would go. Have a lot of people changed their minds about a casino either way? I mean, this Jones guy can say whatever he wants, but he is… Read more »
I just hope there will be enough parking.
lol!
Don’t we have enough amphitheaters now. City can waste money where they want. I Live in the county.
obviously didn’t read the article since the city isn’t spending any money on it. enjoy “the county.”
Nancy’s right and you are wrong. Obviously, a lot of citizens don’t understand the corporate welfare involved here. $30 million in tax revenue given up for amphitheater deal. But a few of us see how the corporate media and their sycophants spin things. Sadly, like citizens who voted against casino, we are ignored by City Council.
The NEOLIBS! RIght Scott?
Me, I don’t care unless there is lots more parking, just like SPAC in Saratoga!
In fact, skip the amphitheatre! More space to build more PARKING!
Not sure — only one I can think of is in Byrd Park and it is not large.
Uhmmm… name one? Nothing like this project comes to mind.
Yeah, I think Nancy is thinking about the wrong city, because, while there certainly ARE cities out there that already have too many performance venues for their size and people with certain rigid ways of thinking want to restore or build even more, Richmond is not yet one of those places.
My daughter and I are a lot more Abbie Hoffman about performance — EVERYWHERE is a venue.
Some of you are acting like it was a blowout vote. It was less than 1.5%. And the people who voted for it are the people who love where the casino is proposed. If the board feels the vote could swing if people have more information, I don’t see the problem with a revote.
To block sound from the amphitheater, they should remove the NewMarket and Afton buildings from along Belvidere and replace them with multi-story apartment buildings. Could help slow down speeding traffic along Belvidere as well.
Ambitious….