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?

[BankruptcyGuy]

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.

Let's keep your hypothetical and take it one step further: if this were a Chapter 11, and not a Chapter 9, the proceeds would be split amongst all creditors. The proceeds might be bigger [[the litigation over title would be a big issue), but it would be spread over more creditors. I'm not sure the take to pensioners would be higher.

Now, back to a Chapter 9. The only question before the judge is whether the plan is fair and equitable. The judge can't modify the plan to include the sale of more assets; that is outside his authority under Article III of the Constitution. Unlike a Chapter 11, another party cannot propose a plan that would be "more fair." The differences between a Chapter 9 and Chapter 11 evade even people who are reasonably familiar with bankruptcy. It's different.

[majohnson]

Let's keep your hypothetical and take it one step further: if this were a Chapter 11, and not a Chapter 9, the proceeds would be split amongst all creditors. The proceeds might be bigger [[the litigation over title would be a big issue), but it would be spread over more creditors. I'm not sure the take to pensioners would be higher.

Now, back to a Chapter 9. The only question before the judge is whether the plan is fair and equitable. The judge can't modify the plan to include the sale of more assets; that is outside his authority under Article III of the Constitution. Unlike a Chapter 11, another party cannot propose a plan that would be "more fair." The differences between a Chapter 9 and Chapter 11 evade even people who are reasonably familiar with bankruptcy. It's different.

The first part of your response does not take my hypothetical further. My posts are not about Chapter 11.

The second part of the your response, leads to a question the 'protect the art crowd' refuses to examine. If the bankruptcy judge can't force asset sells, why transfer ownership of the DIA at all?

[Wesley Mouch]

corktown, yes they can easily lease the art if they wanted to monetize

Thruster, no 92% percent is not being cleaned etc

Jason, that's the point, hoarding what they can't even hope to display
If they put rotated one piece a day it would take 180 years to rotate through the stock. I doubt they put out one new piece a day or make that average with sudden massive display changes.

People complain that any change to the DIA works an robbery of the future's cultural inheritance. When in fact, leasing/selling 92% of it would be undetectable to DIA visitors.

Well maybe today you wouldn't notice, but your children and grandchildren will notice.

A good museum is buying things based on artistic value -- not simply to 'horde' art. Some of what's in the basement will be extremely valuable in the future -- if the DIA is doing what they should.

Some of that 92% will turn out to be by the next Banksy or Pollack. Good museums buy that stuff BEFORE its financially valuable.

[Wesley Mouch]

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"...

The main reason you "can't" do these things is because the process has developed a cooperative plan to reorganize city finances that doesn't include the DIA.

Orr and the citizens of Detroit have found a cooperative plan with contributions from business and labor to reorganize our fine city. This plan was developed cooperatively. Your rogue obsession with selling DIA art might cost more goodwill and future revenue than its worth.

What the pensioners should be fighting for now are concrete agreements to restore benefits when the city recovers.

But in the meantime, your obsessive drive on this at least gives malcontents an impossible dream on which to focus -- as BG has pointed out. Sale is not reasonable.

[majohnson]

"Orr and the citizens of Detroit have found a cooperative plan with contributions from business and labor to reorganize our fine city. This plan was developed cooperatively."

I'm not being snarky when I ask, Why do you say that?
Are you basing that on city council's approval?
Because neither Orr, the Grand Bargain money sources, nor mediator Rosen were elected by Detroiters or anyone at all. Additionally, a City of Detroit referendum was not held.

[Thruster315]

Well maybe today you wouldn't notice, but your children and grandchildren will notice.

This is what really hits home with me and so many others that do NOT want the DIA's art sold. Like I had mentioned before- if the art gets sold, the DIA's reputation is shot. There is no way it will ever recover. Sell one piece and we're tainted goods. There is no way we can ever acquire new pieces nor will the DIA's peers or donors ever feel comfortable with this institution. One piece moves and we might as well paint the scarlet A on our chest now.

If the DIA gets butchered the way they envision it, I don't hear any of the creditors having any solution as to how to even rebuild the DIA or this community's premier arts institution. If there is, I'd love to hear it.

A good museum is buying things based on artistic value -- not simply to 'horde' art. Some of what's in the basement will be extremely valuable in the future -- if the DIA is doing what they should.

Some of that 92% will turn out to be by the next Banksy or Pollack. Good museums buy that stuff BEFORE its financially valuable.

It's smart business.

If managed properly it can still be a vital draw in the area. If we start liquidating all of these supposed "non-vital" assets in the area, what's to keep people here? What's to attract new people to the area? Cultural institutions like the DIA should be the bedrock of a community that not only keep its residents, but should be used as a lure to entice others to the area not just as tourists but to sink down roots and invest themselves in the area.

Again, I hear the creditors wanting their short term money but I have yet to hear of any of them finding a way to recover from the long term cultural and intellectual devastation they'd cause.

[248lurker]

I live in Royal Oak. Why?
I don't even consider getting carjacked, assaulted, or robbed in RO. Ever.

I hate to disappoint you, but Royal Oak has crime, too. LA Fitness, especially, is a hotbed for robberies.

[Wesley Mouch]

...Again, I hear the creditors wanting their short term money but I have yet to hear of any of them finding a way to recover from the long term cultural and intellectual devastation they'd cause.

You would think they'd be saying... monetize the art to pay us today, and when our investments outpace the market, we'll buy you some art.

You're right. Selfish they are.

[Detroit500]

I just pray the unions approve this deal. The future of our city's cultural legacy depends on it. One thing I have been incredibly impressed by our city in terms of culture is the sheer force of will we have refused to let our treasured symphony, zoo, opera house, and art museum been raided. It would be an immense shame for that after such high amounts of cooperation to go away.

[Honky Tonk]

I just pray the unions approve this deal. The future of our city's cultural legacy depends on it. One thing I have been incredibly impressed by our city in terms of culture is the sheer force of will we have refused to let our treasured symphony, zoo, opera house, and art museum been raided. It would be an immense shame for that after such high amounts of cooperation to go away.

Without these things we're just another fallen rustbelt town.

[Vic01]

I just pray the unions approve this deal. The future of our city's cultural legacy depends on it. One thing I have been incredibly impressed by our city in terms of culture is the sheer force of will we have refused to let our treasured symphony, zoo, opera house, and art museum been raided. It would be an immense shame for that after such high amounts of cooperation to go away.

I thought that weeks ago a sufficient number of unions and creditors had already approved the plan currently on the table to allow the "cram down" as needed if a small percentage try to screw it up...

[Thruster315]

You would think they'd be saying... monetize the art to pay us today, and when our investments outpace the market, we'll buy you some art.

You're right. Selfish they are.

I think that's the part of the argument that the people that want to sell the DIA art can't resolve. It's not like we take the pieces up to a pawn shop, let them hold onto it and when we get back our financial footing, we buy the art back for the public to see again. Once a piece is gone, it'd never come back... at ANY reasonable price.

Those pieces of art are one-of-a-kind originals. It's not like selling an unused road grader sitting in a warehouse and buying back another one without any discernible difference.

And again, if the DIA were to sell their art- the hard earned reputation and legacy of the place will be shot. No one from the creditors' side has come up with a viable solution to getting art back to the area either if their plan somehow succeeds. Other museums won't swap with us. Donors would never bequeath art to the DIA ever again. So unless I hear of a plan to somehow resolve this, the artwork in the DIA can and should never be sold off in this short sighted selfish way.

[Wesley Mouch]

"Orr and the citizens of Detroit have found a cooperative plan with contributions from business and labor to reorganize our fine city. This plan was developed cooperatively."

I'm not being snarky when I ask, Why do you say that?
Are you basing that on city council's approval?
Because neither Orr, the Grand Bargain money sources, nor mediator Rosen were elected by Detroiters or anyone at all. Additionally, a City of Detroit referendum was not held.

I say that mostly as an over-reaction to those who deny that this process has any legitimacy -- simply because there was never a specific vote. That 'democracy' was suspended. Evil from Lansing rules and oppresses.

In fact, the Grand Bargain has been put together by leaders from across the political spectrum.

If you object to this process as an imposition on the citizens, why would you not argue that the pensions themselves were granted by the same sort of illegal imposition. No Detroit citizen ever voted to grant a pension to any worker.

Our government works by 'representation' under law. The Detroit bankruptcy/EM was put into place by our leaders -- cooperatively. If you step back from the politics of this, its clear that leaders across the spectrum have supported Detroit and this plan.

[mwilbert]

The second part of the your response, leads to a question the 'protect the art crowd' refuses to examine. If the bankruptcy judge can't force asset sells, why transfer ownership of the DIA at all?

The main reason to transfer ownership at this point is because it is part of the arrangement whereby a large amount of cash from outside sources gets injected into the bankruptcy. It is true that the judge could not force the sale of the assets even if they were still owned by the city, but he can reject the city's plan as inequitable. Adding that money made it much easier for the city to come up with a plan that is likely to be approved by the bulk of the creditors and the judge.

[Wesley Mouch]

The main reason to transfer ownership at this point is because it is part of the arrangement whereby a large amount of cash from outside sources gets injected into the bankruptcy. It is true that the judge could not force the sale of the assets even if they were still owned by the city, but he can reject the city's plan as inequitable. Adding that money made it much easier for the city to come up with a plan that is likely to be approved by the bulk of the creditors and the judge.

Basic rule of life. When you've spent your money, others get to tell you what to do. Unless you support the Democratic party, then they just give you whatever you want until you lose your money. Start rule over.