Detroit

[SeattleUte]

Detroit is in bankruptcy. Creditors want a federal bankruptcy judge to order Detroit to auction off its $2.5 billion estimated worth art collection to pay debts. Detroit needs $80 million just to upgrade its IT department so it can collect taxes. Garbage is piling up, the rats are fat, brazen and happy, the public schools are a sink hole. Nobody is safe from violent crime. As a woman said on NPR this morning, "we're each of us on our own."

I wonder how many hundreds of millions of dollars Detroit has paid and committed to pay for subsidizing its pro sports teams? 3D, do you have any thoughts about this system that you have called "market forces"?

[CardiacCoug]

Thought this was interesting.

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireSto...teams-19716065

But that $650 million arena planned for the Red Wings? That can still become a reality, according to Brian Holdwick, an executive vice president for the Detroit Economic Growth Corp.
Detroit Bankruptcy Sports.JPEG

Plans for an 18,000-seat arena were announced by the team's owners and local economic development officials last month, although the new proposal still needed to be approved by the City Council and a handful of state and local agencies. The Red Wings said there will be $367 million in private investment and $283 million in public funds in the complex, which would also include residential, retail and office space.

Spending that kind of money on an arena — in a city where bankruptcy could mean laying off employees and scaling back basic services — could draw some public resistance. Holdwick said funding for the project would come from tax increment dollars that can't be used by the city's general fund anyway, so it's not necessarily a zero-sum game between building an arena and easing Detroit's financial pain.

Holdwick says money for the arena would go back to the state if not used for development downtown.

To me it seems obvious that the city should at a minimum auction off its art collection to settle some of its debts.

[byu71]

Thought this was interesting.

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireSto...teams-19716065



To me it seems obvious that the city should at a minimum auction off its art collection to settle some of its debts.

I am not a cultural giant so take what I say as someone not up to date in the "art" world. Why the hell would my tax $$ be spent on art? Why the heck would a city up the creek financially own art? It is a no brainer.

[Uncle Ted]

I am not a cultural giant so take what I say as someone not up to date in the "art" world. Why the hell would my tax $$ be spent on art? Why the heck would a city up the creek financially own art? It is a no brainer.

It is an investment. Of course, now they may have to dump it for 10 cents on the dollar in a fire sale. They might have been better off just buying the cheap Chinese knock-off art stuff in the first place.

[wuapinmon]

I am not a cultural giant so take what I say as someone not up to date in the "art" world. Why the hell would my tax $$ be spent on art? Why the heck would a city up the creek financially own art? It is a no brainer.

Cultural patrimony. A solid art collection museum is one thing that petit bourgeois people consider when deciding to relocate to a place. Does it favor the arts? Does it have an opera? A symphony? A ballet? Or, will I have to get culture by taking the train to, shudder, Ohio?

Another rub is that a good portion of that collection was probably donated to the city with the idea of it being part of the "permanent collection." You could run into estate lawsuit issues if you sell something that was left to the city's arts collection. Several years ago, an Iowa state senator proposed selling a Jackson Pollack painting in the UofI's collection and was pilloried for the very suggestion.

Christie's is already catching shit for even trying to evaluate the DIA collection last month. http://www.freep.com/article/2013072...tcy-christie-s

With the Michigan AG saying that he's opposed to the sale, it'll really be the judge's call if s/he wants to let federal bankruptcy law trump the state law about the art being held in a charitable trust.

As far as I'm concerned, honoring promised pensions is a worthy reason to sell the Van Goghs.

[SeattleUte]

Cities don't pay for most of the art in their museums.

We need to beef up our art museum. I hope Gates, Bezos, Balmer, Allen and Schultz are there to grab some hot bargains. But it won't go for ten cents on the dollar. I undestand that the high end art market is going crazy right now.

[woot]

I'll be really sad if Detroit has to sell off its art. The Detroit Institute of Arts is a beautiful building that has already fallen into disrepair, especially externally. But the collection inside is amazing, and the exhibits were recently revamped to appeal to a wider audience. I've been there probably a dozen times, and always come away impressed and enlightened.

[MarkGrace]

Going to Detroit for the first time tomorrow!

[woot]

I also wonder if Detroit even has the right to sell off its art. How it often works is that the city owns the museum itself, but the collection is held in the public trust, with strict regulations enforcing proper care. It's not clear how "illegal" it would be to sell off the art, but it might be, even if its actually Detroit's to sell. The New York Historical Society tried to sell some of its stuff recently, and it ended up with them only being allowed to give it to other New York institutions, reducing their operating costs but providing no income.

[byu71]

I also wonder if Detroit even has the right to sell off its art. How it often works is that the city owns the museum itself, but the collection is held in the public trust, with strict regulations enforcing proper care. It's not clear how "illegal" it would be to sell off the art, but it might be, even if its actually Detroit's to sell. The New York Historical Society tried to sell some of its stuff recently, and it ended up with them only being allowed to give it to other New York institutions, reducing their operating costs but providing no income.

I can certainly understand if it was donated with restrictions why they couldn't or shouldn't sell it. If there is any of it though that was bought with tax payer money, it should be sold in a heartbeat.

Can you imagine if you had loaned money someone and they told you they couldn't pay you back because the "art" they had bought is just too pretty and you can't sell it because of it's cultural value for your "wife and children"?

[SeattleUte]

I also wonder if Detroit even has the right to sell off its art. How it often works is that the city owns the museum itself, but the collection is held in the public trust, with strict regulations enforcing proper care. It's not clear how "illegal" it would be to sell off the art, but it might be, even if its actually Detroit's to sell. The New York Historical Society tried to sell some of its stuff recently, and it ended up with them only being allowed to give it to other New York institutions, reducing their operating costs but providing no income.

Detroit is in bankruptcy. Federal bankruptcy laws would preempt any state laws.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Detroit is in bankruptcy. Federal bankruptcy laws would preempt any state laws.

Yeah, but the real question is whether assets in a public trust, like the one that supposedly owns the art work, can be brought into the bankruptcy estate in a Chapter 9 filing. I imagine the question really revolves around whether the City of Detroit has ever had the power to sell that art work and take the proceeds and put it in its general fund. I wonder who the trustee of that trust is and then I wonder who is designated as beneficiaries.

The principal in a spendthrift trust cannot be touched by a bankruptcy trustee if a beneficiary files bankruptcy unless the beneficiary is also the trustee of that spendthrift trust. And virtually every trust drafted will have a spendthrift provision put it in it, and I can't imagine the trust agreement that governs the public trust that holds that artwork would have something like that in it.

Given all the graft and corruption that's been the norm in Detroit for decades, I don't think anyone would have donated anything to Detroit unless there were quite a few restrictions put in place governing the sale of any the art work donated. I have a feeling the scoundrels in Detroit's city government would have long ago sold it off if it meant buying votes for a little while longer.

[wuapinmon]

Per Wikipedia, the Van Gogh portrait in the DIA was bought by the city in 1922. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Va...87-Detroit.jpg

[Uncle Ted]

Per Wikipedia, the Van Gogh portrait in the DIA was bought by the city in 1922. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Va...87-Detroit.jpg

Yeah, maybe that one would go for 25 cents on the dollar.