The city undoubtedly owns 5% of the art, which has been valued at $600M. Quite obviously, the collection is worth over $300M and conceivably $12,000M.
Why should the city transfer ownership over such an asset in exchange for less than face value?
Wouldn't the city be better off selling 2.5% of the art for $300M and keeping the other 97.5%?
If the art is moved into a trust and away from the city, there is the risk that powerful people will change the trust terms/trustees and gain control. See Albert C. Barnes Collection.
If the art's ownership is to change, it should be for its true value, not less than 5% of its value.
Bookmarks