(Last one for tonight, I promise.) I wanted to break out in a separate post his (excellent) summary of where things stand at the moment:
"The complexity of the situation defies reductive analysis. ... Neither the federal judge in the case nor creditors can
force the sale of any asset. However, creditors are pushing for sales to
increase the amount of money they'll get beyond the 10 to 20 cents on
the dollar Orr is currently offering. In the end, Orr could decide he
needs to sell art to get a deal. And if the judge believes the city
hasn't done enough to monetize its assets, he can deny Orr's
reorganization plan and pressure him to find more cash, which could
force a sale.
"The DIA's legal protections also remain unclear. Michigan's attorney general
has issued a formal opinion that says a forced sale of DIA art would be
illegal because the museum holds the works in the public trust.
However, many experts say such reasoning may not hold up in federal
bankruptcy court. The DIA has lawyered up, and behind the scenes is
preparing for a potential legal fight that could take months or years to
resolve. ...
"Some who favor selling argue that it's morally unconscionable to protect
the art while city workers may have their pension cuts and city
services, including fundamental police and fire protection, remain
hamstrung by lack of resources. But those who oppose a sale argue that money would mostly go to Wall Street, that ... destroying one of the
city's greatest cultural institutions would leave Detroit weaker, not
stronger, post-bankruptcy."
One question: do you get the sense that the Deaccession Police -- the Day for Detroit crowd -- agree that "the complexity of the situation defies reductive analysis"?
