Hardywood, Beet Box and more will open at the Richmond airport this year

By the end of the year, folks flying out of Richmond airport should have four new places to eat or grab a drink.
Why it matters: Hardywood Park Craft Brewery and The Beet Box juice bar, two local brands, will be some of the new options.
The big picture: The Capital Region Airport Commission, the group that owns and operates Richmond International Airport, last week signed off on two new full-service restaurants and bars, plus two new coffee and cafe kiosks, for the airport.
The newcomers were selected from the commission's request for new concession proposals last year, according to BizSense, which first reported the news.
Three will land in Concourse A (the one on the right / if you're flying American or JetBlue), while Concourse B (if you're flying Delta, Southwest or United) will get the fourth.
Faber, Coe & Gregg, a New Jersey-based airport concession vendor, will operate the restaurants and Richmond's own Beet Box will run the two kiosks.
Zoom in: The Hardywood Park Craft Brewery (airport edition!) will go near gates A-15 and A-16 (in place of open seating) and include a full-service restaurant and bar, plus grab-and-go options, per the resolution adopted at last week's meeting.
The Beet Box's two concepts (one called The Beet Box and the other Homegrown) will go near gates A-8 and A-11.
Concourse B travelers won't be left behind though. A Wolfgang Puck Bar & Bites will taxi in near gates B-14 and B-15.
All four should be open by the end of the year, airport spokesperson Troy Bell tells Axios.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Business Upturn

an hour ago

• Business Upturn

GroomYourGram: The Profit-First Influencer Agency Rewriting India's Marketing Playbook

In a space often defined by vanity metrics and unpredictability, GroomYourGram has emerged as a refreshingly grounded and profitable force in influencer marketing. Founded five years ago, this Mumbai-based agency has worked with over 300 brands and powered more than 1,000 campaigns—ranging from beauty and skincare to automobile and finance. With a team of 32 operating out of its Lokhandwala office, GroomYourGram delivers not only scale but results. A core strength lies in its unparalleled access to India's creator economy. With a curated community of over 400,000 influencers and 10,000+ active campaign participants monthly, GroomYourGram helps brands like Juicy Chemistry, Tira Beauty, Pilgrim, and Dot & Key craft meaningful narratives. On the corporate front, the agency has driven HDFC Bank's LinkedIn growth strategy and supported pharma giants such as Cipla Health and Glenmark in awareness initiatives. From pioneering Instagram Reels marketing to being among the top 4 agencies for Moj, GroomYourGram has always anticipated trends before they broke mainstream. It has led campaigns with celebrities like Kiara Advani, Janhvi Kapoor, and Ranveer Singh for brands including Mercedes-Benz, Renault, Skoda Kylak, Pepe Jeans, Snitch, and Spykar. Spearheaded by Palak Tannaa, who commands a LinkedIn audience of over 62,000 professionals, the team combines creative ingenuity with data intelligence. Despite multiple investment offers, the agency continues to be self-funded—prioritizing vision over valuation. As a brand that has been profitable since Day One, GroomYourGram exemplifies what happens when influence meets intention. What sets the agency apart is its refusal to follow a one-size-fits-all strategy. Each campaign is customized—whether it's for a youth-centric fashion brand like Freakins or a global skincare label entering Tier II cities. Their campaigns aren't just viral—they're valuable. The agency's model blends strategy with scale. In a world saturated by content, it doesn't just amplify messages—it aligns them with audiences that matter. Fashion clients like Libas, Spykar, and Pepe Jeans see tailored influencer-led storytelling campaigns that go beyond 'likes' and drive brand lift. Healthcare and pharma clients get compliance-ready creativity, while finance brands benefit from thought leadership-led influencer models. Internally, the company operates like a startup but performs like an enterprise. Its operational agility allows quick campaign turnaround, while its in-house tech stack and talent pipeline ensure scalability without compromise. The company is in the process of rolling out an AI-powered influencer analytics tool to further help brands measure ROI and sentiment in real time. With its finger firmly on the cultural pulse, GroomYourGram is not just building campaigns—it's building a new marketing DNA for India's digital-first brands. As brands in India increasingly seek partners who can combine storytelling, performance, and trust, GroomYourGram is becoming the agency of choice—not just for creators and companies, but for the future of digital India. For Business Upturn readers who track growth-focused stories and high-ROI ventures, this isn't just about numbers. It's about sustainable scale, high-value execution, and the future of profitable digital innovation. FOR MORE INFORMATION: Ahmedabad Plane Crash

3 hours ago

Conservation group makes $60M land deal to end mining threat outside Okefenokee Swamp

SAVANNAH, Ga. -- A conservation group said Friday it has reached a $60 million deal to buy land outside the Okefenokee Swamp from a mining company that environmentalists spent years battling over a proposed mine that opponents feared could irreparably damage an ecological treasure. The Conservation Fund said it will buy all 7,700 acres (31.16 square kilometers) that Alabama-based Twin Pines Minerals owns outside the Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge in southeast Georgia, halting the company's mining plans. 'It's a big undertaking, but it was also an existential threat to the entire refuge," said Stacy Funderburke, the Conservation Fund's vice president for the central Southeast. 'We've done larger deals for larger acres, but dollar-wise this is the largest deal we've ever done in Georgia." Twin Pines President Steven Ingle confirmed the sale through a spokesman, but declined to comment further. Twin Pines of Birmingham, Alabama, had worked since 2019 to obtain permits to mine titanium dioxide, a pigment used to whiten products from paint to toothpaste, less than 3 miles (5 kilometers) from the southeastern boundary of the Okefenokee refuge near the Georgia-Florida line. The Okefenokee is the largest U.S. refuge east of the Mississippi River, covering nearly 630 square miles (1,630 square kilometers) in southeast Georgia. It is home to abundant alligators, stilt-legged wood storks and more than 400 other animal species. The mine appeared to be on the cusp of winning final approval early last year. Georgia regulators issued draft permits in February 2024 despite warnings from scientists that mining near the Okefenokee's bowl-like rim could damage its ability to hold water and increase the frequency of withering droughts. Twin Pines insisted it could mine without damaging the swamp. Regulators with the Georgia Environmental Protection Division agreed, concluding last year that mining should have a 'minimal impact' on the refuge. The decisions by Georgia regulators played an outsize role in the Twin Pines project after environmental rollbacks during President Donald Trump's first term stripped the federal government of any oversight. Advocates battling Twin Pines said there is still a potential threat to the Okefenokee, with thousands of acres of privately owned land remaining unprotected. Georgia lawmakers have batted aside multiple attempts in recent years to prohibit mining near the refuge. 'There's maybe 30,000 acres that's still vulnerable outside the Okefenokee on Trail Ridge that needs to be conserved,' said Rena Ann Peck of the Georgia River Network. Josh Marks, an Atlanta environmental attorney who fought the mining project, called the land sale 'a huge victory.' But he also called on conservationists to redouble efforts for a state law protecting the Okefenokee and to keep pressure on other companies to refrain from mining near the refuge. Funderburke said the steep purchase price for Twin Pines' land was driven largely by its mineral-rich soils that would have been highly valued by other mining operations. Reaching a deal became more urgent with the company so close to obtaining its final permits. 'It became pretty clear once a draft permit was issued last year that this was the final exit ramp' to stopping the project, Funderburke said. He said his group was closing Friday on about 40% of the property that includes the 820-acre (332-hectare) site for which Twin Pines' had sought its mining permit. The Conservation Fund plans to close on the rest by the end of July. Funderburke said he hopes there is eventually a deal for the land to pass into government ownership and protection. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which oversees the Okefenokee refuge, in January approved a plan to expand the refuge by buying up to 22,000 acres (8,900) along its perimeter from private owners. The proposal included land owned by Twin Pines. Negotiations with the Conservation Fund might explain why Twin Pines had yet to follow through on a financial commitment required before Georgia regulators could make a final decision on its mining permit. The Environmental Protection Division recently confirmed Twin Pines had been notified in February 2024 that it needed to set aside $2 million for future restoration of the mining site. The company never followed through in the 16 months before the sale was announced.

Forbes

5 hours ago

• Forbes

New Jersey Anti-SLAPP Law Applies In Part In Federal Court In Paucek

The U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals are split on the application of Anti-SLAPP laws in the federal ... More courts. Chip Paucek had been the CEO of a company (U2, Inc.) which had failed under some negative circumstances. Paucek is now the CEO of a new company (Pro-Athlete Community, Inc. a/k/a "PAC") which provides educational and other support to professional athletes who have ceased playing. Paucek came to the attention of Dahn Shaulis, who is a blogger covering the education industry through his publication Higher Education Inquirer ("HEI"). After following Paucek's failure with U2, Shaulis then began to investigate and cover Paucek's new venture, PAC. Long story short, Shaulis made some unflattering comments about Paucek on social media. Paucek had his attorney send Shaulis a cease-and-desist letter which also called for Shaulis to retract the offending comments. Shaulis agreed to do so, but only on terms that were unacceptable to Paucek. The day after receiving Paucek's cease-and-desist letter, Shaulis then posted on social media that he had received the letter but that he stood by the statements therein based on a variety of information. Paucek then sued Shaulis in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Paucek alleged that Shaulis' social media posts were defamatory and that Shaulis had intentionally interfered with Paucek's prospective business relations. Shaulis responded by filing a motion to first determine if the New Jersey Uniform Public Expression Protection Act ("UPEPA") applied in federal court and which of several states' Anti-SLAPP laws should be applied to this controversy. The idea here was that the court would decide these threshold issues before Shaulis filed his UPEPA motion to dismiss (which had not yet been filed as of the time of this opinion). Shaulis also answered Paucek's complaint with a counterclaim under the UPEPA. All of this led to the opinion in Paucek v. Shaulis, 2025 WL 1298457 (D.N.J., May 6, 2025), that you can and should read for yourself here, and which we will next review. The first question addressed by the court was whether the New Jersey UPEPA would be recognized in federal court. The issue here is that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) already provide a means for the early dismissal of a case, which is by way of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. If a defendant attaches evidence to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, then that motion is converted to a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56. As I have often written, a special motion to dismiss or strike under the UPEPA is essentially an early summary judgment motion and akin to a "motion to dismiss on steroids". In fact, the UPEPA deliberately uses the summary judgment standard to test whether the plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed because that standard is well-understood by the courts and has already withstood constitutional challenges based on the plaintiff's right to a jury trial. So, the question becomes: if the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss is already employed by the federal courts, then why substitute it with the UPEPA? The answer is twofold. First, in diversity of citizenship cases (as here), the federal courts will apply their own procedural rules but they are also required to apply the substantive rules of the state from where the action arises. This is known as the Erie doctrine, after a 1938 U.S. Supreme Court opinion of that name. But there is an important limitation, being that if the state substantive law "is in direct collision" with the federal procedure on some issue, then the federal procedure will govern that issue. Second, there are some differences between a Rule 12(b)(6) motion and a UPEPA special motion, mostly being the UPEPA special motion triggers a stay of discovery and the UPEPA automatically awards attorney fees to a defendant who successfully asserts a UPEPA special motion. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion does neither of these things. This is not the first time that a federal court has addressed whether the state law UPEPA should apply in the federal courts. In fact, throughout the nation, the state law UPEPA has been asserted in many federal court cases. The problem is that the federal courts have not all agree on the outcome, but rather there has been a split of opinion by the various federal circuits. The Fifth, Tenth, Eleventh and D.C. Circuit Courts of Appeals have held that Anti-SLAPP laws do not apply in federal court, while the 1st and 9th Circuits have held that they do. For its part, the Second Circuit has opinions going both ways, but with the latest opinions stating that Anti-SLAPP law do not apply in federal court. Obviously, the U.S. Supreme Court is eventually going to have to step in and resolve this split of decisions among the Circuits, but we're not there yet. The District of New Jersey, where this case was heard, sits in the 3rd Circuit which hasn't ruled yet on the issue. The court here declined to look at the issue as merely being one of whether an Anti-SLAPP law should apply in federal court or not. Rather, the court thought that the correct analysis was whether a particular Anti-SLAPP law (here, New Jersey's UPEPA) through its text and structure was in conflict with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This would be the analysis to be followed by the court. To this end, it was obvious to the court that some provisions of the UPEPA do indeed conflict with the FRPC. One example is that of the UPEPA mandating that a defendant who successfully brings a UPEPA special motion will be awarded attorney's fees. By contrast, the FRPC instead requires that before such attorney fees can be awarded, a successful party would have to prevail on either summary judgment or at trial. This means the defendant must prove that the plaintiff has no case, which is different than the UPEPA which requires the plaintiff to establish that he can make at least a prima facie case to avoid dismissal. Other conflicts of the UPEPA with the FRPC include an immediate appeal of right to the defendant if the UPEPA special motion is unsuccessful, and also the automatic stay of discovery upon the filing of a UPEPA special motion. So, there were conflicts between the UPEPA and the FRPC where their provisions collided. But that did not mean to the court that the entire UPEPA would be disallowed in federal court, but rather only that the conflicting provisions of the UPEPA would be surgically excised and in those places the federal rules would be substituted in their stead. This is known as "severability" and it is essentially the same process as where the illegal provisions of a contract are cut out but the surviving operating provisions will be enforced. This is the approach that has been followed by the Second and Ninth Circuits, which allows a court to enforce the state Anti-SLAPP procedures where they do not conflict with the federal rules, but replace those procedures with the corresponding federal rule where they do conflict. Now the court returned to the Erie doctrine which, it will be recalled, requires a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction to apply state substantive law but federal procedural law. Thus, it would only be the procedural parts of a state's Anti-SLAPP laws, including the UPEPA, that would be replaced by the federal rules. The substantive parts of the state's Anti-SLAPP laws would survive and be utilized under the Erie doctrine. This brought the court to one of the questions before it: Was the UPEPA's mandatory award of fees to a defendant who successfully asserted a UPEPA special motion to be considered substantive or procedural in nature? Under the Erie doctrine, a fee-shifting provision is typically considered to be substantive in nature because it is tied to the outcome of the litigation (a procedural rule is not). But there are times when a fee-shifting provision would be procedural, such as when such fees are awarded because of a party's bad faith conduct ― but that is not tied to the outcome of the litigation. Because the UPEPA's mandatory fee award is tied to the outcome, since it can only be awarded if the defendant prevails on the UPEPA special motion, the court held that the UPEPA fee-shifting provision is substantive and not procedural. But the UPEPA in fact has two fee-shifting provisions. As mentioned, the first provision awards attorney fees to a defendant who wins on the UPEPA special motion. This is different than the second provision, by which a court has the discretion to award attorney fees to the plaintiff and against the defendant if the defendant filed the UPEPA special motion in bad faith or for purposes of delay. This latter provision is not tied to the outcome of the case, since the case continues if the defendant loses the UPEPA special motion, and thus is procedural in nature. The upshot to this is that if the defendant wins the UPEPA special motion, then the mandatory fee award in favor of the defendant is substantive and determined by state law. However, if the defendant loses the special motion then the issue of whether fees can be awarded against the defendant would be procedural in nature and determined if at all by the FRCP. The court also noted another factor in determining the UPEPA's mandatory fee award to be substantive: One of the purposes of that mandatory fee award is to deter the filing of abusive litigation. Disposing of a minor issue, the court also held that UPEPA relief is only obtainable through the filing of a UPEPA special motion and not by way of a counterclaim. The balance of the opinion deals with a conflict of law issue; namely, which state's Anti-SLAPP law would apply. The court ultimately concludes that the New Jersey UPEPA applies, and although the court's discussion of the issue is quite interesting, it is beyond the scope of this article. ANALYSIS Anti-SLAPP laws such as the UPEPA are indeed a mix of substantive and procedural law ― they are not purely one or the other. It therefore makes sense for the federal courts in applying the Erie doctrine to apply the substantive portions but reject the procedural ones. This may be the best that we get until the U.S. Supreme Court resolves the split between circuits (and that could go either way) or Congress adopts a federal Anti-SLAPP law (which is regularly introduced, but never seems to go anywhere). But in the words of the Rolling Stones: "You can't always get what you want. You get what you need."