Richmond – After a legal decision seemed to end the dispute between Richmond and Riggers Loft Wine Company, council members are speaking publicly and the owners of the wine tasting room continue to fight.
For more than a year, the owners of Riggers Loft Kevin and Barbara Brown and its owner, the city administered the Richmond property authority, have been locked in a legal dispute. The question is whether the city kicks the rigs of a warehouse of approximately 21,000 square feet of World War II in 1325 Channel Blvd., where the wine tasting room has since operated, due to lack of payment of rentals and other lease rapes.
The judge of the Superior Court John Devine failed in favor of the city in March, which caused a gust of the gust or the media and some setback from the community of the supporters of Riggers Loft. At least two members of the Council, Doria Robinson and Sue Wilson, have now talked about the subject.
Both argue that the city has been patient with Riggers Loft, offering reimbursement plans to recover $ 18.38 in missing rental appointments before the COVID-19 Pandemia began in 2020. The city now states that the owners of the owners of $ 400,000 after accounting for interest.
“Tasks together, it does not seem that Riggers Loft is a viable business in the space where it currently exists,” Wilson wrote in an email to a constituent. “It is not the clean role of the city government to spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayers’ dollars to underpin a wine bar, especially when other needs and responsibilities are so large.”
Robinson and Wilson noticed that Riggers Loft pays around 30% to 50% below what other tenants are paying for their use or smaller spaces. While the monthly rental of Riggers Loft is $ 11,683.64, Foss Maritime Company pays $ 23,176 for Pier 1, Marine Spill Response Corporation pays $ 34,138 for Pier 2 and Dutra Group pays $ 31000 through the basins.
Both contracts also claim that Far West Cider, which operates as an alternative owner outside the Riggers Loft space, pays more than $ 6,000 per month and other narrower tenants pay $ 1,000 per month to the Browns. Meanwhile, the Browns have not paid rent since May 2024, Robinson and Wilson said.
Robinson said these factors must be taken into account when making determinations about the warehouse and the relationship of the city with Riggers Loft, who said he continues to operate in the property of the city “without honoring manufacturing.”
“As council members we have the responsibility of making response decisions to benefit the city,” Robinson wrote. “Believe me, this situation does not bring me joy and I feel that I have a responsibility with the city of Richmond to act.”
Robinson also linked to a statement from the city that said he had tried to develop a resolution with Riggers Loft, but the lack of payment of income and other violations forced the excess authority to submit two demands to claim the Rety.
“These actions are necessary to guarantee the fair management of public assets and maintain the financial sustainability of the port, which is based on lease payments to finance operations, maintenance and improvements,” said a city statement.
The Browns have counteracted some of the statements made by the city and their elected officials in legal presentations, interviews with this publication and in a newsletter. They claim that they have tried to negotiate in good faith with the city, but they have a leg with unreasonable terms, including a reduction of 6 to 8 years in their 30 -year lease contract and the expectation that hundreds of thousands are paid with the year.
The Browns admitted to retain the rent since May 2024, which said they were consulted to make while their legal fight with the city made its way through the court.
“I could also put that money in the middle of the floor and burn it … because they are still getting rid of us,” said Kevin Brown paying the rental duration of the legal dispute.
And while collecting alternative owners rates, the Browns claim that they also pay their owners so alcohol in the tasting room. Of the three owners in space, Brown said that only two pay the rate, which covers the use of space, equipment and online systems.
The possible exports to China were also an estimated promising company to generate around $ 1 million annually, Brown said. But that opportunity died “during the night” after the tariffs against the country entered the first mandate of President Donald Trump, said the couple.
Ultimately, the great events have been the backbone of the business, said Barbara Brown. That was a success in the pandemic and what money arrived, the couple spent on payroll, maintenance and supplies of the site and other invoices, placing them in the hole in the rent.
Legal problems with the city have further damaged the business, the Browns said. Around $ 40,000 to $ 50,000, Hasb’s leg recently lost due to the events canceled of boxes, and that figure is not that it is not no, no no, it cannot do not do it no, it is not necessary that it is not yet necessary to cancel if the business official closes, Barbara Brown said.
“We are losing events right and left,” Brown said, noting that some clients have agreed to resist their contract with the business until a formal decision of the city has taken the leg.
Of the income of approximately $ 18,000 that reached the business in March, around $ 11000 were only for the payroll, which means that the last $ 7,000 would need to cover public services, insurance and maintenance cost, they said.
On the differences in the rent paid for the use of the port property, Kevin Brown said that the comparative is like “apples to oranges” since the three companies cited are much larger operations than the LOFT Riggers.
The reconstruction of their business from scratch is another place out of the scene for the couple, who said they do not have energy at age 67 or bad after investing everything they have the business and legal success.
The struggle to stay in the warehouse is not too thought, they said. After stating that they did not plan to appeal if the case finally went against them, they have changed their minds and plan to raise funds to cover the cost of the appeal.
Ultimately, they cling to the hope that they allow to keep a new payment plan.
]