Re: Columbus Center
Ned, what you wrote doesn't prove that it isn't approved. It's just the events of what happened after it was approved
You?re forgetting how this discussion began, and why it continues.
When other forum members started simplistically claiming that the entire proposal was fully approved, I drilled down and explained that the project involves a long string of city, state, federal, and commercial approvals, and that some were issued, some were rescinded, some were never issued, and some were never even applied for.
That granular mix continues today.
Yes, everyone knows that the BRA issued a BRA approval on 10 July 2003.
_ But that?s never been a question, so it?s not relevant to this discussion.
_ That BRA approval is only one of many approvals, the other approvals are still outstanding, little has been done to get them, so project progress remains at a standstill.
_ That?s the point.
So this proposal's resources-and-cash gap remains enormous, and unfilled. Your point? Regardless of the size of the gap and whether it is filled or not (obviously if it was, it would be going up now wouldn't it, Ned?), the fact remains, the only thing CC needed to get started was a few loans which were not rejected due to UFPs or the disappearance of a "needed" open air park.
No, just a ?few loans? is not all that the project needed to ?get started.?
_ It needs far more things than you realize.
? One thing is $295 million worth of performance bonds.
? Another thing is approval to borrow the entire $850 million.
? Another thing is approval to spend it (each lender requires that every other lender remain involved).
? Another thing is one half billion dollars worth of liability insurance coverage ? every year.
? Additional things are also needed (already explained in prior posts, so not repeated here).
Environmental issues and master plan violations are routine factors in making decisions about speculative real estate investments, especially ones totaling $850 million.
_ So unless each lender personally assured you of what he considered and what he did not consider in his decision, and unless each lender confirmed to you that he made two extremely unusual exceptions in this case, then it?s ridiculous for you to try to claim that these routine factors were skipped.
So the public records clearly state that Winn (as you paraphrased it) "performed theatrically staged 'site preparation and pre-construction activity' to (a) retain investor-owner interest; and (b) attract commercial construction loans." or were those words just added from your opinion and assumptions?
The ?site preparation and pre-construction activity? are the words coined ? and used repeatedly ? by the project managers themselves, throughout 2007 and again in 2008.
_ The necessities of retaining increasingly skeptical investor-owners and attracting additional lenders were admitted by the project managers in interviews at city, state, and federal agencies, and also during newspaper interviews.
_ Additional reports from other sources matched what was reported from the interviews.
The half year of theatrically staged activity did not succeed.
_ It didn?t reassure the investor-owners (California), it didn?t sign up the additional pension plans and other hoped-for lenders, and it didn?t produce the cash needed to buy the $295 million in performance bonds and the steel for the tunnels.
_ Since the managers spent a half year, at enormous cost, and built nothing, and since they failed to reach any of their goals, I say ?theatrically staged? because those words best reflect the fact that the activity (a) was not what they said it was, and (b) accomplished nothing.
During my weekly meetings with the managers during the fall, winter, and spring of 2007-2008, it was clear that:
(1) they were chewing through their calendar;
(2) they weren?t getting anything done;
(3) they knew it; and
(4) it was their intent.
