In Detroit bankruptcy, what will happen to DIA?

[Coaccession]

I believe it would be a misguided decision to leverage [[mobilize is the terminology used by Coaccession) the assets of the DIA to address the issues facing the city.

"Mobilize" captures, or at least tries to, Daisy, the idea that while existing policies and practices leave these assets financially idle while culturally active, new policies and practices could make them active both financially and culturally. "Leverage" has a specific technical meaning in finance, and using leverage increases risks, so I naturally shy away from that word in this context. Coaccession, at least, need not imply any leverage, but certainly will mobilize.

There are structural deficits in the delivery of essential city services, departments and government. It is not only a monetary issue. Do we leverage DIA assets to bail out a broken system?

Detroit's ownership of the DIA art collection gives it, at least when combined with a new management tool like Coaccession, the rare financial privilege of generating at least tens of millions of dollars, more likely hundreds of millions, perhaps even billions of dollars in interest and dividend earnings on money that the City could save in an arts endowment funded by its art collection. Last year the Mei Moses World All Arts Index rose about 10%; without Coaccession or any other new tools, Detroit's art collection generated billions of dollars of capital appreciation that didn't pay any bills for anybody. Do we leave those assets idly generating capital appreciation that neither the DIA nor the City uses to any purpose, or do we actively generate capital income with them, massive capital income that we can partly reinvest in fully funding the arts, sciences and humanities [[which have already generated this vast wealth for Detroit), using the rest to support essential services that let Detroit residents and visitors live, work, play and create safely?

If Detroit didn't have its DIA art collection, or didn't have any way to mobilize its financial value besides losing its cultural value by selling it off, this discussion would not have much point. Since the city has its Monet and can have money too, though, I think folks who'd like the city to invest in arts, sciences, humanities and essential services would probably like a say on whether these assets work for the city financially as well as culturally, or continue to idle financially, leaving culture underfunded. If Detroit uses its existing art collection and new tools to solve its financial problems, that might even fix enough of its other problems that it wouldn't be a broken system anymore.

If we place the assets of the DIA on the table to resolve our financial issues I believe that the contributions to this great museum will significantly decrease.

We absolutely agree on that one, Daisy. New cash contributions would indeed plummet. Of course, they should if the DIA art collection's financial value from generations of accumulated donations and capital appreciation can already generate far more capital income than the DIA needs to fully fund its existing operations and add massive new arts outreach to the community -- reopening all the closed and closing library branches, for example, and turning them into museum/library branches that complement comprehensive new arts education in the schools with new arts programs in the neighborhoods. New contributions really should go to other museums and other causes that haven't already generated more than enough wealth to take care of themselves in perpetuity while still giving back far more to their communities than they can give today when their operations subsist on meager new cash contributions. That's not to say that collectors wouldn't still want to give their collections to museums to share with the wider community. It just means that cash gifts to most art museums would be superfluous once every artwork donation has the potential to add to the museum's cash endowment as well as its cultural endowment.

You may find this new vision -- of a DIA that's already wealthy enough to need no new cash contributions -- more than a bit disorienting since you've likely never thought of a museum art collection's value in this dual way before. I've had years to get used to it and new vistas still emerge for me with some regularity. It's a pretty attractive vision once you get past any initial disorientation, though. It starts to give the arts, sciences and humanities the financial credit they deserve for the cultural value they add. That, in turn, should lead to many more good things for the arts, sciences, humanities and cultural values. Let that sink in and see if you like it. And if you see any specific problems, I'm more than eager to hear about them. I expect I'll already have answers, and expect to share them with clients promptly and the public as clients implement these new policies and practices. Still, you might just surprise me -- whoo-hoo!