Levar Stoney, the Mayor of Richmond, unfolded the unsettling news of $26.5 million being cut off from the city’s future spending plan, which was originally set aside for childcare programs. The failure of last week’s casino vote is said to be a direct blow to the city’s early childhood care initiatives. A hefty 62% majority of Richmond’s populace voted against the proposed $562 million casino project, a venture that would have been a crucial source of tax money for childcare programs.
Mayor Stoney soberly pointed at the 39,768 residents who cast their vote against the city’s casino referendum as the cause of this mishap. The voters rejected the city council-endorsed Richmond Grand Resort & Casino, a $562 million project, with a notable 62-38% outcome.
Promises had been made before the November 7th election. It was pledged by Stoney and the Richmond City Council that the lion’s share of the tax benefits from the casino, if approved, would serve as a financial reservoir for early childhood programs. During a pre-election campaign rally in September, the Richmond Childcare and Education Trust Fund was proposed by Stoney. This government account, aimed to solidify the funding of early childcare initiatives, was to be formed solely on the casino’s approval.
The initial funding for the account was to have been covered by the upfront payment of $26.5 million by the casino. This hefty amount also encompassed the $14 million that was expected to go towards the construction of two new childcare centers. This promise, however, remains unfulfilled due to the majority of votes opposing the Richmond Grand project. Stoney ruefully states that in the absence of the casino’s upfront payment, the city finds itself in the familiar position of not possessing enough funds to support early childhood programs adequately.
In the past three years, this is the second instance of the casino proposal being rejected, and this did not sit well with Stoney. He expressed his disappointment by asserting, “When Richmond voted no for the casino, they also voted no for $26.5 million upfront to build two new child care centers, and $19 million annually to establish the Richmond Child Care and Education Trust Fund.”
It was further elaborated by Gianni Snidle, Stoney’s spokesperson, that by rejecting the casino, Richmonders also opposed the strongest local childcare proposal. Stoney warned that residents should brace themselves for heightened taxes and dwindling funds for other governmental programs.
Following this, residents may well consider alternatives to land-based casinos. It’s worth exploring online options, particularly in light of pandemic-related constraints. We at West Island Blog pride ourselves in guiding Canadians towards engaging, secure and diverse online casino experiences. Just as Richmond’s elected officials were open to alternative sources of city revenue, we’re pleased to provide our readers with introductions to top-rated online casinos, ripe for exploration right from the comfort of your own home.
Paul Goodman, a political activist who spearheaded the “No Means No Casino” campaign that swayed voters, had strong words for the mayor. He challenged the idea that a casino’s indirect taxation through gambling losses was the only viable route to aid children. Goodman compellingly argued that the real deficiency in Richmond lies not in scarcity of money, but the lack of a potent vision and the resolve to implement it.
As for the future of the casino, the gaming bill passed by Virginia lawmakers in 2020, which identified Richmond as a potential casino host, does not restrict the number of times a referendum can be held. The law mandates that a gaming facility can only be authorized in any of the five qualifying cities if it has robust local voter support.
Urban One, the preferred gaming developer in the city, seems likely to abandon its casino aspirations after rejection from Richmonders twice in as many as three years. This has sparked questions among many citizens about the choice of a media conglomerate with no prior experience in developing or operating a casino or resort over more experienced contenders. Elected officials contended that the choice of Urban One was a step towards achieving social equity, however, the messaging failed to gain city-wide acceptance.
