Actions speak louder than words.
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE
Printable View
Actions speak louder than words.
http://www.detroitnews.com/article/2...text|FRONTPAGE
All assets do have to be valued, but he could have at least hired the one local company that has the ability to appraise the art owned by the city.
DuMouchelles? They already said they would refuse if asked.Quote:
Originally Posted by p69rrh51
And Orr is pretty much required to appraise the art. I'd be surprised if any were sold but he must account for it.
Anyone actually know what percentage of the art is owned by the city? I know some is in trust, etc. etc. I ask because would the city be required to sell ALL of the art it owns if creditors demand it? And if it's a good portion, could there be a 90% empty art museum or something?
Also, I know the argument about federal laws trumping state laws...but is there no federal guidance on how stuff in a museum should be treated? Say, if Congress refused to raise the debt ceiling [[don't know if this is a good example), could the Smithsonian be forced to sell all of it's assets to satisfy creditors? That seems odd...but could that happen?
The creditors cannot force the city to sell the art. The judge cannot force the city to sell the art.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zug
The judge will look at what the city is willing to give up and determine whether that's "fair" and if the city is negotiating in good faith. If the judge thinks the city is screwing around, he can kick the city out of bankruptcy court where it will lose its protections.
From what I understand DuMouchelles is only against the sale of the art.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasT
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasT
Not me...the sharks smell the blood and there is plenty of em out there. The Chinese have been looking far and wide to add to their perpetual "one-upmanship" of the US and the West. I am sure if they made an offer on the Rivera Court, it would be considered. Not sure how they would be able to remove it, but it could be done....sadly.
http://www.scmp.com/news/china/artic...l-not-approved
All of the art is owned by the city of Detroit, not even the DIA disputes that. Now whether or not it can be sold, since much of the art is donated, is a different story. And it has nothing to do with the creditors demanding it, but whether Steve Rhodes would consider the selling of DIA art work an equitable plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zug
BTW, most of the art in the DIA is not on display at once. My understanding is that the art work is generally displayed in rotation.
Yes, that's what has been in the press. But there's no way Orr can guarantee that the appraisal won't be used for a sale. You never know what will happen in litigation, only likelihoods. Even if it's 99.99% not going to happen, he can't say that it won't [[which is why he couches in terms of "we have no interest in selling art"). So I doubt DuMouchelle's would get involved, even if Orr gives them the most assurances that he can.Quote:
Originally Posted by p69rrh51
Mr. Orr is doing his job. If its an asset, and you don't value it you're not doing your job.
In the end, he has to make a recommendation. How can he do so without knowing the value of what the city owns? Doesn't mean he'll include it in the bankruptcy recommendation.
If those who are crying now wanted to protect those assets, they should not have opposed the EFM/CA approach.
Now, the law of the federal land shall rule all. And we're just players in the game. We missed our chance to set the rules.
I don't believe that's true. I was under the impression that some of the art in the DIA is on loan from private owners and trusts. Some of the art is owned by the City, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
TT actually selling off prized possessions is what DuMouchelles has been doing since 1927. Of the 30ish Grosse Pointe Mansions liquidated in the last 60 years they sold off the lion's share including art work that would rival the DIA's collection. I think they would do the appraisal if asked. Orr seems to love spending the city's money with out of town firms.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasT
Depends on what your definition of "ownership" is. They hold the title for the art - true, but that title may or may not allow them to sell it. Not sure if that's what you meant by if the judge would allow sale of certain pieces, but I think the clarification needs to be made.Quote:
Originally Posted by 313WX
The zoo is a good example. Detroit owns the zoo property, and the Rackham golf course property. However, under the covenants of the title, they are not allowed to sell either parcel to a private entity, IIRC. If they sell, then either the Rackham trust gets the money, or the property reverts to their control, I don't remember which is true.
Not sure if similar restrictions apply to other kinds of property, I know that real estate gets special treatment when these kinds of covenants are involved.
There are probably at least 1/2 dozen different types of scenario's over what is displayed at the DIA... some items are on permanent loan, others owned by the city, others by the Founders Society, other items still owned privately.
But what is certain is this... regardless of the outcome of the Bankruptcy... no future donor will ever give art to the city outright any longer. More likely it will be "on loan" or "in trust"...
Regardless of how the bankruptcy is resolved, once it is I'm sure they will change the legal ownership of the collection, or whatever is left of it. It isn't surprising it wasn't done five or ten years ago, but it should have been.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gistok
I hope this doesn't occur, but it does not surprise me in the least. What the city owns is subject to being sold to pay off the city's debts. One positive benefit of the city losing some art, is that every future donation in the western world will a clause not allowing a sale of the donated art. But, alas, it will not be retroactive.
Pardon my ignorance[[and possible thread jacking)but I'm a bit confused about Kevin Orr's status or more to the point his continued status after the bankruptcy issue is settled by the courts.
My question is once a judge determines Detroit can indeed go into bankruptcy what becomes of Kevin Orr? Does he remain in place as the EM or does bankruptcy negate the need for an EM?
The court will probably appoint Mr. Orr as the "receiver in banruptcy" to perform executive functions while the city is going through the process.Quote:
Originally Posted by trotwood
Is the Moonogian Mansion also going to be sold? You might think it could
retail for $500K? Or is it somehow protected from a bankruptcy sale?
I don't believe the court has the power to appoint a receiver in a chapter 9 case. In the cases where there has been a receiver, it looks to me as if the receiver was appointed by the state government, not by the court. In Detroit's case, Mr. Orr is already there and it would be bizarre if they appointed someone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
Orr will continue to serve as EM. In theory, the city could have him removed after 18 months of service but the Republican passed EM law effectively gives the state the power to control the city even if the City Council voted to remove him. I doubt Orr will stick around past 18 months or even that long. He'll push the city through bankruptcy and leave it to someone else to clean up the wreckage left behind.
From the DIA website:Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasT
http://www.dia.org/about/facts.aspxQuote:
The building, property and collection are owned by the City of Detroit.
Agreed. Read the rest of my post.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBMcB
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novine
Not to worry. Krystal Crittendon is going to fire Orr after she is elected Mayor this autumn. She said so in a debate. He won't be able to sell the collection before then.
I read the Plain Dealer from Cleveland. People there are already talking about how the Cleveland Museum of Art should buy some of Detroit's paintings for a bargain.
She's also bringing back swim-mobiles and book-mobiles to address the real problems of Detroit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowell
The Getty can outbid everyone else...Quote:
Originally Posted by Newdetroit
Am i reading correctly, the city couldn't be forced to sell but could choose to?
Thank you very much Hermod.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hermod
Eveyone I know in Los Angeles already believes the collection is on its way to the Getty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gistok
Chapter 9 cases are exclusively "debtor-in-possession" cases, so the lawful manager [[that's the EM, pursuant to state law) continues to run the city.Quote:
Originally Posted by trotwood
A couple of points:
Under no circumstances can a judge order the sale of assets in a Chapter 9. He can grant relief under the plan of adjustment, or deny relief if such relief is inequitable. Unless Orr proposes selling art, it can't be sold. Neither creditors nor the federal judge can order it.
Why, then, is Orr appraising the art? My guess is that he will be heading off the argument that the city is sitting on billions of dollars of assets without paying creditors. I would imagine the art would have to be appraised subject to any restrictions that exist--an owner can sell no more than it has. So if the piece of art is "on loan" or has a restricted use, then the valuation would be $0. Bankruptcy courts like having an expert provide them with indicators of value, not the parties.
I don't know who you are, but I appreciate your responses.Quote:
Originally Posted by BankruptcyGuy
What is Orr's agenda? What is Snyder's agenda? Who is really pulling the strings. I had thought that the DIA belong to the region of Southeast Michigan and not Detroit.
Culturally, yes. Legally, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by stasu1213
Snyder wasn't interested in "right-to-work". Orr didn't want to go into bankruptcy. Orr has "no intentions" of selling any of the DIA artwork. At some point, you have to stop listening to the rhetoric coming out of their mouths and pay attention to what they are doing. As I said earlier, actions speak louder than words.
What freakin' "agenda" and what "strings"? Detroit is broke, and no way, with or without the EFM, is it capable of bailing itself out. [[unless you believe Howze, that it's only a matter of moving the decimal point) Bennie Napolean said sell the artwork to pay the bills. Other people are condoning selling off the DWSD, or Belle Isle to pay the bills. This isn't some hostile corporate take-over, the City government was partying like it was 1999, and now it's time to pay the DJ. You only have "X" amount of options, and that's it.Quote:
Originally Posted by stasu1213
You make a fair point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Novine
Also, the fact that Bill Schuette is talking out both sides of his ass [[which granted he always does) when it comes to Detroit's bankruptcy and the Pensioners has me a bit worried too.
Based on his name, it just may be Kevin Orr :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
Then I'm even more impressed with him then I was. And if it's BS, I'm NOT playing poker with this guy, [[or girl).Quote:
Originally Posted by Zug
Thank you so much. Btw, I'm with Honkey Tonk....I appreciate your answers and the education I'm getting from them.Quote:
Originally Posted by BankruptcyGuy
Quote:
Originally Posted by stasu1213
So why are residents in all three counties paying taxes on the DIA if we don't have a stake in it? :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by mwilbert
Because they get to use it for free now during normal business hours. How much of a stake do you expect @ about $10 a year? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by guito13
Pay attention to what Gene Gargaro, Chairman of the Board of Directors for the Detroit Institute of Arts has to say and read between the lines a bit. This is a wild conjecture, but based on what he has said, I get the feeling he is lining up his ducks for a purchase of the building and the collection by the Founder's Society or some other such Detroit-based charitable entity to own and operate the DIA.
Absolutely right. Their actions do speak louder than words. But what are their actions saying so loudly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Novine
I hear Snyder saying "I wish I didn't have to deal with Detroit. Its a political nightmare. I put a great guy in place to help avoid bankruptcy, and he got sued every three seconds by everyone involved. Oh well, I still need to do the right thing and fix what Detroit's leaders have messed up for so long. This is hard. No wonder why my Democratic predecessor couldn't get it done. Oh well, I don't avoid hard things. And I'll make tough decisions like RTW when pushed."
I hear Orr saying "I hate to think about selling DIA art, but I have a job to do, and my job requires me to treat all stakeholders here fairly and with all the facts. I need to know the value of the DIA art so I can act responsibly".
We all hear different things oh so loudly.
Other's hear a conspiracy. HA! Conspire to take over Detroit? That's like conspiring to take over Herpes.
if they sell all the art & I will the powerball Im moving in.
It's called taxation without representation and was the opening salvo on more to come. It was sold to the counties as "only $12" and a noble thing to do because it's Art; and it was noted how meekly the counties approved it. If you recall it was a millage to be raised for Artistic enterprises anywhere in the three counties but that was a lie; it had been already earmarked for the DIA. When the bankruptcy is done and dusted there will be many more "only $12'' requests for millages.Quote:
Originally Posted by guito13
Being a regular member, and since it passed, I've seen people in there that I've never seen, nor would they have an incling to visit. And you know what? I've yet to hear anyone say "this sucks!" Take advantage of that budget breaking $12 you've spent, and come down and see for yourself. Come visit for 10 minutes or so......Quote:
Originally Posted by coracle
I don't expect and individual "stake" but if you take 10 multiplied by the number of households in each county, city, etc. it becomes a relevant figure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
I adore the DIA and my grown sons are regulars visitors also. I doubt very much it would get its art touched, the litigation would take years.
Let me ask you this, who asked me if I would like to spend a good part of my tax dollars co-funding Ilitch's new stadium? What do I get for the money that went toward's that? A free hockey game? A slice of Pizza-Pizza? Zippo, nada, nic. And yet I'd love to know what percentage went to fund this clown's empire. But I never will be able to find out, will I? But that's Ok, it's hockey!Quote:
Originally Posted by guito13
I too thank you for valuable insight. Frankly I am not particularly concerned about the bankruptcy. We even have an area contingency plan if garbage doesn't get picked up. Police and EMS continue to be fine for serious issues. My concerns are and continue to be our recreation and cultural access especially for our kids.Quote:
Originally Posted by BankruptcyGuy
Which is what should have happened decades ago.... and something I think Orr was telegraphing needs to happen when this kerfuffle began. I assume the appraisal needs to happen to get a dollar number on the collection so that it doesn't look like the city gave an asset away. This can't be one of those situations where the city deeds it away for a $1.Quote:
Originally Posted by GPCharles
The issue that stands out to me isn't the ownership of the collection of donated art, but status of the significant pieces that were purchased with actual City of Detroit dollars. THAT, to the city's creditors, seems an awful like the someone pleading poverty with the paid for Ferrarri sitting in the driveway.
I work in Midtown, and I can honestly say that before the millage I had not thought about going to the DIA in years. Since it's been free, I've gone 3-4 times a month during lunch breaks. I know I'm fortunate enough to work near it...but it really is a bargain. It also makes going there more casual...as before when I would go, I almost felt obligated to make it an hours-long visit. Now I can see what I can in an hour, knowing I could always go back the next day if I really wanted without paying again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
I know not everyone finds value in going to an art museum...and don't appreciate being forced to support a museum. But I do think that this is a millage where anyone paying for it can easily get more in return than what they put in.
They could sell everything out to the walls and it wouldn't make a dent in the financial shortfall. What is the point, some kind of grand gesture?
Honky TonkQuote:
Originally Posted by Honky Tonk
What a great memory you brought back to me...the Swim Mobiles, I remember back in the early 70's there was one hooked up to the fire hydrant on the corner of Manistique and Essex just across the street from the corner market. There were good times had by all swimming in all that pee and Baby Ruth filled water.....tee hee hee, actually I added the Baby Ruth thing with artistic license.
Another Caddy Shack fan.....Quote:
Originally Posted by EASTSIDE CAT 67-83
Same here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zug
I've also noticed a lot of families, which is good to see.
why are Patterson and Hackel carping already about withholding tax revenues from DIA depending on how the bankruptcy goes? that's not nice at all.
Well, if one wanted to be positive about it, perhaps they were trying to indicate the greater regional interest in maintaining the collection. More likely they were just being their usual grandstanding selves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypestyles
Laughed out loud and almost woke the kids. Thanks--happy to clear up misunderstandings. What is disappointing is that Detroiters are smarter and tougher than their politicians and news media would lead you to believe. We can unwind difficult concepts and handle tough decisions. We just need the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zug
The Getty Trust [[owner of the Getty Museum) is likely worth over $6 billion... making the Getty the richest museum in the world.Quote:
Originally Posted by p69rrh51
Per their 2011 Form 990, the J. Paul Getty Trust has assets of $8,913,772,900.
"What is disappointing is that Detroiters are smarter and tougher than their politicians and news media would lead you to believe. We can unwind difficult concepts and handle tough decisions. We just need the truth."
+1 ! !
For the most part the media in this town, save a couple of outlets / reporters, blows massive chunks and are basically just a bunch of ass-kissers.
It's ....... absolutely ..... friggin' ........ disgusting ....
"Per their 2011 Form 990, the J. Paul Getty Trust has assets of $8,913,772,900"
I could be wrong but I think that value of the trust, and what is available to spend from the trust, are going to be two different things.
Question for the group [[perhaps this needs it's own thread) --
I hear a lot of talk about the DIA and its assets, and how every city asset must be accounted for. Perhaps I'm not paying close enough attention but I haven't heard a thing about appraisers going into the Charles Wright for a look.
Does anyone have a link to the stink about that by chance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baselinepunk
Difference in scale. There are hundreds of City owned facilities that won't be appraised because it won't make much of a difference in the overall asset value of Detroit. The DIA's collection is likely to be worth anywhere from hundreds of millions to a couple billion dollars; nothing else the City has is going to come anywhere close to that kind of amount.
Quote:
Originally Posted by professorscott
The City will likely be required, as a part of its plan, to value its assets. The creditors have an opportunity to challenge the valuation. It's unlikely that creditors will object to values of assets of city buildings, etc. Artwork? They may. Belle Isle? Maybe. Don't be surprised if that is appraised as well. This is all groundwork for a complicated plan negotiation process.
Scale is of course the big factor -- but the other factor is knowledge required to value an asset. If the city has good records on Wright, and the valuations aren't as specialized they may go with what the city books already show.Quote:
Originally Posted by professorscott
Businesses know what their assets are worth. Depreciation deductions are based on asset value. I'd think that municipalities also know their assets. But the DIA is huge and not a typical asset.
No they aren't. Depreciation is based on cost. Do you really think GM knows what the Poletown plant is worth? Or Ford knows what the Rouge complex is worth? They should know what the book value is [[probably not much, as one would expect that they have been pretty fully depreciated by now) but that isn't a usable value for any other purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch
Sure you're right there -- although I think some assets are revalued or written down -- but I'm no expert. My point was that the city should already know what they own, and at least have a book value to start from. Most assets are more predictable -- some like the DIA are not. But good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by mwilbert
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwilbert
Further complicating things, the value of assets the City will need to estimate is the value to be realized in a sale. Some assets are de facto safe and won't be included; Mr. Orr will not suggest that the City sell off its fire trucks and Hon. Mr. Rhodes would not expect him to. Other assets are going to be difficult to evaluate because it's hard to imagine anyone buying, for instance, the Gilbert bus terminal or a long-shuttered library building in a city where real estate has almost no inherent value outside of a few areas. Other types of valuation, such as the depreciation one uses for tax purposes, just don't matter in this case.
So what I suspect is going to happen is that Mr. Orr's team will focus on assets with two particular characteristics: they are relatively liquid and can be sold without affecting the core, required functions of municipal government, and they might generate enough money in a sale to make a dent in what is owed to creditors.
With respect to the DIA collection, I think it is likely that the team from Christie's will find that Detroit's ownership of many pieces is restricted such that they cannot be sold at all, but other pieces are not restricted in this way. Then Mr. Orr, to salve the wounded creditors, may propose selling off some of the pieces that are not commonly displayed [[the DIA owns a great deal more than the public can see at any one time).
Whether Mr. Patterson and Mr. Hackel choose to keep blathering about the heartbreak their poor constituents must endure in such a situation is anyone's guess.
All of this, naturally, is supposition, but seems to me a plausible scenario given circumstances.
"With respect to the DIA collection, I think it is likely that the team from Christie's will find that Detroit's ownership of many pieces is restricted such that they cannot be sold at all, but other pieces are not restricted in this way."
How is this supposed to happen? Are the appraisers being given to the pieces not on display? Or the paper trail for all of these works showing how each piece was acquired? Sounds unlikely to me.
They need to send Pieter Bruegel the Elder's Wedding Dance to Europe for a 5 year loan....:p
It's probably their most valuable painting [[he was the greatest painter of the 16th Century Netherlands)... of the 45 Bruegels known worldwide... only 4 are in the USA [[one in NYC MMOA, one in NYC Frick, one in San Diego, one in Detroit).
And the Detroit Bruegel is one of his best works.
... oh... and it's a 1930 "City of Detroit" purchase... :eek:
Wasn't there a DaVinci, once upon a time? What happened to it? Scrappers? Or is memory just playing tricks on me?
No Da Vinci [[except maybe engravings) was ever in the DIA collection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock7
[QUOTE=Gistok;398074]They need to send Pieter Bruegel the Elder's Wedding Dance to Europe for a 5 year loan....:p
It's probably their most valuable painting [[he was the greatest painter of the 16th Century Netherlands)... of the 45 Bruegels known worldwide... only 4 are in the USA [[one in NYC MMOA, one in NYC Frick, one in San Diego, one in Detroit).
And the Detroit Bruegel is one of his best works.
... oh... and it's a 1930 "City of Detroit" purchase... :eek:[/QUOTE
This is the second time in the past two days I have seen the phrase "taxation without representation" used incorrectly by angry suburban folk so I'm going to set the record straight.Quote:
Originally Posted by coracle
"Taxation without representation" was the phrase used by the colonists as a protest against their lack of sending a representative to Parliament, despite paying taxes to the crown. They could elect local councils, but had no representative in the supreme legislative house of their country. Last I checked, you can vote for all your legislators, as well as executives as a bonus, so, you are being represented. Your tax dollars at work, homie.
Secondly, the irony with your statement is that not only did you have representation in the DIA millage, you had direct representation. You were the one to cast the vote, not your elected representative [[let alone no one). Then you go and imply that you had no say in the matter. Well, sorry it didn't go the way you liked, that's democracy.
The proposal was also printed on the ballot in approved language. So none of this nonsense about it said something it didn't do. That's frankly not true. If you don't like upcoming millage proposals, fill in the oval next to the NO completely, using black ink. Easy and fun.
And yes, you all have a stake. You all get to visit for free, as the millage stated. Times 4 million people means those 4 million people all get to visit for free as well.
NEXT!
How come I have no say-so about my tax dollars being used to fund Ilitch's stadium & "development"? Don't the citizens have a right to vote on THAT like they did on the DIA millage?Quote:
Originally Posted by poobert
"Don't the citizens have a right to vote on THAT like they did on the DIA millage?"
You did vote on that when you voted for representation. I agree with the spirit of your post, re: spending tax money I thought we didn't have. However, you do have the power to vote against those who you think did not do a good job, right? Unless you live in the city of Detroit, then you have a leader in place that you did not directly vote for. That's lack of representation, if anything.
Will you be joining me in calling Rick's office and complaining about why we are handing out corporate welfare in a bankrupt city?
Your arguments have nothing to do with the poobert's original post about the DIA millage passing. You're mixing in "Occupy Lansing" with "Jail Banksters". My question was why one had to be voted on, the other a given. I do understand the concept of electing officials, and commend you on your civic mindedness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baselinepunk