It is sad that people got hurt financially they way they did on that project and pretty much gotten next to nothing on the dollar if anything at all. However, everyone that got involved in that project....was warned from the start.
It is no secret in this town that BCC had previous "issues" long before the start of that debacle of a project. Say as you wish, flame me if you want, but everyone in this town knows that is a true statement.
I remember driving on 71 south one afternoon with a colleague on our way to a meeting just after the parking garage was starting to come out of the ground...looking over and shaking my head...and I said "it will never finish". If only I had put a bet on that one.... 8-)
I read an article right after the trial started, where I believe it was John Kraft who mentioned something along the lines that most people felt that the project a huge local marquee, big project, big dollar, and....here is the big one...."was too big to fai"l. Well Mr. Kraft...that glassy eyed vision sure didn't come true now did it? Hmmm...where have we heard "too big to fail" before? Just sayin....
It is hard to squarely put the blame on one entity here but my synopsis is this:
30% of the blame goes to BOA:
From the documents made available to the public throughout this entire ordeal, and having been involved with developers myself from time to time , it sure looks like they did a shitty shitty job of performing due diligence of the formed partnership, the project structure, and the other entities involved. From the financial side, all the way through the load disbursement process anyone involved in the the construction / development industry within the last 25 years can see the glaring problems that were allowed to happen. I don't think we need to dive into each and every mistake we would be here until 2024, but you get my meaning. I actually found it hillarious that the govt. actually put the "construction loan administrator" on the stand. While I am sure her testimony was helpful in having people understand the draw process and the questions / concerns she did bring up to the BCC and others over some of the "errors" as she said, and she was able to corroborate the communication trail she had....the bank here looks like a bunch of morons on the fiscal responsibility side. You put a $175M construction loan disbursement, on an inexperienced load administrator that does not know a concrete block from a door knob. Really? Way to protect your fiduciary responsibility. I find it very odd that BOA, at least from info made availible to the public, did not seem to interested in monitoring the flow of cash to the project. But then again....look at who was in the middle of all this bad loan / foreclosure mess...BOA. EPIC FAIL BOA! I hope ya'll have had a house clearing because of this mess....
50% Bear Creek Capital & Entities / Kenwood Partnership:
I could spends week on this....but to sum it up. PISS POOR PLANNING. PISS POOR PROJECT MGMT....from both the partnership and the construction entity. PISS POOR COST CONTROL & MONITORING. The project over runs should have been seen early early on, there is simply no excuse for that. The statements made about the "continual zoning changes" were impacting cost are total hogwash. Really BCC? You expect us to believe the zoning officials kept changing requirements as you went along? Nahh....those were probably conditions of approval that you needed to abide by and just didn't see fit to put the in costs for hoping you would be able to cover them somehow because "we gotta get going on this project". We are to believe that the construction manager(s) were misleading you and your partners the whole time, when you yourself created the entity of Bear Creek Construction? You created it so you didn't have to pay attention to it? LOL....OMG Oh....and the whole no email thing....niiicccceee...you really expect people with any ounce of common sense to actually believe you did not perform transactions in writing because you were a bad speller? Ok....Fraud...Frawd...Phrawed....they all look different...but they say the same thing...just sayin.... :wink:
First off, like I said....many of them were warned up front of past issues. Heck some of them even had been on the receiving end of some of those issues once beforeWhat's up with that? You shot off your left foot the first time...so you shot the right this time because you didn't think it would hurt as bad? :wtf: Second, contracts are contracts....terms are terms...the owner expects you to abide by yours...and the you should expect the owners to abide by theirs....meaning you get paid when you are due payment. Now we all know that payments tend to lag...there is always some unexpected delay just due to the complex nature of the process...but there is a difference between a "lag" and ZERO payment. And at what point if I am a small company....do I say STOP? A couple of the documented stories I remember seeing over this whole thing stated they had not been paid since...May? And it was August / September before they actually grew a pair? That is pathetic in itself and I won't even go there to discuss it.
The government lost this case because they went after too much. As it was stated in many many articles...they went after Mr Daniels as if he intended to defraud BOA of all this money. So he was telling the truth when he said he did not intend to defraud the bank....he just thought he could play a shell game long enough to move the other shells to get everything flowing like it needed to be. But the govt .didn't go down that road. He didn't intend to steal that money...and as much as I and others wanted to see him in the pokey with Mr Erpenbeck over all of this...it is not a logical belief. If they would have stuck to the laundering, fraud, false statements etc....slam dunk.
It should be very interesting with this verdict to see how the upcoming case against his former construction manager unfolds. This could be a monumental case for anyone involved in construction management.