By Ray Stern
By New Times
By Amy Silverman
By Stephen Lemons
By Stephen Lemons
By Monica Alonzo
By Chris Parker
By New Times
The developer of the $500 million Collier Center in downtown Phoenix guaranteed a partner in the Crowne Plaza Hotel that the city would provide a $10 million subsidy if the owners of Crowne Plaza agreed to sell the facility.
The offer was made by Tom Roberts, president and chief executive officer of Opus West Incorporated, to Steve Cohn, manager and a partner in the Crowne Plaza, during a July 22 telephone conversation that Cohn taped. Cohn provided a copy of the tape to New Times -- and subsequently to other media outlets.
Roberts says the city would pay a buyer of the Crowne Plaza a subsidy -- $10 million is mentioned most often -- as an inducement to a buyer.
Cohn says he considers Roberts' offer to be "bribery." He also says he would not be party to a deal that would include a city subsidy to a buyer.
City Councilman Sal DiCiccio says he views Roberts' overtures as the city "just paying a guy to get out of town. This is wild, wild west stuff."
DiCiccio says he has asked City Manager Frank Fairbanks to find out if Roberts had any assurances from city staff.
Mayoral hopeful Randy Pullen has asked the county attorney to look into the matter as well. A spokesman for the county attorney declined to comment.
City officials initially said they knew nothing about Roberts' efforts. Later, however, deputy city manager Sheryl Sculley admitted that she had spoken to Roberts about the possibility of a city subsidy.
Cohn's audiotape puts the city in an awkward position -- at odds with the developer of its premier downtown development project, Collier Center. Scott Phelps, spokesman for Mayor Skip Rimsza, on Friday called Roberts a liar.
Cohn has been a considerable thorn in the city's side since the Phoenix City Council approved a deal to subsidize construction of a Marriott Hotel at the Collier Center. Cohn says a city-subsidized Marriott hotel would hamper the Crowne Plaza.
Cohn caused an initial city-Opus West deal to unravel when he gathered enough signatures to force the matter to a public vote. The city council responded by rescinding the initial deal.
The city subsequently approved a new deal with Opus West and the Marriott -- an $11 million city investment and an $83 million loan guarantee -- and the council approved it as an "emergency," thereby preventing the matter from being referred to the city voters. Cohn responded by suing the city -- a move that has halted the Marriott project in its tracks -- and launching an initiative that would undo the Marriott deal and require future subsidies exceeding $3 million to be approved by voters.
There's little doubt that Roberts and the city would like to see Cohn withdraw his lawsuits, and new ownership at the Crowne Plaza could accomplish that.
On the tape, Cohn says he doubts that the city would provide such a subsidy, and asks if Sculley had approved it.
Roberts replies: "Well, not only Sheryl. I think we have the council's unanimous support. If we can resolve this thing . . . the Marriott goes forward. We have a new and improved Crowne Plaza hotel renovated for 10 million bucks more? Fuckin' that'd be the easiest goddamned decision they ever made in their life. I guarantee it. . . . I'd bet you any amount, no limit, I can deliver 10 million bucks."
Sculley told New Times on Friday that she doesn't know what Roberts is talking about. She admitted that she once attended a meeting with Roberts and Cohn, but that a city subsidy plan was not discussed.
Upon hearing some of Roberts' quotes, Sculley agreed that Roberts seemed certain he could guarantee a city subsidy. "Yeah, he does [sound confident]," Sculley says. "I don't know anything about it, though."
Later the same day, however, Sculley told the Arizona Republic that she had had a conversation about a city subsidy with Roberts. Her admission came after Roberts had told the Republic that such a conversation had taken place.
Cohn says that the meeting he attended with Roberts and Sculley occurred several weeks prior to the July 22 telephone conversation. Cohn says Sculley told him that the city would never agree to any deals with the Crowne Plaza owners. Cohn says Sculley then left him alone with Roberts, who said a city subsidy could be arranged for the buyer and encouraged him to sell the hotel.
Roberts on Friday initially denied telling Cohn that the city would subsidize the Crowne Plaza purchase. Told that New Times had a tape of him doing just that, repeatedly, Roberts said: "Then use what you have, I guess."
Speaking to the Republic, however, Roberts admitted talking with Sculley about a subsidy plan. The Republic quoted Roberts as saying, "She [Sculley] just said, 'I think it's a good idea,' and if you can broker the deal and come in with a reasonable number, she thinks she could get support."
Neither Roberts nor Sculley returned calls on Tuesday.
Contacted late Friday, Mayor Skip Rimsza says Roberts had "no authorization and was not empowered in any way" to suggest the subsidy scheme. Rimsza, who favors the $94 million subsidy for the Marriott Hotel, says Roberts appears to be "willing to promise anything" to make his project go forward.
Scott Phelps, Rimsza's press secretary, called both Cohn and Roberts "liars" and suggested that Roberts was "freelancing out there to cut a deal."
City Councilman Phil Gordon, who once served as Rimsza's chief of staff, says he was unaware that Sculley had discussed a subsidy for a potential buyer of the Crowne Plaza. However, Gordon says city managers have extensive leeway to enter into "exploratory" discussions with developers. The city council, Gordon says, is usually not informed until formal negotiations begin.
Cohn's tape indicates that when Cohn refuses to agree to pursue the city-subsidy scheme, an increasingly desperate Roberts actually offers to make Cohn a limited partner in the Marriott Hotel, which Cohn is suing to stop.
Roberts: "How about . . . what about this, what if we let you be a partner in the hotel with us?"
Cohn: "What hotel?"
Roberts: "The new one."
Cohn: "The Marriott?"
Cohn: "I don't know that it has any value, but it's an interesting concept."
Roberts: "Ya know, some, some, ya know, limited interest in the hotel, ya know, not a general partner or obligation or anything. How about that concept?"
Cohn: "Well, you keep thinking about it. And, ya know . . ."
Roberts: "I mean, is that anything worth discussing?"
Asked why he hadn't made the politically explosive tape public sooner, Cohn said he sat on the tape because he likes Roberts and didn't want to get "personal." Then, on Thursday, a columnist for the Arizona Republic wrote a piece suggesting that Cohn was involved in pornography and swingers' clubs.
"I had been attempting to keep things at a certain ethical level," Cohn says. "And it seemed like that level got breached yesterday. Things got personal and I didn't much like it."
What follows is a transcript of the taped telephone conversation between Tom Roberts and Steve Cohn. Cohn says he recorded the conversation on July 22, 1999.
Tom Roberts: Is this [story about the purported listing of Crowne Plaza in the July 21 Arizona Republic] a mistake or what?
Steve Cohn: You mean, is there a listing on the property, is the property for sale?
TR: I assumed you had it listed and it just went in there inadvertently.
SC: The property -- that's not correct. The property is not listed and hasn't been listed since last year, and as for what it's doing in the magazine, I have no idea.
TR: Any offers yet?
SC: The only offer I got's from you guys.
TR: And what do you think?
SC: Of your offer?
SC: Well, I guess I mostly don't like it that much. But I don't know that I understand how it's logistically even doable. I mean, ya know, the city . . . how, how . . . let's say, hypothetically, I was interested, how could it be put together?
TR: Well, by us putting it under contract and either at a specific price or we just, we work together with whether we hire a broker or we, ya know, use consultants to say that's fine. I mean Host Marriott has interest, to be honest with you, so they said, "Hey we're interested." I mean, they're not saying they'd pay $50 million for it, but they're saying, "Hey, listen, we'd have an interest in it."
SC: Okay, but --
TR: We could come up with a sum. We could work together. Let us form an alliance. Let us, if you guys have any potential buyers you could bring to the table, let's meet with them. We think we could bring the city subsidy. I mean, I think if we had -- if you needed it, the city said there'd be 10 million bucks.
SC: Well, I mean --
TR: If we had Host Marriott standing there, ready to buy your hotel and they said, "I need $20 million in subsidy to make it work," I think the city would do it.
SC: You think the city'd give $20 million --
TR: They could give whatever it takes to make a deal. But certainly I know they'll give $10 [million].
SC: Well, obviously, if I asked them, they would tell me that isn't the case.
TR: If you asked them, they'd tell you to go to hell.
TR: Which is why I'm suggesting we form an alliance. Let's, let's sit down, let's brain storm on who the logical buyers are. Let's get a meeting with Host. And while we sit in the meeting, say, if you have any other . . . um, mention, someone mentioned that Crowne Plaza . . . someone that does a lot of business with Crowne Plaza may have an interest, uh, Reade, I guess. I got that from the city. I don't really know where they got that information.
SC: Don't really know.
TR: But, I mean, let's sit down and if, I don't know. . . . Does it make sense to bring in a hotel expert to try to market it?
SC: Well, I'm --
TR: You don't want the publicity, I'm sure.
SC: Well, I'm, I'm sort of . . . see, it's the type of thing. . . . First of all, I don't know how we would do such a thing if I wanted to do such a thing. I mean, the city, okay. How do we know that the city is willing to do a $10 million subsidy?
TR: Why does it matter? I mean, basically, if we could cut a deal, we could bring, for example, I bring Host Marriott to a meeting . . .
SC: Uh huh . . .
TR: And they say, guys, here's the property and we think we can deliver a $10 million subsidy. What do you think you need to ren -- , how much money do you need to renovate the hotel? I guess is the first question, and, "We think we can deliver $10 million." And they say, "With that number I can pay you guys $35 million." And you say, "Okay that works, I'm comfort -- " I'm not saying you should, I'm just saying, if that happens. Or if you say you need more, and then we'll go to the city and we'll say, "Here's . . . They'll sell it for $37 million, Marriott will buy it and we need a $12 million subsidy to make it work. Do you want to do the deal?"
SC: See, I don't see the city approving the subsidy.
TR: Well, they said they would. I mean, maybe -- it needs to be an arms-length transaction. It needs to be they're giving the subsidy to Marriott and that's their end. But I think you can cut your deal, ya know, with confidence that there's a $10 million subsidy.
SC: Well, I mean, Sheryl [Sculley, deputy city manager] maybe thinks there's a subsidy, but I don't know that I see the mayor and council doing a subsidy, I mean . . .
TR: I guarantee they will. You don't think they want this Marriott to happen? They don't give that much shit about, they don't give shit about, ya know, the Embassy Suites, but they want this Marriott to happen.
SC: They probably do want the Marriott to happen.
TR: I think that if you came, if Marriott . . . forget the Marriott, let's say the Marriott died. If Host Marriott or anybody else came to the city and said, "I want to renovate the Crowne Plaza. I have it under contract and I want a subsidy." They'd give it to them independently, in my opinion. They would like that as well. A renovated Crowne Plaza with a Host Marriott or an institutional-type owner would be something they would subsidize, independently.
SC: Well, I can't go down that path at this point. I mean, I get a newspaper article that the hotel's for sale when it wasn't. If it really was, imagine what kind of article I'd be getting.
TR: Well, I guess, why does it have to be announced to anybody?
TR: Why does it . . . Why can't we confidentially meet with the logical buyers?
SC: Because you can't confidentially get a subsidy from the city.
TR: No. What I'm suggesting is, basically, we tell Host Marriott we think we can deliver, with confidence, a $10 million subsidy. What's the hotel worth? They'll make you an offer, assuming it's acceptable to you, put it under contract, subject to them getting their subsidy. Then we'll go finalize the subsidy.
SC: Um . . .
TR: Subject to that, you have a $10 million subsidy. And if there's a difference between what you want and what they'll accept, well, go and ask them. But they'd have to be under contract with somebody else for them to go finalize the subsidy. But they can tie it up subject to being a subsidy. And then they can then negotiate with the city and make the deal.
SC: See, the problem is, we're not going to be willing to have the property to be speculatively tied up, for starters.
TR: It wouldn't be speculative. It'd be a buyer in hand that's basically saying, "I'll buy the hotel subject to a $10 million subsidy from Phoenix, City of Phoenix." And if they can get it, then it goes forward. I mean, that's not speculation. That's basically having a buyer in hand subject to a concession from the city or a subsidy from the city. We wouldn't tie it up and shop it to the world, I understand your concern there. All I'm suggesting is there's probably a list, a short list, of logical buyers for this hotel. If Host Marriott is one of them, they certainly had some reason to try and want to do this. And at some number, the city would probably make it work.
SC: I, I don't know. I mean, it all sounds very speculative. Uh . . . I mean . . .
TR: We need you guys to buy off on the concept. "Hey guys, if I can deliver a buyer that buys the hotel at a price that is satisfactory to you, would you sell it?" And then we will help bridge the gap between what they can afford to pay and what you want with a subsidy from the City of Phoenix.
SC: Uh . . .
TR: What have you got to lose, man?
SC: Now the first part of the concept, as in, you know, what will I take for the hotel, what I want for the hotel or would I sell it at a price? I suppose, sure. As far as the city's subsidy goes . . . umm . . .
TR: They're not gonna give it to you, obviously.
SC: Well, they're not going to give it to me. It's going to be very difficult for them to give it to anybody.
TR: No. Not a chance. They would love to give it to them. To resolve this whole situation . . . that was the conversation we had last week is, I mean, are you willing to . . . if we can put this deal together and someone would . . . let's say someone would pay 40 million bucks for the hotel, I'm not suggesting they can or will. . . .
SC: I'm not going to sell the hotel for 40 million bucks. Just so you know, I will not sell the hotel for 40 million bucks.
TR: What are you going to be able to sell it for?
SC: I will sell it for what Starwood was willing to pay for it or more, but I'm not going to sell the hotel for 40 million bucks. So if . . .
TR: Obviously, Starwood says it's not even worth close to that.
SC: Uh . . . ya know, it isn't, given what you and Embassy are doing to the market.
TR: What is it without what Embassy is doing to the market?
SC: Uh, I figure the hotel would be fine without you guys.
TR: Obviously, your friendly Coldwell Banker hotel expert said it's worth $25, $26.
SC: Yeah, the guy --
TR: That's the same thing Rich Warnick said it's worth.
SC: Yeah, well, okay, I don't think the CB hotel expert has ever been to the hotel. If he had been to the hotel he would know that it doesn't require 20 plus million dollars of renovation. And we are in the process of preparing a slander suit, or a libel suit as we speak. Because they --
TR: Against CB?
SC: Against the Republic and Coldwell Banker. The Republic knew that the hotel wasn't listed when they ran that, that, uh, article. And we've gotten sorta --
TR: Sounds like you're gonna sue everybody in the whole town before it's all said and done.
SC: No, no, not everybody. We . . . just a few.
TR: I mean, why wouldn't you, as we discussed last week, figure out a way to get out of this thing with a positive situation?
SC: Because, I don't know that there's a way to do it without being hypocritical or compromising values, unfortunately. Uh, and I'm not into being hypocritical.
TR: So if someone --
SC: I know that everybody else is, and figures that's what I should be, too. Frankly, it bothers me. Ya know, if Marriott came up to me and said they're willing to pay my price and they put together something on the side that I'm not a party to and don't even necessarily know about, I suppose I sell at my price. But as far as me being party to what I think are illegal dealings?
TR: You can't be a party to it, no. What I'm suggesting is, the only way anybody is going to get close to the price that you want to make it work is by getting something from the city. Maybe that's the way to do it is for me to go to Marriott and say, "Okay, look at the hotel. Tell us what you think it's worth and assume that you can get $10 million from the City of Phoenix and make 'em an offer." Maybe that's the way to do it. But I guess, I guess, I would just -- I mean, I wouldn't want to be doing that without you knowing about it.
SC: If Marriott wants to make an offer on the hotel, they should do that.
TR: What about anybody else? How 'bout if I get a hotel expert to come up with a short list of logical buyers and we talk to them about buying the hotel.
SC: We had a listing on the hotel with PKF a year or so ago. Um, when . . .
TR: Would you have a problem if I talked to PKF and said, "who do you think would be a good . . ."?
SC: Oh, yeah.
TR: You would?
SC: Yeah, at this point? Because they might be involved in the lawsuit.
SC: They do have a list of people that they brought it to that are protected, which we have. I guess they're still protected. I don't know when that list expires.
TR: Protected by PKF?
SC: Uh, yeah, where they're protected on the listing. Uh, I mean, basically, we do have some Crowne Plaza issues that can be dealt through. But . . . the uh . . .
TR: There's no way you can share that list with us because you have PKF . . .
SC: I don't know if I can or can't; I don't have the list.
TR: Who has the list?
SC: My brother [Mark Cohn] has the list. I've never seen it, to tell you the truth. I mean, I don't think it's a secret list.
TR: I mean, I guess --
SC: It's, ya know, it's not like --
TR: What does your brother think of this concept?
SC: Oh, he thinks that it's not feasible. He thinks it can't be put together. And that it's a waste of time.
TR: Why does he think that?
SC: Um, because he thinks -- in order to put together such a deal, he would think there would have to be some level of trust between the parties and dealings and good faith.
TR: That's what I'm suggesting. You don't need to have any good faith or trust with the city, because they're not involved. I'm suggesting that Opus, Collier and the Crowne Plaza work together to find a buy -- the logical buyer -- and to come to terms on price, subject to that new buyer cutting a deal with Phoenix, the City of Phoenix.
SC: Oh, Opus and Collier are going to be affected by things that we do in the lawsuit and otherwise.
SC: Maybe not favorably. We can't really determine that without discussing what we intend to do, which we're not gonna do right now. Um but, some of it they probably aren't going to like real well. Uh, because of that, I get concerned about behaving in hypocritical kind of ways.
TR: No, but all you're saying is that your action against the city may adversely affect us.
SC: No, no, uh-uh.
TR: And we're not party to your action, right?
SC: You're not party to the action, and I don't anticipate that you will be party to the action and I don't anticipate that you'll be party to any other action that we may or may not bring. But what we're going to --
TR: Why is it hypocritical, then, to try to work with us to try to come up with a solution that makes everybody happy?
TR: I don't know why that would be hypocritical. I mean, you're basically . . .
SC: Because if . . . to the extent that there are subsidies involved and I end up involved in that in one way or another, I get concerned about that. I don't think the city has a right to do what the city is doing.
TR: If you get out of the situation because of it, you think that's a bad reflection on you?
SC: Well, I don't know. If I was really that concerned about reflections on me, I probably wouldn't have started this in the first place because certainly some of the publicity I've gotten has not been that favorable.
TR: Right, true.
SC: Um, so it's not a purely, a reflection type of thing. There's kind of other things going on here. It's an integrity sort of thing. This may surprise you, I actually have some. I know that based on some of the individuals that I've been dealing with that it doesn't exist to any extent in this city. But I actually don't like doing things that I don't think are the right thing to do.
TR: And you don't think that if you sold the building [for] $40 million, let's say that's a number that was acceptable to you.
SC: I won't sell it for $40 million, I told you.
TR: Okay, $43 million is what the Starwood deal was. For $43 million you decide you're gonna sell the hotel and then, let's say, Host Marriott goes and makes a deal with the city for a $15 million subsidy, to make the deal work. You think there's some, you compromise your ethics there?
SC: If Host Marriott comes to me and says they'll pay me $43 million for the hotel, on some level, what they do with the city is between them and the city.
TR: There you go. That's my point.
SC: Um, unless I'm in some way brought into it or know about it. In which case, I end up having a problem.
TR: If you knew they were gonna require a subsidy to make the deal work, you'd have a problem with it?
SC: Kind of. I mean, if they come to me with a clean $43 million deal and they do it within the next few weeks, then I'll probably take it. If they go beyond that, I can tell you the price isn't going to come down.
TR: What happens in the next two weeks?
SC: You'll find out.
TR: You got a big renovation planned or something?
SC: No. No. It's a matter of I become more invested in things and as I become more invested and as I do other things, I become less willing to want to sell the hotel.
TR: Let me uh . . . so, tell me about the list, I mean, can I talk to Mark [Steve Cohn's brother] about --
TR: About can he share anybody on that list?
SC: You can. I mean, I don't, I don't know . . . I don't think Mark is going to buy into the fact that you can deliver the subsidy. But for sure you can talk to him about the list.
TR: That's the one thing I know I can.
SC: Why? Has Sheryl [Sculley] said so?
TR: Well, not only Sheryl. I think we have the council's unanimous support. If we can resolve this thing. The Embassy goes forward. The Marriott goes forward. We have a new and improved Crowne Plaza hotel renovated for 10 million bucks more? Fuckin' that'd be the easiest goddamned decision they ever made in their life. I guarantee it. I'd put my . . . ya know, I'd bet you any amount, no limit, I can deliver 10 million bucks.
SC: Well . . .
TR: I'm that confident of it. Ya know, let's do a $20 bet, if we ever get there.
SC: Um, I don't know I want to bet on that particular item, $20 or otherwise.
TR: Now, so Host Marriott is a natural since they're, they benefit from it.
SC: I suppose.
TR: So that's an easy one. And obviously I understand that there's going to be some sensitivity to anybody knowing that you are shopping, that we are shopping for a buyer for your hotel. So, I mean, I will, we will do everything within our power that, ya know, that the press doesn't know about it.
SC: Well, basically, um, see, I haven't agreed to sell the hotel. I've just still said that you can bring on an offer. I would say that with anything that I ever owned.
TR: Right. At some price, you might even be interested in selling it?
TR: Not being marketed.
SC: Ya know what? I don't have anything that wouldn't be sold at some price, too.
TR: Yeah. Me, too. Every building we own.
SC: Exactly. We're in exactly the same place here.
TR: Well, let me talk to Mark. And you've talked to him about the concept, our conversation, I assume?
SC: Oh yeah, like I told you, he thought it was ridiculous. But I did talk to him about it.
TR: Well let me see if he'd share any of the names on the list. We'll . . . let's see if we can put our heads together on who possible buyers would be and see if we can drum something up.
SC: Okay, um, I can give you a cell number. I don't know if he's at the office or not. He wasn't when I last talked to him.
SC: Let's see, what is it? (Gives number.)
TR: Any other bright ideas that you thought of, ya know, since our last conversation of how we can put this to bed? You haven't reconsidered your lawsuit?
SC: I consider the lawsuit everyday. It's one of the things I do. Ya know, I go to bed at night just wondering what is going to be written in the paper the next day.
TR: Well, the city hasn't answered your complaint, have they?
SC: No. I mean, I assume that we will get a response. I don't know that we'll get it this week. I assume we will get it next week.
TR: They're trying to get it out this week, is what they said. So we'll see.
SC: And, they may. But the attorney that the city has? The lead attorney?
TR: Oh, Squire Sanders & Dempsey [law firm] is doing a response. They said they wanted it out by, they said, ya know, midweek, which is already today so . . .
SC: They may have it out, but I assume the guy's going to be fairly careful in his response, and it may take them a bit longer to be a little careful.
TR: Maybe. Okay. Well let me, we'll see what they come back with, in the meantime, we'll pursue this option.
TR: Any other words of wisdom for me?
SC: Um, let's see . . . words of wisdom . . . I don't think I . . .
TR: How about . . . what about this, what if we let you be a partner in the hotel with us?
SC: What hotel?
TR: The new one.
SC: The Marriott?
SC: I don't know that it has any value, but it's an interesting concept.
TR: Ya know, some, some, ya know, limited interest in the hotel, ya know, not a general partner or obligation or anything. How about that concept?
SC: Well, you keep thinking about it. And, ya know . . .
TR: I mean, is that anything worth discussing? Or is it basically . . .
SC: Well, see the problem we got here is that the city. We are put in a difficult position because the city has behaved imprudently. They made a deal with you that they maybe shouldn't have made. But regardless of whether they should have or shouldn't have, the, what you are banking on is the fact that they have invested so much money that they have no choice but to expand Civic Plaza.
TR: And they certainly have a strong desire to do that, as you've seen.
TR: It's probably a bad idea, because the city probably wouldn't do the deal if they knew that you were partners with us on it.
SC: Maybe, yeah.
TR: 'Cause they like you so much.
SC: I think some of them like me a lot.
TR: They joke about me since I talk to you. They go, "Jeez, your buddy, Steve . . ." No one else even talks to you.
SC: See you're one of the people who talks to me. I think that's good. The rest of the people, they don't talk to me as much anymore.
TR: I wouldn't think so.
SC: It makes me lonely.
TR: I can't imagine anybody at the city talks to you, do they?
SC: Anybody with the city? Um . . .
TR: Does Chuck [Coughlin, political consultant] still talk to you?
SC: Sure. Chuck talks to me.
TR: Is he still on the deal, on the case, on the assignment?
SC: Yeah. He can't leave now, God, he got us this far.
TR: His reputation's on the line, huh?
TR: Okay, well let me work on that and see if we can find a live wire.
SC: Ya know, I bet Sal [DiCiccio] would return my calls.
TR: Sal might. He'd probably be a buddy of yours. He'd probably want something. He'd probably call you for a campaign contribution.
SC: Really? Did you give him much?
TR: Yeah, I support them all.
SC: Do you?
SC: I think that's good. You never know who might win.
TR: Yeah. Well reality, that's true, but I mean, I support all the council even though Sal has gone against us on a few cases. That's my district that I live in. At least, I know him.
SC: Well you know, as a resident, he's probably doing the right thing. Just in your business, he's probably not.
SC: Yeah. So you can fund him as a resident.
TR: There you go. You have to. The company won't pay for it. It's against the law, right?
TR: All right, well we'll be in touch.
Audio clip 1: "I can deliver 10 million bucks"
Audio clip 2: "What if we let you be a partner in the hotel with us?"