Richard Underwood, founder of Richards Pizza, dies at 95
Apr. 15—Richard Underwood was the driving force behind the iconic Butler County restaurant Richards Pizza. He died on Monday at age 95, according to his family.
The 1947 Colerain High School graduate was a self-made businessman, said his daughter, Karen Underwood Kramer.
"He was always an entrepreneur," she said, adding that's how he paid his way at Miami University, which he left short of graduation after he joined the Naval Reserve during the Korean War.
After leaving the Navy, he opened Underwood Sales, selling used cars on Ohio 4. But it was curiosity that led him to open Richards Pizza in October 1955, said Kramer. He was always curious, and always asking questions.
Underwood built the Main Street location in the 1970s because the people wanted one on the city's west side, she said.
The kernel of the idea for Richards Pizza popped into Underwood's head in Miami, Fla. when he first tried pizza. Then he frequented a pizza restaurant in Cincinnati. Kramer said her dad befriended those selling produce to the restaurants, and learned the mechanics of making pizza.
Then he experimented until he was ready to open his restaurant on Dixie Highway (which closed in the late 1980s) on Oct. 24, 1955.
"He was always interested," she said about her dad. "It's something new, let's find out about it, let's analyze this. I want to know more about this pizza. How do you make this stuff?"
Hamilton Mayor Pat Moeller called Underwood "a restaurant and food icon" and will be missed.
"I remember the Main and D streets location and I worked at the current Main Street location when I was in college," the mayor said. "His Richards steak sandwich puts Hamilton on the 'destination location' map for great local, original food. When former Hamilton residents come back to visit Hamilton, many I know must get a Richards steak sandwich and pizza while they are in town."
It was at the Main and D streets location, where the 513 Bar now operates, the Richards steak sandwich was invented, Kramer said, and they still use the same recipe invented by Underwood.
In addition to opening an iconic Hamilton establishment, Underwood was also named Restauranteur of the Year in Ohio in the mid 1970s.
Kramer said celebration of life will be at Richards Pizza's Main Street location on April 27, "celebrating my dad in the building he built and in the restaurant he founded."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
EDITORIAL: Meeting NATO's 2% target the right move
Provided it is done competently, we agree with Prime Minister Mark Carney's announcement Monday that Canada, at long last, will meet its NATO commitment to increase military spending to 2% of gross domestic product (GDP) in this fiscal year. That's five years ahead of Carney's previous promise to meet the 2% target by 2030. We're so far behind — Canada currently spends 1.4% of GDP on defence annually — that NATO is already considering a new target for member nations to spend 5% of GDP on defence. Canada's failure to meet the 2% target, set by NATO in 2006, has been a long-standing national embarrassment. It has eaten away at our credibility and our effectiveness on issues of global security and international conflicts. It has justifiably upset many of our NATO allies for not pulling our own weight and, most recently, angered U.S. President Donald Trump who, on this issue, has a valid point. At the end of the Second World War, Canada had the world's fourth-largest navy after the U.S., U.K and former Soviet Union. At the end of the Korean War, Canada was spending 7% of GDP on defence. Today, we have members of our military relying on food donations to make ends meet while being sent into armed conflicts — where they continue to serve honourably — with aging and obsolete equipment. This is a national disgrace. Canada's submarines, ships, aircraft, military vehicles and artillery are all in desperate need of upgrading, as is our military presence in the Arctic, given the growing interest in its mineral resources by hostile countries such as Russia and China. No country can claim to be a sovereign nation unless it has the ability to monitor and, where necessary, counter incursions into its territory. Our concern is with Carney's pledge to 'ensure that every dollar is invested wisely, including by prioritizing made-in-Canada manufacturing and supply chains.' EDITORIAL: Jobless numbers spell trouble EDITORIAL: Fighting wildfires a national priority That's not because of the intent — we agree with it — but because there are so many examples of military spending that have turned into fiascoes and boondoggles by previous governments. We're also concerned that Carney is making this major announcement on defence spending in advance of this year's federal budget and how the increased spending on defence will impact the government's overall finances.
Yahoo
10 hours ago
- Yahoo
Crisis Clean Team Wins 2025 Global Recognition Award for Compassion-Driven Cleanup and Community Impact
MINNEAPOLIS, June 9, 2025 /PRNewswire/ -- Crisis Clean Team has been awarded a 2025 Global Recognition Award, honoring their extraordinary commitment to turning moments of trauma into pathways for healing. The Minnesota-based biohazard remediation and drug decontamination company received perfect scores across all service categories, recognized for their unmatched compassion, community partnerships, and a business model built on dignity, not dollars. "We're called in when life feels overwhelming, and we show up ready to help," said Amber Kramer, Founder of Crisis Clean Team. "This award is a reflection of the heart our team puts into every home, every family, every story." What sets Crisis Clean Team apart is a simple but powerful belief: every person deserves to be treated with care, even in life's most difficult moments. Whether responding to a suicide, drug contamination, hoarding conditions, or severe property neglect, the team approaches every situation with empathy and professionalism. That commitment has earned them a consistent five-star rating from clients who never expected to need this kind of help but were relieved to have found a team they could trust. But their impact goes far beyond cleanup. The company partners with local organizations working to end homelessness, donating recovered, usable items from hoarding cases to veterans transitioning out of homelessness—transforming what would be waste into resources for rebuilding lives. "To us, giving those items a second life means giving someone else a sense of hope," Kramer said. Crisis Clean Team's mission is lived out through every team member. Their Director of Operations brings bilingual skills and years of experience working with youth in crisis. Their lead technician, a former veteran caregiver, brings a deep understanding of veteran trauma and care. Together, they deliver not just technical cleanup, but comfort, trust, and support when it matters most. The company also donates time and resources to support causes close to their heart, including mental health and at-risk youth. As the award panel noted: "Crisis Clean Team doesn't see community engagement as optional—it's the foundation of how they operate." This award confirms what their clients already know: Crisis Clean Team isn't just cleaning spaces—they're restoring hope. To read more about the award and why they were selected, visit: Media Contact:info@ View original content to download multimedia: SOURCE Crisis Clean Team Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
It Would Be So Funny If Trump Nationalized Elon Musk's Companies
As one of the century's stupidest, most high-profile feuds escalated yesterday, President Donald Trump at one point threatened to cancel the U.S. government's expansive contracts with SpaceX and Tesla, companies that are both at least nominally headed by ketamine enthusiast and Grimes-ex Elon Musk. In response, Musk threatened to 'immediately' decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft, currently America's only means of shuttling astronauts to and from the International Space Station. An X user with fewer than 200 followers then appeared to negotiate some kind of détente on the matter, prompting Musk to back down. The bizarre, petulant, helplessly transfixing back-and-forth was a reminder that, while Musk's time as a 'special government employee' may be over, he's still very much a part of the U.S. government. His business empire has been built on government largesse, whether through SpaceX's expansive contracts with NASA, Starlink satellites, or the clean car rule compliance credits that have accounted for 34 percent of Tesla's profits since 2012. As The Washington Post reported in February, Musk's businesses have over the years received $38 billion in government contracts, loans, subsidies, and tax credits. In many ways, Musk owes his fortune to the U.S. government. A truce between Trump and Musk may be imminent, but, if he wishes to use it, Trump has a powerful wild card for sticking it to Musk: nationalize his companies. A similar idea was floated online yesterday by Steve Bannon, the odious former film producer and Trump confidant, who suggested using the Defense Production Act to 'seize' SpaceX. The wide-ranging Korean War–era policy outlines several steps by which the White House can bypass Congress to intervene in the demand and supply sides of particular industries. Those powers can include directing private companies to prioritize orders from the federal government, issuing loans and loan guarantees, and allocating 'materials, services, and facilities' from corporations. Just this week, Trump invoked the Defense Production Act to boost production of so-called critical minerals and weapons. A waiver published to the Federal Register on Wednesday claims that shortfalls of either would 'severely impair national defense capability.' The Biden administration similarly leveraged the Defense Production Act to spur on the domestic production of graphite, a key component of the lithium-ion batteries used in military energy systems and electric vehicles. Both presidents turned to the law during the Covid-19 pandemic to address medical supply chain shortages and accelerate vaccine production. As the Roosevelt Institute's Todd Tucker has pointed out, the Defense Production Act has been continually updated to give the White House broader authority over energy, in particular. Its 2009 reauthorization specifically excised language in previous versions that restricted the government's ability to directly engage in energy production. After 9/11, the Defense Production Act's definition of 'national defense' was updated to include the protection and restoration of 'critical infrastructure,' a legal designation of 16 sectors deemed essential to the functioning of the economy, including telecoms, information technology, and transportation. In theory, that is, the Defense Production Act offers Donald Trump a massive toolbox with which to intervene in Musk's business. He could stick it to the richest man on earth by ordering Tesla to stop making Cybertrucks and start making electric buses, or forcing Starlink to provide free internet service to everyone in the country. As Bannon hinted, the law also opens up the possibility of requiring recipients of government funding—including those who have received loans and contracts—to give the government equity stakes in exchange. The first Trump administration did just that in 2020, when the Treasury Department sought equity stakes in publicly traded national security contractors, including defense firms, looking to receive the $17 billion set aside for them in coronavirus relief funds. Tying federal funding to public equity stakes is a common practice in other countries that's somewhat rare in the U.S. The most prominent example in recent memory was when the federal government spent $50 billion on a 61 percent equity stake in General Motors, bailing out the automaker after its bankruptcy in 2009. While this move theoretically empowered the White House to enact wide-ranging reforms—correcting for the kinds of mistakes that had plunged GM into financial ruin in the first place—presidential advisers, including Larry Summers, then the head of the National Economic Council, pushed the Obama administration to instead act as a 'reluctant equity owner' and 'not interfere with or exert control over day-to-day company operations.' The concept of the government seeking a 'golden share' in certain companies has already come up during Trump 2.0. Trump obliquely floated the possibility of the U.S. receiving an equity stake as part of Nippon Steel's controversial takeover of U.S. Steel, entitling the government to an advisory role that could allow it to outvote other shareholders on major issues like mergers and asset sales. Given the sheer scale of Musk's dealings with the federal government—business he seemed eager to expand during his disastrous time in Washington—there are any number of options for Trump to bolster government oversight of SpaceX and Tesla, including, potentially, buying up shares. Republican attacks on both electric vehicle incentives and California's clean car rules, moreover, may end up costing Tesla billions of dollars, JP Morgan Chase analysts have found. Tesla is already struggling amid flagging sales in the U.S. and abroad; earlier this year at the White House, Trump even hosted a bizarre infomercial for Tesla, seemingly aimed at boosting the company's fortunes. It's not impossible to imagine that Tesla might at some point come begging for another handout, offering Trump the opportunity to do what Barack Obama couldn't: play an active role in the day-to-day operations of a U.S. automaker. To state the obvious, it is vanishingly unlikely that Donald Trump will use either public equity stakes or the Defense Production Act toward progressive ends. In March, his administration removed solar panels, heat pumps, and other green technologies from the Defense Production Act's purview by rescinding several Biden-era executive orders. Doing so, though, would make Elon Musk really, really mad. If Trump is too afraid to exert that kind of power over Musk—who has demonstrated time and again his alarming sway over the federal government—whichever Democrat makes it to the White House next shouldn't be.
