Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

CrassostreaVirginica OP t1_iz9rijd wrote

For those paywalled, this article preview from VPAP:

>Richmond's first wish from the General Assembly is another opportunity for voters to approve a casino, even if the city has to share regional gaming revenues with a potential rival operation in Petersburg. Most of Richmond's legislative priorities for the coming assembly session center on promoting affordable housing and protecting existing homeowners from being taxed out of their homes by an overheated housing market. The city also wants, as its second highest priority, to prevent any state effort to accelerate the required completion of a $1.3 billion combined-sewer cleanup of the James River before 2035.

15

Asterion7 t1_iz9sio3 wrote

Jesus Christ why can the casino project not die already. How deep are these lobbyists pockets? The fact that they are ignoring the vote they already had makes me double down on opposing it.

55

ThatChildNextDoor t1_iz9unci wrote

It was only defeated by like 2400 votes, and people around me are very upset about it being defeated.

15

lunar_unit t1_iz9vj9r wrote

Trump was pretty sad about being defeated too. But that's how Democracy works. Not everyone is going to be happy, but if 51% of the neighbors vote a certain way, that's how it's gotta stay, unless we plan on fighting each and every election until we're happy with the results.

If enough people had wanted the casino, then enough people would have voted for the referendum, but we didn't, and we didn't. 🤷‍♂️

33

ThatChildNextDoor t1_iz9weic wrote

Also, happy cake day!

8

lunar_unit t1_iz9xf64 wrote

Whoa. Thanks! Eight years burned away arguing with you beautiful people! I've learned a lot from this subreddit.

7

ThatChildNextDoor t1_iz9wd0n wrote

Yeah, but you explain that to those people, while people across the river got plenty of entertainment venues and other investment properties.

−2

Tylerjb4 t1_izdimdt wrote

Off topic but I would legitimately rather be ruled over by a monarchy that I disagreed with as opposed to being a political minority in a democracy. The only saving grace is the constitution with the bill of rights.

−2

lunar_unit t1_izesk5e wrote

That's not a very well thought out statement.

You're a minority every time the other party that you don't support wins enough Congress seats and has a sitting president. That's how our system has worked for over 200 years, and while it's far from perfect, it's worked fairly well over time.

You having never lived under a true monarchy, means you can't actually compare what that means, but if you take a look at monarchies like Saudi Arabia or Brunei or historical European monarchies, if you disagree politically, they can disappear you or take all your assets without any lawful due process protections at all.

1

Tylerjb4 t1_izezftl wrote

So the US has never disappeared someone without due process?

1

lunar_unit t1_izf11tx wrote

Of course they have, but that doesn't mean a monarchy is better. Lol. Go read some history, then get back to me.

1

Tylerjb4 t1_izf5u3m wrote

Hitler rose to power democratically.

Pol pot was elected.

American democrats fought to keep black people enslaved, and then with as few rights as possible.

An elected American democrat president put Japanese in internment camps.

An elected American democrat president marched Indians from their lands to Oklahoma.

Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny.

1

lunar_unit t1_izf9ml7 wrote

Dude, what's your point? Humans fucking suck everywhere, in every time in history. And you still have more rights in an American democracy than in a monarchy. Go ask Jamal Kashoggi how he feels after Mohamed bin Salman, Crown Prince of Saudi ordered his killing and dismemberment (on foreign soil, no less) and got away with it even though everyone knows he did it.

If you're trying to suggest that life would be better if we had Trump as King, (I see you don't mention any Republican political shenanigans in your examples) then you drank too much Kool aid, because he doesn't give a shit about anybody but himself.

Back to your original statement, if you've lived your entire life in the US, you've lived under both Democrats and Republicans. Can you say your life is better under one, compared to the other? And being that you have lived under that kind of situation, what are you still doing here?

1

Tylerjb4 t1_izfedur wrote

You’re comparing possibly the best democracy against one of the worst monarchies. In a more comparable matchup, I would much rather live in modern Saudi Arabia than third reich Germany.

I would definitely take king trump because he can be held solely responsible. If he does something terrible, we yeet and replace him. At least a monarchy has long term generational investment in the success of their country. Our government is too busy trying to pass laws just to spite the other half.

Fuck the republicans, too. But the 3 biggest American fuck ups I could think of were Democrat orchestrated. You got anything the republicans did worse than those 3?

Personally, I’m more of a libertarian, minarchist, ancap. All governments suck ass. Their sole function should be common defense, enforcing contracts, and protecting natural rights.

1

lunar_unit t1_izfkz5j wrote

And royalty has been the force behind millennia of greed, corruption, colonialism, invasions, pogroms, ethnic cleansings, slavery, torture, land theft, unfair taxation, murderous crushers of dissent, etc etc, all over the globe.

>All governments suck ass. Their sole function should be common defense, enforcing contracts, and protecting natural rights.

Maybe we can agree there, but in a human world, there's always going to be corruption, and the most corruptible are most drawn to power, regardless of their political affiliation. We're fucked!

Anyway, have a good weekend.

1

GrandmaPoses t1_iza3hbn wrote

It was what by 2400 votes? Defeated? Oh then I guess that's the decision. It's not a fucking jury trial.

33

PayneTrainSG t1_iz9uvsp wrote

Conversely, I didn't vote on it and was largely ambivalent, but this open repudiation of a public referendum is maddening.

30

systematical t1_izdbyp0 wrote

Likewise, but the fact they keep trying instead of taking no for an answer is pushing me to vote no this time.

2

bigdaddyman6969 t1_iza2hs8 wrote

So what ? If it only passed by 2400 votes do you think they would allow a revote? The people have spoken.

20

ThatSadOptimist t1_izcp2kl wrote

Also, it was out of 80,000ish votes. In the scheme of things, a couple thousand votes is not a questionable margin.

3

Asterion7 t1_iz9vp8x wrote

Elections have consequences....you can't just keep calling a vote until you get the results you want. Give it 5-10 years at least.

15

Fizzster t1_izbexip wrote

I voted yes initially, but now I’m going to vote no because they’re not respecting the will of the voters.

5

[deleted] t1_izagyh1 wrote

[deleted]

−13

Asterion7 t1_izah3im wrote

Let Petersburg have it. Casinos are long term losers everywhere they go.

18

[deleted] t1_izawhr1 wrote

[deleted]

−8

Asterion7 t1_izb0cov wrote

I don't think we need casinos in Virginia period. But I certainly don't want it in Richmond. Let the people in Petersburg decide what they want.

4

[deleted] t1_izb11z3 wrote

[deleted]

0

Asterion7 t1_izb442l wrote

Lol. How is it an argument that it will be bad in Petersburg so it might as well be bad here and opinion?

1

[deleted] t1_izb5yzk wrote

[deleted]

5

Asterion7 t1_izb970r wrote

Do your own research. All the studies were linked here the first time around. Casinos and sports stadiums are almost always long term net negatives for municipalities. I don't think it's changed in the last two years.

As for "political boundaries" last time I checked Petersburg was a decent drive down an interstate. I think we will be mostly insulated. Again I don't think Petersburg should go for it either. But I don't live there or vote there.

2

Gwala_BKK t1_izb2q1f wrote

Not true though is it? Casinos are a blatantly immoral and predatory business and accepting that into your culture has snowballing effects. Petersburg shouldn't have one either but I'd rather it be outside of the city than have it directly festering in the heart of what is currently a very positive movement

0

[deleted] t1_izb3jl3 wrote

[deleted]

1

Gwala_BKK t1_izbwy71 wrote

It most certainly hasn't been accepted into the culture of downtown Richmond. Sure low class people outside of the city like it but that's different.

0

littlehelppls t1_izc68p5 wrote

Let's not take it to class discrimination. But it is predatory on people of specific socioeconomic statuses.

1

littlehelppls t1_izc6cbm wrote

Let's not take it to class discrimination. But it is predatory on people of specific socioeconomic statuses.

1

Gwala_BKK t1_izcdzjk wrote

You're right, I shouldn't have said that.

2

Vapid_Ingenue t1_izce8eb wrote

Just for clarity, what exactly do you mean when you say "low class people?"

1

gravy_boot t1_izb52rt wrote

Oh so you’re saying the casino’s radius of negative effects would include the entire city if it was located in precinct 806.

0

[deleted] t1_izb6olo wrote

[deleted]

0

gravy_boot t1_izb8yfs wrote

> But moving it a few minutes further down the road outside of an invisible border will prevent it from affecting the city at all.”

Literally no one here has said that- this is just you inventing something that doesn’t exist so you can wag your finger at it.

0

[deleted] t1_izbaeg0 wrote

[deleted]

0

gravy_boot t1_izbcsmr wrote

Ah ok, one comment which wasn’t referring to any part of Petersburg that’s “15 minutes” south of Richmond. But I guess you adeptly conclude that we all agree it’s fine.

0

[deleted] t1_izbdi1e wrote

[deleted]

1

gravy_boot t1_izbf2ra wrote

Petersburg the city, which is what that person was talking about, is a 30 min drive. Not 15, which is what you are imagining that we all believe is fine.

> any logical reading of the anti-casino folks’ arguments in context makes it clear the vast majority believe that.

This is instructive about how your broken logic works. Because you saw a handful of comments by noisy redditors you can somehow deduce what the “vast majority” believe.

I guess that’s similar to how you deduced what 85% of people want based on the votes of 15%.

0

littlehelppls t1_izc5z20 wrote

Casinos are garbage, keeping garbage out of our city is the only smart move here

3

tornadogenesis t1_izav6sg wrote

As someone who lives in Richmond i cannot vote for for people in Petersburg. If they want it they can vote yes. I can however vote and say, "No thank you, not in our city. Take your filthy money elsewhere."

That money up front sounds appealing but there is a much greater cost in the long run. The casino is not a boon, it is a money drain that funnels our cash into the pockets of the rich and the politicians.

6

gravy_boot t1_izanwwl wrote

> where people near it all want it.

This is wrong, like 1/10 adults in that area voted yes.

0

[deleted] t1_izapzxn wrote

[deleted]

1

gravy_boot t1_izaz8m6 wrote

You said everyone in the area wants it, which is the lie. What is the population of that precinct, and district? The turnout was like 13%.

1

[deleted] t1_izazmlc wrote

[deleted]

−1

gravy_boot t1_izb02wu wrote

No I did the research and have the numbers, but you’re the one making bogus claims so you do the fucking work now.

1

Diet_Coke t1_iz9vob6 wrote

>promoting affordable housing and protecting existing homeowners from being taxed out of their homes by an overheated housing market

Oh, I've got the solution guys! Let's let homeowners and out of town investors buy homes and turn them into short term rentals. That will fix our housing market.

26

Vapid_Ingenue t1_iz9wu0b wrote

It should be illegal for corporations to own single family homes

15

Diet_Coke t1_iz9x9hb wrote

I agree, if I was king of Richmond for a day I'd change our zoning rules to make it against regulations for an LLC to own a 1 - 4 family dwelling. Homes should be for shelter, not investing.

8

Mr_Boneman t1_iza4le3 wrote

Councilman Mike Jones LLC owns the house he “lives in” in his district. Of course he owns multiple properties outside the city and his son was a star QB at Henrico HS while he was serving on city council. Managed to put a stop sign in front of the house on a commuter road as well that makes no sense being there other than to make his life more convenient. Really need someone to run against him in the new HOD district carved out for him as he preps to be our next mayor.

9

SwanOverSunshine t1_izafqcm wrote

Oh no, is he going to run for mayor? He’s so terrible, def not smart and ethical enough for that. He’s such a divider in the community, very us vs them. Was hoping he’d go into the general assembly where he would do less damage since he’d be one of many.

7

Mr_Boneman t1_izbd2bp wrote

I fear he’s setting up his HOD run to raise funds/gain attention for his mayoral run. Grade A affinity scammer, Dwight Jones with CTE and makes Stoney sound like a Rhodes scholar. He wouldn’t win if someone competent runs against him (Please John Balisles) but if it turns into a 3-5 person race that’s where I worry. Not enough people pay enough attention to him or know how shitty his record is, or that he couldn’t even properly file paperwork to run for office. Addison is too milquetoast to win against him and has other un redeeming qualities that would make it hard to beat him.

2

SwanOverSunshine t1_izbupvd wrote

I really hope Jon Baliles runs - he would be an amazing, unifying mayor. Really understands the city on a logistical level. Do you read his 5x5 newsletter?

2

Mr_Boneman t1_izby27x wrote

I’m not aware of it? My guess is when he left the Stoney Admin he knew what was coming with regards to their competence and agenda. I’m sure he’ll do something’s I won’t agree with, but him and Agelasto are sorely missed on CC.

2

DCFishingGuy t1_izai0vh wrote

>richmond.com/news/s...

So then all these go up for sale, the people living their get evicted, the same people don't have the money to buy them, the housing market crashes which affects the larger economy and the people who couldn't afford to live before are the most affected. Congrats you just destroyed our city.

−1

Diet_Coke t1_izanhps wrote

No, they could still be owned by individual investors just without the protection of an LLC. One impact of that is that it makes slumlords personally liable for their properties, they can't play a shell game with LLCs and avoid liability for giving their tenants lead poisoning or failing to remediate black mold. From an insurance perspective, it would also limit one individual to owning ~4 - 5, maybe up to 15, 1 - 4 family dwellings because you can't get insurance for more than that as an individual.

I'm sure there would be some people who sold their properties. This change likely would put downward pressure on housing prices, which would be a good thing. It would not crash the market.

6

LostDefectivePearl t1_izb4fun wrote

I’m looking into an LLC for when I buy a house because I don’t want my name to be that easily searchable in public records. My partner has gotten death threats at work due to the nature of her job. It wouldn’t be hard to see who holds the LLC but just that small obstacle would probably stop some unhinged people from finding our address.

1

Charlesinrichmond t1_izciya6 wrote

Okay putting my lawyer hat on this makes so little sense I cannot even parse it

This would require the complete conversion of the US to a communist society to work I'm not actually kidding. You have to destroy most American laws it makes the Trump take on things look minor

You might not realize how trumpian this is

0

Diet_Coke t1_izcktqn wrote

That old Trump the communist

1

Charlesinrichmond t1_izfewfe wrote

nope. The Trump who wants to destroy the constitution and our democracy and rule of law.

He wants to destroy some aspects. You want to destroy other aspects. I actually give you the benefit of the doubt and I don't think you realize what you are proposing.

Corporations are just people. Groups of people. Your proposal boils down to overturning property rights, which is a big change in our society, and would quite literally require pitching a big chunk of the constitution

0

GMUcovidta t1_iza3yg4 wrote

There's times they have to- like if they're building a new development, warehouse etc. they may have to buy and demolish several single family homes. They may also buy a single family home and transition it into something else. You see this a lot with large older properties being converted into hotels, event venues etc.

It should definitely be regulated but a flat out ban doesn't make sense.

6

Vapid_Ingenue t1_iza4ylq wrote

Fair enough. I'll concede that. But corporations owning hundreds or thousands of single family homes all throughout a city... it just ain't right

3

[deleted] t1_izafwlq wrote

[deleted]

2

Charlesinrichmond t1_izcnz32 wrote

So what you are saying is renters should pay more? Because basically all tenants are in investment units and if investment units are charged more than tenants will have to pay more

1

Charlesinrichmond t1_izcikjp wrote

I think all of my law professors and half of my college professors would start crying if they read this point. It's really remarkably uneducated

0

Vapid_Ingenue t1_izer7fl wrote

Well let me help educate you: I don't give a fuck about you or any of your professors

0

goodsam2 t1_iz9yxan wrote

It doesn't matter about short term rentals or not. I'm convinced a lot of that is a tax scheme to get around hotel taxes which are high because it's out of Towners.

The reason they buy it as investors is because the supply is not meeting demand so prices will rise. The big investors literally put in their sheets they love NIMBYs.

Add enough housing so that investors lose money. IMO the investor talk is because people don't like the idea that it's the people around them who are raising prices.

2

lunar_unit t1_iz9t522 wrote

>to prevent any state effort to accelerate the required completion of a $1.3 billion combined-sewer cleanup of the James River before 2035.

If the state and/or Fed chips in more dollars, then just get it done. If they don't, 2035 isn't realistic if it's solely funded by local dollars

15

goodsam2 t1_iz9xlxq wrote

Or we build the casino and use that money...

People keep forgetting which side of the ledger the casino is.

−5

GrandmaPoses t1_iza3v55 wrote

You do realize the casino has its own ledger, yes?

4

goodsam2 t1_iza9ij0 wrote

The casino plan was for them to pay Richmond $20 million plus $1 million per year, along with donating some amount to charity and another music venue.

Since we can authorize them or not they had to pay Richmond an extra tax, on top of another business moving into an empty area.

5

Charlesinrichmond t1_iz9tf7x wrote

if the city doesn't want to tax people out of their homes they could maybe stop taxing people out of their homes? Given the city is doing it, not the state?

That's ridiculous

13

goodsam2 t1_iz9z6au wrote

It's all absurd we could be spurring all kinds of new developments adding millions to the budget adding thousands of homes and Richmond will say they can't do anything.

1

Ditovontease t1_iza10wu wrote

>to prevent any state effort to accelerate the required completion of a $1.3 billion combined-sewer cleanup of the James River before 2035.

lol

so basically "priority 1 is casino, priority 2 is keeping the james polluted for as long as possible"

cool. coolcoolcoolcool

8

nartarf t1_izazxm3 wrote

Why they tryna delay fixing our poop storm river fix?

2

fishmapper t1_izb3ezu wrote

Because that’s a cost of $5600 per resident of the city(1.3b/230k). A family of 4 cost would be over $20k for their share.

Really the state/fed funding is the only way to make this feasible. You have new residents to the city (new movers or new born for the last 50 years) who are on the hook for over 100 years worth of bad infrastructure.

3

fishmapper t1_izb3n41 wrote

Other newer cities and large urban areas have the luxury of not trying to shoehorn two sewage systems into space that’s been built up like Lynchburg Richmond and Alexandria (or was it Arlington?)

2