Foundations to contribute $330M to help protect DIA collection, Detroit pensions

[majohnson]

So with Barnes, the terms of the trust were changed to violate the most important aspects of the trust as determined by the settler. So analogizing, if Detroit creates a trust requiring the art stay in Detroit and never be moved, the terms of the trust could later be changed to allow the art to move. Much Barnes art was moved to facilitate more viewers, the same could be said of an additional DIA campus in Grand Rapids or Royal Oak. If the Detroit trust states that the collection is never to be divided or art sold/leased, it can later be changed to allow division and selling.

Next, you mention that other great museums have collections owned by entities occupying publicly owned buildings. The important question is whether those cities originally owned and then transferred ownership over their art assets.

You never answer the important question.
Why should the city sell the art to a politically connected few for 95% off?
If one group can come up with $300, how do you know an equally termed contract can not be signed with an entity offering $1,000M?

[bailey]

So with Barnes, the terms of the trust were changed to violate the most important aspects of the trust as determined by the settler. So analogizing, if Detroit creates a trust requiring the art stay in Detroit and never be moved, the terms of the trust could later be changed to allow the art to move. Much Barnes art was moved to facilitate more viewers, the same could be said of an additional DIA campus in Grand Rapids or Royal Oak. If the Detroit trust states that the collection is never to be divided or art sold/leased, it can later be changed to allow division and selling.

Next, you mention that other great museums have collections owned by entities occupying publicly owned buildings. The important question is whether those cities originally owned and then transferred ownership over their art assets.

You never answer the important question.
Why should the city sell the art to a politically connected few for 95% off?
If one group can come up with $300, how do you know an equally termed contract can not be signed with an entity offering $1,000M?

Well, lets look at the logic behind your assertions here... the "politically connected ones" are not changing the mission of the DIA... however, should the art be placed on the open market and sold off piecemeal, [[once the decade or so of lawsuits over which pieces Detroit could actually sell resolves) its a certainty that each and every one of the significant pieces would leave, and likely hang in private collections in places like China or Dubai.

Once that happens, the regional tax for operating the DIA ends [[as the anti detroit activists in the burbs will revolt immediately), no one ever contributes any money or significant works to the DIA ever again, attendance evaporates, and the DIA ceases to exist as an entity.

Which do you prefer? the art and the DIA preserved ..and a remote possibility [[and by no means do I agree with your accusation of nefarious motivation by the foundations) of a mission change or a the veritable certainty of the DIA's closing?

There is more involved here than just getting top dollar. Fortunately others can see that.