Less than 8% of DIA's art is on display

[majohnson]

Corktown,
"2) why can't the city just sell the art and protect pensioners with it? . . . [[a)Second because any money would be split among all creditors and can't be directed solely at pensioners. [[b)Third because title is cloudy on art work"
a, The way the deal is structured now, philanthopists are transferring the money directly to the pension funds and the art goes to a third person. That same system could used to sell the art to any other entity. [[Although the indirect nature of the transfers would draw the court's attention as it should here.)
b, The 'cloudy title' creates a right to litigate for a return of the art or money damages equal to what it was sold for. That would only apply to donations that were not outright gifts. That would require the heirs [[or otherwise) to actually litigate, not 100% if them will. Also by the logic of the 'protect the art' crowd, those contracts of donation that retained ownership could be voided out in bankruptcy court, just another monetary claim against Detroit.

Thruster,
1. The DIA is frequently mentioned because, in the eyes of many, displaying artwork is not a primary government function. It is very often a secondary function for government entities that can afford it. Detroit itself however, has argued that it is bankrupt. Detroit has argued that it must refuse to pay legally enforceable obligations just to survive. Surely then, mere discretionary spending would be on the chopping block. And just as refusing to collect taxes is spending in the form of a tax-expenditure, refusing to liquidate warehoused art is an expenditure; an expenditure a bankrupt city can not afford.

2.
Belle Islle should be sold or leased, it is currently leased.
The Detroit Zoo should be sold as whole or itemized. The animals at that particular zoo are not worth much money, but the land is. Another alternative is leasing to an entity that would pay money to the city for the right to charge admission to the zoo. That would likely entail zoo renovations that draw people that would otherwise go to the movies etc.
DWSD should be sold or preferabbly leased. I would lease the distribution rights, sewerage, purification, pumping operations seperatly.

If I learned that more than 92% of DWSD equipment had never been used, I would expect the unused equipment to be sold.
If I learned that less than 8% of Zoo animals were every on display, I would expect the other animals to be sold.
How much would it cost for an entity to preserve 10X as much inventory as it ever uses? How much would it be paying in storage fees, security, and insurance on the unused items? How does that affect the marginal benefit for each unused item and the cost/benefit analysis for the operation as a whole?