{"id":1117129,"date":"2023-08-18T11:00:25","date_gmt":"2023-08-18T15:00:25","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/uncategorized\/waterside-developers-appeal-of-casino-case-is-pending-as-norfolks-the-virginian-pilot\/"},"modified":"2023-08-18T11:00:25","modified_gmt":"2023-08-18T15:00:25","slug":"waterside-developers-appeal-of-casino-case-is-pending-as-norfolks-the-virginian-pilot","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/casino\/waterside-developers-appeal-of-casino-case-is-pending-as-norfolks-the-virginian-pilot\/","title":{"rendered":"Waterside developer&#8217;s appeal of casino case is pending as Norfolk&#8217;s &#8230; &#8211; The Virginian-Pilot"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><p>    As Norfolk slogs through negotiations with a developer over    plans for a future casino next to Harbor Park, a legal battle    brought by another city business partner over casino    development rights is still being waged in court.  <\/p>\n<p>    Cordish Companies, the Baltimore-based developer that revamped    Waterside, sued the city in 2021, arguing Norfolk was in breach    of its contract and had actively sought to exclude the location    from being the site of a casino. A Richmond judge     dismissed the lawsuit last year, but Cordish appealed.  <\/p>\n<p>    At a July 12 hearing in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,    representatives for the parties argued over the language of the    2013 Cordish contract with the city and the Norfolk    Redevelopment and Housing Authority, and what that meant for a    casino at Waterside.  <\/p>\n<p>    Attorney John Lynch, who represents the Cordish-owned LLC,    Norfolk District Associates, argued that the trial court did    not take into account the scope of the Waterside lease language    regarding a potential casino, according to a recording of the    oral arguments. The company initially argued that it never    would have agreed to do the expensive Waterside overhaul if the    city had not also agreed to eventually support a casino bid    from Cordish.  <\/p>\n<p>    If were going to invest $43 million at Waterside we dont    want the city of Norfolk subsidizing and competing with us on    another project, which is exactly what theyre doing, Lynch    said.  <\/p>\n<p>    The Norfolk District Associates lease agreement for Waterside    says neither the City nor NRHA will subsidize or provide a    performance-based grant for a restaurant and entertainment    development of over 75,000 square feet similar to the project,    for 10 years.  <\/p>\n<p>    In court filings, the city argued the lease with Waterside    never allowed use as a casino, and therefore it could not be    considered similar to the HeadWaters Resort and Casino project.  <\/p>\n<p>    Waterside has no casino. The Lease prohibits Waterside from    having a casino. And the Lease precludes the characterization    of casinos as being similar to Waterside, attorneys wrote in    the citys appeals brief.  <\/p>\n<p>    Norfolk     approved a land deal with the Pamunkey Indian Tribe in 2019    that set the stage for the development of the HeadWaters Resort    and Casino located next to Harbor Park  less than a mile from    Waterside. City voters approved a referendum allowing gambling    at the proposed location in 2020. But three years later,    negotiations over the casino have     hit numerous road bumps and plans for the project have not    been approved.  <\/p>\n<p>    The city argued in court filings that while the Waterside lease    left open the possibility of negotiations to amend the lease if    state law changed to allow gaming at the location, that didnt    happen, therefore it was under no obligation to help the    company obtain government approvals for a casino.  <\/p>\n<p>    The citys legal representative, Ryan Frei, wrote in a July 19    brief that no amendment was ever made to the Waterside lease to    allow a casino at the site even after the possibility of such    was allowed by state law. Additionally, he reiterated that the    government approvals in the contract referred to liquor    licensing and permitting, but not a casino.  <\/p>\n<p>    Lynch said the contract violation occurred between 2018 and    2020 when they allege the city worked via the General Assembly    to oppose a mandatory request for proposal process for a casino    and lined up the sale of the property slated for the HeadWaters    casino at below market rate. The city still owns the land where    the casino is planned, but has to sell it because the casino    must be built on privately held land.  <\/p>\n<p>    Lynch argued those actions amounted to a subsidy.  <\/p>\n<p>    They had duty to the (Norfolk District Associates) not to    subsidize the project that is similar to this project and    couldnt subsidize it for 10 years any project that was    75,000 square-feet, that was a restaurant or entertainment    venue, Lynch said. Thats exactly what they did.  <\/p>\n<p>    In oral arguments, Frei said the city has not subsidized    HeadWaters through its partnership with the tribe and by the    definitions set out in the contract, a casino is not an    entertainment venue.  <\/p>\n<p>    Lynch said during arguments the    citysown contract amendments    around exclusivity for the Pamunkey Indian Tribe to operate a    casino in Norfolk prove Cordishs case that the city knew it    was violating the contract.  <\/p>\n<p>    If they thought the exclusivity provision with Cordish as not    enforceable, why would they have to exclude it in an amendment    with the tribe? Lynch said. So we believe theyve admitted    the enforceability.  <\/p>\n<p>    Judges Richard Y. AtLee, Doris Henderson Causey and James    W. Haley, Jr. heard the arguments and will issue a ruling. At    the oral arguments, the judges focused on the language in the    citys lease with Cordish, which was repeatedly referred to as    the heartbeat of the case in briefs and the trial courts    final order.  <\/p>\n<p>    The lawsuit, which also names City Attorney Bernard Pishko as a    defendant, seeks $100 million in damages. There is no deadline    for the court to make a decision.  <\/p>\n<p>    The city of Norfolk did not provide a response to an inquiry    from The Virginian-Pilot about what, if any, potential impact    the legal proceedings have had on the HeadWaters project.  <\/p>\n<p>    But a city spokesperson said in the interim, the lease    agreement at Waterside between the Norfolk Redevelopment and    Housing Authority and Norfolk District Associates remains in    full effect, as it has throughout the course of this    litigation.  <\/p>\n<p>    Cordish did not respond to inquires about the case and its    potential impact on the HeadWaters development.  <\/p>\n<p>    A spokesperson for the HeadWaters casino project also declined    to discuss the case.  <\/p>\n<p>    Ian Munro, 757-447-4097, <a href=\"mailto:ian.munro@virginiamedia.com\">ian.munro@virginiamedia.com<\/a>,    @iamIanMunro  <\/p>\n<p><!-- Auto Generated --><\/p>\n<p>View post:<\/p>\n<p><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" href=\"https:\/\/www.pilotonline.com\/2023\/08\/13\/waterside-developers-appeal-of-casino-case-is-pending-as-norfolks-negotiations-with-headwaters-drag-on\/\" title=\"Waterside developer's appeal of casino case is pending as Norfolk's ... - The Virginian-Pilot\">Waterside developer's appeal of casino case is pending as Norfolk's ... - The Virginian-Pilot<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p> As Norfolk slogs through negotiations with a developer over plans for a future casino next to Harbor Park, a legal battle brought by another city business partner over casino development rights is still being waged in court. Cordish Companies, the Baltimore-based developer that revamped Waterside, sued the city in 2021, arguing Norfolk was in breach of its contract and had actively sought to exclude the location from being the site of a casino. A Richmond judge dismissed the lawsuit last year, but Cordish appealed.  <a href=\"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/casino\/waterside-developers-appeal-of-casino-case-is-pending-as-norfolks-the-virginian-pilot\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[678864],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1117129","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casino"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1117129"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1117129"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1117129\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1117129"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1117129"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.euvolution.com\/prometheism-transhumanism-posthumanism\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1117129"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}