Belanger Park River Rouge
NFL DRAFT THONGS DOWNTOWN DETROIT »



Results 1 to 25 of 51

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Default

    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.

  2. #2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by majohnson View Post
    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.
    Thanks for reminding us that you're a member of the "JoAnn Watson Save Our Crown Jewels No Matter What" club...

    The WHATEVER percent that constituted a city purchase includes some of the richest of the DIA's collection.

    So you would rather sell off some of the best just so that the collection doesn't get spun off like so many of the crown jewels, like Belle Isle and the Zoo, eh?

    You so much hate the idea that the DIA goes to the Founders Society as a city asset, that you would favor selling off some. Dumb dumb dumb...

    As for your comment about the Albert C. Barnes collection... did you know that it has remained as the original owner has wanted... meaning it can only be shown a few days a week... only to a select few... and only by appointment. Where did you get the misinformation that the Foundation he created changed his original intent?

    You need to go back and do your homework....

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gistok View Post
    Thanks for reminding us that you're a member of the "JoAnn Watson Save Our Crown Jewels No Matter What" club...
    Gotta call you out on that comment Gistok. It's beneath you and just not called for. It's a legitimate concern. Perhaps the best solution lies somewhere in the middle. But to brush off someone who articulated very well some valid reasons for looking at this from all angles before jumping in, I welcome that perspective.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Instagram
BEST ONLINE FORUM FOR
DETROIT-BASED DISCUSSION
DetroitYES Awarded BEST OF DETROIT 2015 - Detroit MetroTimes - Best Online Forum for Detroit-based Discussion 2015

ENJOY DETROITYES?


AND HAVE ADS REMOVED DETAILS »





Welcome to DetroitYES! Kindly Consider Turning Off Your Ad BlockingX
DetroitYES! is a free service that relies on revenue from ad display [regrettably] and donations. We notice that you are using an ad-blocking program that prevents us from earning revenue during your visit.
Ads are REMOVED for Members who donate to DetroitYES! [You must be logged in for ads to disappear]
DONATE HERE »
And have Ads removed.