Richmond councilmembers speak out on Riggers Loft dispute

RICHMOND — After a legal decision appeared to put an end to the dispute between Richmond and Riggers Loft Wine Company, councilmembers are publicly speaking out and the wine tasting room’s owners are continuing to fight back.

For more than a year, Riggers Loft owners Kevin and Barbara Brown and their landlord, the city managed Richmond Surplus Property Authority, have been locked in a legal dispute. At question is whether the city can kick Riggers Loft out of a roughly 21,000-square-foot World War II era warehouse at 1325 Canal Blvd., where the wine tasting room has operated since 2016, for nonpayment of rent and other lease violations.

South City has a new sandwich, charcuterie, bakery and bar destination

Richmond compromises in smoke shop crackdown

‘No mercy’: Riggers Loft loses legal battle with Richmond

Danville Bowl, a community fixture, closing after 64 years

How this Bay Area man became MLB’s exclusive manufacturer of rosin bags

Superior Court Judge John Devine ruled in the city’s favor in March, prompting a flurry of media coverage and some community pushback by Riggers Loft supporters. At least two councilmembers, Doria Robinson and Sue Wilson, have now spoken out on the issue.

Both argue the city has been patient with Riggers Loft, offering repayment plans to recover $18,338 in missing rent dating before the COVID-19 pandemic began in 2020. The city now asserts the owners owe more than $400,000 after accounting for interest and fees.

“Taken 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’s not the proper role of city government to spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on propping up a wine bar, especially when other needs and responsibilities are so great.”

Robinson and Wilson noted Riggers Loft pays about 30% to 50% below what other tenants are paying for use of smaller spaces. While Riggers Loft’s monthly rent is $11,683.64, Foss Maritime Company pays $23,176 for Pier 1, Marine Spill Response Corporation pays $34,138 for Pier 2 and The Dutra Group pays $31,000 for Basins 1 and 2, according to Robinson and Wilson.

Both councilmembers also assert that Far West Cider, which operates as an alternate proprietor out of the Riggers Loft space, pays more than $6,000 a month and other smaller tenants are paying about $1,000 a month to the Browns. Meanwhile, the Browns have not paid rent since May 2024, Robinson and Wilson said.

Robinson said those factors should be taken into consideration when making determinations about the warehouse and the city’s relationship with Riggers Loft, which she said is continuing to operate in the city-owned property “without honoring agreements in support of their own personal profit making.”

“As council members we have a responsibility to make responsible decisions to benefit the city,” Robinson wrote. “Believe me, this situation does not bring me joy and I feel I have a responsibility to the city of Richmond to act.”

Robinson also linked to a statement from the city which asserted it had attempted to develop a resolution with Riggers Loft but non-payment of rent and other violations forced the Surplus Property Authority to file two lawsuits to reclaim the property.

“These actions are necessary to ensure the fair management of public assets and maintain the financial sustainability of the Port, which relies on lease payments to fund operations, maintenance, and improvements,” read a city statement.

The Browns have countered some of the claims made by the city and its elected officials in legal filings, interviews with this publication and in a newsletter. They assert they’ve tried negotiating in good faith with the city but have been met with unreasonable terms, including a 6 to 8 year reduction in their 30 year lease and the expectation that hundreds of thousands be repaid within four years.

The Browns do admit to withholding rent since May 2024, which they said they were advised to do while their legal fight with the city worked its way through the court.

“You might as well just put that money in the middle of the floor and burn it … because they’re still getting rid of us,” Kevin Brown said about paying rent during the legal spat.

And while they do collect fees from alternate proprietors, the Browns assert they also pay their proprietors for what alcohol is sold in the tasting room. Of the three proprietors in the space, Brown said only two pay the fee, which covers use of space, equipment and online systems.

Possible exports to China were also a promising venture estimated to bring in about $1 million annually, Brown said. But that opportunity died “overnight” after tariffs against the country went into place during President Donald Trump’s first term, the couple said.

Ultimately, large events have been the backbone of the business, Barbara Brown said. That took a hit during the pandemic and what money came in, the pair spent on payroll, site maintenance and supplies and other bills, putting them in the hole on rent.

Legal troubles with the city have further harmed the business, the Browns said. About $40,000 to $50,000 has been lost recently due to about a dozen canceled events, and that figure doesn’t account for future events that may still need to be canceled if the business officially closes, Barbara Brown said.

“We’re losing events right and left,” Brown said, noting some customers have agreed to hold out on severing their contract with the business until a formal decision by the city has been made.

Of the roughly $18,000 in revenue that came into the business this March, about $11,000 went to payroll alone, meaning the last $7,000 would need to cover utilities, insurance and maintenance cost, they said.

On the differences in rent paid for use of port property, Kevin Brown said the comparison is like “apples to oranges” given that the three businesses cited are much larger operations than Riggers Loft.

Rebuilding their business from the ground up somewhere else is out of the picture for the couple, who said they don’t have the energy at 67 years old or means after investing all they own into the business and legal expenses.

The fight to remain in the warehouse isn’t over though, they said. After initially stating they did not plan to appeal if the case ultimately went against them, they’ve had a change of heart and plan to fundraise to cover the cost of the appeal.

They’re ultimately holding onto hope they’ll be allowed to stay with a new repayment plan in place.