Investors might demand revised projections.
Lenders could question the schedule.
And the county might have to reconsider portions of the approved plans.
The developer wanted the problem resolved before it reached that stage.
His director of land acquisitions had suggested negotiating directly with the family again.
The developer rejected the idea.
"We've offered enough."
The director remained quiet.
The businessman continued.
"The old man thinks he can hold up forty million dollars because he doesn't like a drainage pipe."
The director looked uncomfortable.
"He has questions about the recorded easement."
The developer waved a hand.
"Everybody has questions."
The director hesitated.
"His attorney may pursue a formal challenge."
The developer stared.
"Then we need him to reconsider."
That was when the conversation turned toward the sergeant.
The developer had known the county sheriff for years.
They attended many of the same business events.
Supported local charities.
And shared an interest in the county's economic growth.
The sheriff publicly supported Mill Creek Landing.
That support wasn't inherently improper.
Elected officials frequently supported major developments.
But the relationship became troubling when private commercial concerns began influencing decisions inside the sheriff's office.
The sergeant had worked under the sheriff for nearly two decades.
He was ambitious.
Frustrated.
And increasingly resentful that younger officers had been promoted into positions he'd hoped to obtain.
He believed his experience entitled him to greater recognition.
He also had financial problems.
A recent divorce.
Credit card debt.
And obligations that made his salary feel insufficient.
The developer's associates knew those weaknesses.
Several months earlier, the sergeant had accepted paid off-duty security assignments at events connected to the development company.
Some were legitimate.
Others involved loosely documented consulting payments that raised questions about the relationship between his public responsibilities and private income.
The developer didn't need to tell him directly to commit a crime.
He began with flattery.
A few comments about the sergeant's professionalism.
The county's dependence on experienced officers.
And the possibility of future security work once the development opened.
Then came the favors.
A request to check on a troublesome resident.
A suggestion that officers pay attention to complaints concerning project property.
And finally, a plan to make the elderly homeowner appear less credible.
The developer's associate had been preparing that plan for days.
At a county historical society event, the elderly father had spoken briefly about the neighborhood's early property records.