SPECIAL FACT CHECK EDITION
Public Accountability • Civic Literacy • Common-Sense Conversations
Vol. 1, Issue 37 | November 14, 2025 — A twelve-minute read (2356 words)
___________________________________________________________________________________
Statement on Editorial Standards and Interview Protocol
We appreciated the opportunity to engage with representatives from a respected local agency during our recent interviews. Following that conversation, a request was made for future interviews to include a list of specific questions in advance. While we understand the desire for preparation and clarity, we must respectfully reaffirm our editorial practice: we do not provide interview questions ahead of time.
This approach is not arbitrary, rooted in widely accepted journalistic standards that prioritize transparency, authenticity, and the pursuit of truth. We always share the general topics to be discussed, and we strive to create a respectful, open environment where guests can speak candidly and thoughtfully. Our goal is not to elicit rehearsed responses or reinforce talking points, but to foster genuine dialogue that serves the public interest.
We were disappointed by a subsequent offhand remark suggesting that our team “plays loose and fast with the facts.” That characterization is not only inaccurate—it undermines the very principles we uphold. We take fact-checking seriously. Every edition is independently reviewed for accuracy, and we welcome scrutiny of our own practices. We believe accountability begins with ourselves.
We will not defend organizations that avoid accountability or open dialogue. Civic trust is built not through control of the narrative, but through a shared commitment to truth—even when it’s uncomfortable. We remain committed to that standard.
Public Accountability • Civic Literacy • Common-Sense Conversations
APPENDIX ONE – FACT CHECK
Our lead editorial and the Public Story v. the Paper Trail was submitted to an independent group of disinterested parties, and they were asked to identify any discrepancies, misstatements or innuendo contained in the Hypothetically Speaking presentation verses the public record for the so-called data center project. As follows are their findings without benefit of editing by any party.
Quick legend
- Supported — LOI expressly says this.
- Partly supported — LOI contains related language but not exactly the claim as written.
- Not supported — LOI does not provide evidence for the claim.
Fact check table.
1) Claim: “The LOI covers the former GM/JATCO site — roughly 250 acres (the addresses 1000 General Motors Dr., 544 Kellogg Ave., etc.).”
Result: Supported.
LOI evidence (paraphrase): LOI describes acquisition of “+/- 250.68 acres … located at 1000 General Motors Drive, 1412 S. Jackson Street, 411 W. State Street, 1200 & 1212 S. Jackson Street and 530 & 544 Kellogg Avenue.”
Suggested HS wording (if needed): Use the LOI’s exact acreage: “+/- 250.68 acres” and list the addresses as in the LOI.
2) Claim: “The LOI is non-binding.”
Result: Supported.
LOI evidence (paraphrase): LOI states it “is an outline of terms… except for Seller’s commitment to Good Faith and Confidentiality, is not legally binding.”
Suggested HS wording: Keep “non-binding” and cite LOI language about binding rights only arising at a PSA.
3) Claim: “Buyer intends up to an 11-building or ‘hyperscale eight-building’ data-center campus requiring as much as 800 megawatts.”
Result: Partly supported.
LOI evidence (paraphrase): LOI states Buyer “intends to redevelop the Property into a +/- 800 MW data center development in multiple buildings.” The LOI does not specify “11-building” or “hyperscale eight-building” counts.
Suggested HS wording: “LOI states Buyer intends a +/- 800 MW multi-building data-center development.” Remove unconfirmed specific building-count claims unless sourced elsewhere.
4) Claim: “Purchase Price is $10,000,000.”
Result: Supported.
LOI evidence (paraphrase): LOI lists Purchase Price paid at Closing: $10,000,000 (‘Purchase Price’).
Suggested HS wording: Accurate as stated.
5) Claim: “Buyer will assume remediation; Estimated Remediation Premium $29,000,000.”
Result: Partly supported.
LOI evidence (paraphrase): LOI states Buyer will assume and indemnify Seller for environmental liabilities, will prepare a WDNR-approved remediation and closure plan, and “Buyer will perform and pay for any remediation… sufficient to achieve regulatory closure.” The LOI also shows a line item “Estimated Remediation Premium: $29,000,000” in the excerpt you supplied.
Suggested HS wording: “The LOI contemplates Buyer assuming remediation responsibilities and includes an estimated remediation premium of $29,000,000.” (Make clear this is an estimate in the LOI.)
6) Claim: “Predevelopment out-of-pocket costs (entitlements) estimated $4,600,000.”
Result: Supported (as LOI estimate).
LOI evidence (paraphrase): LOI states estimated entitlement/remediation approval costs of $4,600,000 (and notes this exclude Viridian overhead and Alliant FA).
Suggested HS wording: Report as LOI’s estimate and include the LOI caveat that excludes overhead/fees.
7) Claim: “Buyer has 120 days after LOI acceptance to negotiate Purchase & Sale Agreement (PSA).”
Result: Supported (for negotiation/due diligence).
LOI evidence (paraphrase): LOI: “Buyer and Seller will for a period of one hundred twenty (120) days following acceptance of [the LOI], endeavor to negotiate a Purchase and Sale Agreement (‘PSA’) ….” LOI also describes a 120-day Due Diligence Period after mutual execution of the PSA.
Suggested HS wording: Distinguish two 120-day periods: (a) 120 days to negotiate the PSA after LOI acceptance; (b) an additional 120-day Due Diligence Period after PSA execution (per LOI).
8) Claim: “Jobs: 1,200 construction jobs and ~600 permanent operations jobs; economic impact $2.05B and developer claims ‘over $8B’ investment.”
Result: Not supported by the LOI.
LOI evidence: LOI contains no statements about job counts, economic impact, or the $2.05B / $8B figures. Those figures are extrinsic to the LOI (from economic impact studies or developer pitch materials).
Suggested HS wording: Attribute those numbers to their source (developer projection or city economic analysis) rather than to the LOI. Example: “The LOI does not state job or economic impact figures; those job and dollar estimates appear in developer or city projections, not in the LOI itself.”
9) Claim: “LOI gives developer due-diligence and utility-coordination rights but is non-binding and city not obligated to sell or offer financial participation.”
Result: Supported (in part).
LOI evidence (paraphrase): LOI authorizes Buyer to perform due diligence, entitlements, and utility coordination; LOI expressly non-binding and binding obligations only arise in PSA. LOI also contains confidentiality and exclusive language (Seller agrees not to solicit other offers during negotiations). LOI does not on its face promise municipal financial participation.
Suggested HS wording: Accurate; but if HS said “city not obligated to sell or offer financial participation,” that is consistent—LOI is non-binding and does not commit the city to incentives in the LOI itself.
10) Claim: “Buyer will be responsible for demolition, removal of slab and below-grade structures, and gets salvage rights.”
Result: Supported.
LOI evidence (paraphrase): LOI: “Buyer will be responsible for demolition of improvements … including building slab & foundations … Buyer will retain the rights to any and all salvage value attributable to such demolition.”
Suggested HS wording: Accurate as stated.
11) Claim: “Off-site improvements required by City/County/WisDOT will be Buyer’s responsibility.”
Result: Supported.
LOI evidence (paraphrase): LOI: “Buyer will be responsible for any off-site improvements required by the City of Janesville, Rock County, and the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (‘WisDOT’).”
Suggested HS wording: Accurate as stated.
12) Claim: “Buyer indemnifies Seller for environmental liabilities and will prepare voluntary Remediation & Closure Plan approved by WDNR.”
Result: Supported.
LOI evidence (paraphrase): LOI contains buyer assumption/indemnity for environmental liabilities (with some exclusions) and requires Buyer to prepare a WDNR-approved RCP and perform remediation. LOI also lists exclusions to Buyer’s assumption (e.g., prior worker exposure, previous off-site disposal, pending fines and litigation, NRD claims prior to closing).
Suggested HS wording: Note LOI’s exclusions to liability assumption; do not imply Buyer assumes all historical liabilities.
13) Claim: “Earnest money / deposits: initial $250,000 at PSA execution; additional $250,000 at end of Due Diligence (both non-refundable and applied to Purchase Price, subject to conditions).”
Result: Supported (with specifics).
LOI evidence (paraphrase): LOI requires $250,000 escrow at PSA execution and another $250,000 upon expiration of Due Diligence; both are non-refundable but applicable to Purchase Price subject to Conditions Precedent. LOI also notes extension options require additional $250,000 deposits that are released to Seller and not applied to Purchase Price.
Suggested HS wording: Accurately report the initial/additional $250k structure and the separate extension deposit mechanics.
14) Claim: “Entitlement period of 24 months after Due Diligence with two 6-month extension options (with deposit consequences).”
Result: Supported (LOI specifics slightly different).
LOI evidence (paraphrase): LOI: Following Due Diligence Period, Buyer shall have 24 months (the “Entitlement Period”) to satisfy/waive Conditions Precedent. Buyer has two six-month extension options; for extension Earnest Money becomes nonrefundable and Buyer deposits $250,000 per extension which is released to Seller and not applied to Purchase Price.
Suggested HS wording: Use LOI’s exact structure (24 months + two 6-month optional extensions with additional $250k each).
15) Claim: “Title, ALTA extended owner’s policy, and survey will be provided by Seller.”
Result: Supported (Seller provides ALTA owner’s policy and current survey; buyer updates may be buyer cost).
LOI evidence (paraphrase): LOI: “Seller will provide Buyer with an ALTA extended coverage owner’s policy of title insurance and a current survey …” and later details who pays for which costs at closing.
Suggested HS wording: Accurate; clarify which closing costs Seller and Buyer each pay (LOI states Seller pays past due taxes, title insurance premiums, etc.; Buyer pays survey update if needed).
16) Claim: “LOI forbids either party from public disclosure without the other’s written consent but also acknowledges Wisconsin Public Records Law may require release.”
Result: Supported.
LOI evidence (paraphrase): LOI contains confidentiality clause but states that LOI and related documents are subject to Wisconsin Public Records Law and “might be released” and that the City Clerk-Treasurer will respond to records requests at her discretion.
Suggested HS wording: Accurately report tension: confidentiality provisions exist but are subject to state public records law.
17) Claim: “Timeline inconsistencies in the LOI (example: 120 days vs 60 days expiration).”
Result: Supported (LOI contains inconsistent/overlapping timing language).
LOI evidence (paraphrase): Your HS sidebar observed apparent conflict: LOI gives 120 days to negotiate PSA and also contains a clause that if PSA is not executed within sixty (60) days following LOI date the Acquisition Proposal expires — both appear in the LOI you provided. That is an LOI internal inconsistency and is present in the text you supplied.
Suggested HS wording: Report the inconsistency exactly and quote the two conflicting provisions (brief quote under 25 words each) or paraphrase both and say conflict.
Summary of major discrepancies and recommendations
- Jobs and economic impact figures ($2.05B, $8B, 1,200 / 600 jobs) — these are not in the LOI. If HS presented them as LOI statements, correct to attribute those numbers to the developer’s or city’s projections (cite the source), not the LOI.
- Building counts (11 vs 8) — LOI states “multiple buildings” and “+/- 800 MW” but does not specify 11 or 8 buildings. Remove or re-source the precise building count.
- Timing language — LOI contains multiple timing provisions (120 days to negotiate, 120-day Due Diligence after PSA, 24-month Entitlement Period, and a 60-day expiration clause). HS correctly flagged a potential inconsistency; present both clauses side-by-side and note the conflict.
- Liability exclusions — HS should note that buyer assumption of environmental liability in the LOI excludes certain pre-closing claims (worker exposures, prior off-site disposal, pending fines/litigation, NRD claims). Don’t state buyer assumes all prior liabilities.
Quick summary: Viridian Partners / Viridian Acquisitions is a real Colorado-based brownfield-redevelopment firm with an online presence and promotional claims of completed projects and capital under management. The company’s website states experience reclaiming hundreds of acres and over $1B+ in project capitalization, but independent third-party reporting of a detailed portfolio is limited. Viridian Partners+1
- The City of Janesville cites a Viridian Partners proposal and lists the firm as the LOI partner; local coverage confirms the LOI and the city’s approval. Janesville+1
- Real Capital Solutions (RCS) and Marcel Arsenault are real and publicly documented; RCS has a legitimate portfolio and Arsenault a long track record in commercial real estate. LOI’s disclosed joint-venture (RCS/Viridian) points to credible capital partners behind the bid. Real Capital Solutions+1
What is well supported?
- Company exists and markets itself as a brownfield redeveloper.
Viridian’s website describes its mission to acquire, remediate, and redevelop distressed/brownfield sites and cites metrics (acres redeveloped, sq ft, capitalization). These are company claims and useful as evidence of intent and positioning. Viridian Partners+1 - Janesville’s public materials identify Viridian and the LOI.
The City’s “Initial Data Center Insights” page links to a Viridian proposal and the council agenda/packet shows action on an LOI with Viridian Acquisitions LLC. Local reporting corroborates the council vote. Janesville+1 - The LOI references a joint venture with Real Capital Solutions (RCS).
RCS and Marcel Arsenault are publicly documented entities/individuals with a long real-estate history; their inclusion strengthens the credibility of financial backing on paper. Real Capital Solutions+1
What is not well supported (gaps / red flags)
- Independent, verifiable project list for Viridian Partners/Acquisitions.
Outside the firm’s own website and promotional materials, there is limited independent reporting or public records listing specific completed projects under the Viridian name at the scale implied (i.e., dozens of high-profile brownfield redevelopments). The company website provides metrics but lacks a fully corroborated, itemized portfolio in reputable third-party sources. Viridian Partners+1 - Clarity on Viridian’s capitalization / who is funding the deal.
The LOI mentions capital partners and joint ventures; public documents do not clearly show committed institutional capital lines or lender commitments. The presence of RCS is reassuring, but the exact financial structure behind Viridian’s Janesville proposal is not documented in public filings. Janesville+1 - Name/brand confusion in reporting.
Media and social postings sometimes vary spellings (Viridian vs Veridian) or conflate similarly named investment firms (e.g., Viridian Investment Partners, Viridian Therapeutics, Viridian Capital Advisors). Care is needed to cite the correct entity (Viridian Partners / Viridian Acquisitions LLC per the LOI and city packet). Viridian Partners+1
Recommended next steps (actionable, for reporting or public records)
- Request the developer’s project list and references. Ask Viridian for a catalogue of completed projects (addresses, outcomes, before/after reports) and three municipal references who can confirm remediation and delivery claims. (This is standard due diligence.)
- Request proof of capital / commitment letters. Ask for (redacted) capital commitment letters or lender engagement memos showing the sources of funds or equity partners backing the Janesville proposal.
- Confirm RCS role and capacity. Ask Real Capital Solutions for a statement confirming the JV terms, capital at risk, and Marcel Arsenault’s role in the Janesville project.
- Search public records for Viridian transactions. File public records or title-search requests for prior Viridian acquisitions (county recorder offices) to independently verify redevelopment closings and remediation records.
- Clarify naming in coverage. Use the exact legal names in your reporting — “Viridian Partners” / “Viridian Acquisitions LLC” and the disclosed “RCS/Viridian, LLC” joint venture — to avoid conflation with other “Viridian” entities.
Five most load-bearing sources (use these as citations)
- Viridian Partners — company site and service pages (portfolio claims). Viridian Partners+1
- City of Janesville — “Initial Data Center Insights” and proposal links (LOI reference). Janesville
- Urban Milwaukee coverage of council approval and proposal summary. Urban Milwaukee
- Real Capital Solutions — team page and Marcel Arsenault profile. Real Capital Solutions+1
- Local press (e.g., Yahoo aggregation / Janesville local reporting) citing $8B figure / project details as developer/city projections. Yahoo+1
Bottom line (straight to the point)
Viridian Partners and Viridian Acquisitions LLC are legitimate entities that market themselves as brownfield redevelopers and that have formally proposed the Janesville project. The LOI naming them and the joint venture reference to Real Capital Solutions are documented. However, independent public verification of a large, concrete project portfolio for Viridian beyond their own claims is limited. The presence of RCS and Marcel Arsenault is an important signal of credible capital partners — but for full confidence, the city and the developer should publicly document project references, capital commitments, and remediation track records.
☕ Community Spotlight: Havana Coffee
If you are looking for a place to reflect on your civic journey—or just fuel up before a council meeting—stop by Havana Coffee at 1250 Milton Avenue. It is a true Janesville gem, where espresso meets engagement.
With hearty food, warm service, and a strong commitment to local journalism, Havana Coffee proudly supports the Rock County Civics Academy and all who believe in informed participation.
We are grateful to Daniela and her team for creating a space where ideas percolate and conversations matter.
⚖️ Welcome Nowlan Law Firm and Attorney Tim Lindau
We also extend our thanks to Attorney Tim Lindau and the Nowlan Law Firm for their support of civic education and democratic renewal. Tim’s encouragement—and his belief in the power of our mission.
Together, with partners like Havana and Nowlan, we are building a culture of engagement that honors both tradition and transformation.
HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING: Where ideas meet action—and citizens shape the future.
What if transparency was the norm, not the exception?
What if civic engagement became Rock County’s defining strength?
Every movement begins when someone decides “now is the time.”
That someone could be you.
🪩 A CALL TO LEADERSHIP
Leadership isn’t about ego—it’s about service.
It’s showing up, listening deeply, and acting with purpose.
Three ways to begin:
• Volunteer with a civic group
• Serve on a local board or commission
• Run for public office and lead the change.
“If not you, who? If not now, when?” — Hillel the Elder
📚 SUBSCRIBE FOR INSIGHT
Your weekly dispatch from Wisconsin’s heartland to America’s horizon.
Every Friday, Hypothetically Speaking explores the intersection of policy, people, and possibility—inviting dialogue and celebrating civic courage.
Subscribe on Substack → Search Rock County Civics Academy
📰 substack.com | Keywords: Rock County Civics Academy
🌐 ENGAGED: Civic engagement is always within reach:
📍 rockcountycivicsacademy.org
📘 Facebook | 📺 YouTube | 📰 Substack
FINAL THOUGHT
Democracy is a skill—one that strengthens with practice.
Stay curious. Stay engaged. Stay connected.
Because the next chapter of Rock County’s story is being written—right now.
©2025 Rock County Civics Academy
Produced in partnership with the Rock County Civics Academy to promote open dialogue, ethical leadership, and civic participation across Wisconsin’s heartland.
No responses yet