Does "salvaged" mean "stolen"?

In the Homestyle section of today's Detroit News [[02.05.2010), the writer Jeanine Matlow describes a house in Bloomfield Hills in whose Living Room:

"Decorative iron details salvaged from the Michigan Central Train Station hang on the wall."

As a resident of the City of Detroit, I am offended by this. The Michigan Central Train Station is still standing, and I suspect that the "details" that adorn this suburban home are not salvaged but stolen and fenced. If this writer and this home's owners want to claim that the "details" are salvaged and not stolen and not fenced, then it is their duty to prove this.

You can't sell or buy artifacts that may have been stolen from native American archeological sites without proving their provenance. You can't sell, buy or own anything to do with endangered species without proof that such items were obtained legally.

Why do Detroiters have to see their buildings stripped of their historic elements, why do we have to see houses whose brick exterior walls have been stolen, so suburbanites can decorate their living rooms and build new homes with "cute" recycled brick? Why are suburbanites who own stolen and fenced items glorified by the Detroit News?

Salvaged? Prove it.

Salvage rights are things that can be bought or sold, and they are legal.

I doubt salvage rights for MCS were ever sold, though. The "salvaged" items in this house are probably scrapped.

Who knows, those items could have been removed and discarded years ago and 'salvaged' from a scrap pile somewhere.

Might bear looking into though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mccarch

In the Homestyle section of today's Detroit News [[02.05.2010), the writer Jeanine Matlow describes a house in Bloomfield Hills in whose Living Room:

"Decorative iron details salvaged from the Michigan Central Train Station hang on the wall."

As a resident of the City of Detroit, I am offended by this. The Michigan Central Train Station is still standing, and I suspect that the "details" that adorn this suburban home are not salvaged but stolen and fenced. If this writer and this home's owners want to claim that the "details" are salvaged and not stolen and not fenced, then it is their duty to prove this.

You can't sell or buy artifacts that may have been stolen from native American archeological sites without proving their provenance. You can't sell, buy or own anything to do with endangered species without proof that such items were obtained legally.

Why do Detroiters have to see their buildings stripped of their historic elements, why do we have to see houses whose brick exterior walls have been stolen, so suburbanites can decorate their living rooms and build new homes with "cute" recycled brick? Why are suburbanites who own stolen and fenced items glorified by the Detroit News?

Salvaged? Prove it.

---

Lots of privately-owned property in Detroit gets stolen and fenced.

Maroun owns MCS and lives in the suburbs. I don't think the City of Detroit would have anything to do with potentially stolen and fenced artifacts from his property.

If I'm not mistaken there was an auction many years ago that sold off unused and surplus materials from the building. I'm pretty sure it was mentioned on the old DYES forums.

Sounds like the work of Dave in Detroit, a notorious "dealer" who has a booth in an antique shop on Michigan Ave. in Dearborn. He routinely carries MCS stuff and has for years. He was exposed on local TV a few years back.

I read this during lunch and thought the exact same thing! Maybe they bought the stuff from Matty?

Dunno why it would offend you "as a Detroit resident". The city of Detroit doesn't own MCS. And technically MCS ain't abandoned, which would have to be the case for something to be "salvaged".

Actually, salvage rights are not for vacant buildings per se, but are usually secured by the contractor who's knocking it down at the owner's expense. Legitimate salvage is something quite different from "scrapping" or "stealing."