Image

NO!

AVILA: ‘No Sir…In society, memory is what we make of it… The fact is that Detroit grew in the shoulders of a manufacturing economy which since its hights has been greatly diminished in that area. If you want to teach next generation that the city of Detroit should sell its art (which by the way has increased in value since it was bought) to pay for the lack of conscience and honesty of its citizens, I think that they are doom… And at the same time shows egoism because that attitude shows to the next generation that art is some sort of bitch that should clean up the act of “rational people” when it is more convenient, instead, for example, placing the finger in lobbyist that prefer to move entire companies to third countries…’

YES!

GEORGE KOZMON:

‘Fernando,

You are correct regarding Detroit’s history. However the reasons for it’s demise are political, and in Detroit’s partial defense many decisions were National, not local. The local decisions just compounded the national ones… Nonetheless the city faces an $18.5 billion debt. It’s Bankrupt.

For the sake of argument, (and not because it would make a dent in the debt, I’m still arguing principles here), what if the asset in question wasn’t art, but something like automobiles that were dedicated to city council use, (as a public benefit of course), along with fuel cards? Would those be OK to liquidate?

if you answer yes, then we are in agreement that city owned assets are vulnerable, but you want to be able to subjectively decide which ones should not be liquidated. You want to selectively enforce the legal structure. If your response is no, then you reject the whole concept of bankruptcy, the legal system, contract law, etc.’