Discuss Detroit » Archives - Beginning July 2006 » Selling Detroit's past to pay for its future « Previous Next »
Top of pageBottom of page

Rhymeswithrawk
Member
Username: Rhymeswithrawk

Post Number: 161
Registered: 11-2005
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 5:13 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

OK, so this is sure to be a controversial topic.
I was talking to a co-worker about the Merrill Fountain today. (http://www.merit.edu/~jimmoran /detphot/mer1.jpg)
It's been dry and neglected for how long? Decades? She says, "You know, there has to be a lot of cities that would pay millions for such architectural gems and here it just sits, rotting."
Maybe the Merrill isn't the best example, but could (or should) a cash-strapped city with an abundance of amazing, valuable architecture turn to such neglected pieces as a resource?
I'm thinking more along the lines of the infamous gargoyles that were swiped from the Lee Plaza. If the city owns a building destined for demolition, like the Lee, why not save its gold-leaf ceilings, its ornate sculpture work and sell them? Again, this is only for a building that cannot be saved. Sure, you might get only $100 or something per gargoyle, but when you've got hundreds of such pieces all over town...
The Merrill, of course, would be another issue altogether, and I do not advocate selling it to the highest bidder. Still, if the city were offered, oh, I dunno, $1 million or something insane for it, wouldn't it have to at least listen? How many people even GO to Palmer Park anymore? And the city is so desperate for money... God, it'd be hard to imagine, but would it not be better to see a piece of Detroit's history and forgotten splendor restored and enjoyed somewhere else than being tagged by spray paint? Especially when said money could be invested in saving areas of the city that are more vital to its rebirth?
An interesting moral and ethical debate, to be certain. Thoughts?
Top of pageBottom of page

Hockey_player
Member
Username: Hockey_player

Post Number: 271
Registered: 10-2003
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 8:53 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

The city is hundreds of millions of dollars in debt. One million dollars for a fountain is a drop in the bucket and would be irrelevant in the larger scheme of things.

Even if every treasure in the city were sold off, and the deficit wiped out, another would appear, because the problem is, once again, that the city spends more than it can generate in tax revenue. A one-time sale of its assets would be pointless.
Top of pageBottom of page

Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie

Post Number: 767
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 8:53 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Does the city actually own the Lee Plaza?
Top of pageBottom of page

Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie

Post Number: 768
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 8:55 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Hockey_player hit the nail on the head. There's a fundamental structural problem with how much the city spends vs. how much it takes in, and it's only getting worse.
Top of pageBottom of page

Bobj
Member
Username: Bobj

Post Number: 1555
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 9:28 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It is like using your credit cards and garage sales to finance your personal life - eventually you have to reduce spending or increase revenue or both to keep it going - selling stuff off and borrowing is only a temporary fix.
Top of pageBottom of page

Livernoisyard
Member
Username: Livernoisyard

Post Number: 1837
Registered: 10-2004
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 10:09 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

"The city is hundreds of millions of dollars in debt."


I believe that Detroit's bonded debt is over $2 billion and is rapidly rising with a souring bond rating. In fact, Detroit is in the early throes of receivership (bankruptcy) and must receive state approval for any new borrowing, as it did recently when it was short something like $130 million.

(Message edited by LivernoisYard on December 02, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul

Post Number: 73
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 11:17 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I would argue the city SHOULD SELL off assets such as those mentioned above. Doing this would in theory help it fiscally, but more importantly it would help its image. Think that if the Merrill Fountain were sold to the city of Chicago (or even a private developer), Detroit in the transaction could stipulate that is be called 'the Detroit Fountain' wherever it ends up. I think that in the long run, if enough similar Detroit artifacts get spread throughout the country, they can actually turn out to be an exhibition for how beautiful the City of Detroit is.

Someone walking through Millenium Park in Chicago sees the 'Detroit Fountain' and it gives him or her the idea, "This is quite nice! If this is from detroit, there must be many other gems back in the City of Detroit that I would like to go visit and see."

--def. prob. controversial, but better than letting it sit in the city overgrown with those around it not appreciating it. Just my thoughts, and probably not yours.
Top of pageBottom of page

Southen
Member
Username: Southen

Post Number: 31
Registered: 08-2006
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 2:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

So to sell people on the fact that Detroit is beautiful, we sell all of the things that make it beautiful? If we sell our gems like you suggest just for the sake of reputation there will be nothing left here for us to enjoy. Im sorry but that is a really really really dumb idea.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitbill
Member
Username: Detroitbill

Post Number: 105
Registered: 09-2006
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 2:14 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Why doesn't some civic minded individuals get private interests to restore city gems and give them basic shared ownership of the asset provided the asset remains in the city and is maintained ? Many cities allocate areas to interested corporate/individual concerns who basically adopt these areas under contract,, They tend to get good pr and promotion for their efforts.
Top of pageBottom of page

Cman710
Member
Username: Cman710

Post Number: 41
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 2:18 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I am not inclined to agree that selling off architectural gems will be beneficial.

First, selling these pieces will not make a significant dent in the budget problem, for the reasons others mentioned above.

Second, most of the city's abandoned structures have already been destroyed or scavenged of anything valuable. (See Michigan Central Station).

Third, leaving a beautiful fountain in place, even if it is in a place that is not currently used very frequently, is vital to the possibility of that park ever being redeveloped. Leaving the fountain there may catch someone's imagination. Leaving an empty space will make it just any old corner.

Lastly, the city of Detroit should take responsibility for all of the destruction that it has allowed happen. It should not hasten that destruction by selling off architectural gems.
Top of pageBottom of page

Detroitbill
Member
Username: Detroitbill

Post Number: 107
Registered: 09-2006
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 3:23 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

It would be nice if the City would take responsibility for its architectural gems and any destruction but lets face it,, it will not ever happen,, These gems will continue to be eyesores,,Selling the right to maintain and use these pieces is not really intended to make a dent in the budget but rather to have someone maintain/restore them in their current location,,, . The city has no money to get involved in these ventures presently. They can't even afford to put enough police on the streets or pick up garbage... The only way these areas will be restored or renovated is too let private dollars get involved, who ofcourse will want a benefit from them... I would much rather see this blend of involvement than let these areas continue to depreciate or have what is sellable auctioned off to some other town.
Top of pageBottom of page

Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok

Post Number: 3171
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 4:34 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

That Beaux Arts confection was originally in Campus Martius when it was unveiled to the city in 1901. I have mentioned several times on this forum that it should be moved back downtown. One nice location would be in the middle of Capitol Park, once development starts there.

I'm sure that Lizzie Merrill Palmer would be turning in her grave listening to this thread...
Top of pageBottom of page

Nainrouge
Member
Username: Nainrouge

Post Number: 116
Registered: 05-2006
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 5:08 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I would be for selling it if that is the only way to protect it from decay. What good is it to have some rubble that was once a beautiful fountain? It would be better to sell it and hope that one day the city could buy it back. Another option would be to mothball it (brick it up) for the day when the city will have enough money to repair it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Michmeister
Member
Username: Michmeister

Post Number: 22
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 6:01 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Maybe hizzoner could pull a Brooklyn Bridge number and sell the fountain a couple times, over and over again? :D Seriously, it is the same question with the Vatican, keeping untold billions in various pieces of art. You can only sell them once to feed the poor and hungry but when they are gone, they`re gone and the misery goes on and on because nobody has learned from the situation to correct it.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rhymeswithrawk
Member
Username: Rhymeswithrawk

Post Number: 164
Registered: 11-2005
Posted on Saturday, December 02, 2006 - 6:05 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

But if the city mothballs it, parts could be swiped, as what happened to the Bagley Fountain. And it was in storage for only five years or so. It could be decades (if ever) before the city could spend the millions to restore the Merrill Fountain. (I think the last feasibility report had the restoration pegged at just over $1 million, but that was several years ago.)
Top of pageBottom of page

Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok

Post Number: 3173
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Sunday, December 03, 2006 - 1:42 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Has anyone visited it lately? Is it still in good (if unused) condition?

It would be nice if Edsel Ford II makes it his next pet project once Cadillac Square is completed.

It has the perfect shape for inclusion in Capitol park (facing north). IIRC the Campus Martius location it was originally at was also triangular in shape.
Top of pageBottom of page

Eric_c
Member
Username: Eric_c

Post Number: 891
Registered: 11-2003
Posted on Sunday, December 03, 2006 - 7:57 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I drive through Palmer Park everyday and pass the Merrill Fountain. It's fine.
Top of pageBottom of page

Yvette248
Member
Username: Yvette248

Post Number: 228
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Sunday, December 03, 2006 - 9:28 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

In fact, Detroit is in the early throes of receivership (bankruptcy) and must receive state approval for any new borrowing.....


Please tell me you have facts supporting this (repetitively tired) assertion. Besides, the State of Michigan's budget is also in a severe crisis, so state "receivership" is definitely a non-solution.
Top of pageBottom of page

6nois
Member
Username: 6nois

Post Number: 12
Registered: 11-2006
Posted on Sunday, December 03, 2006 - 9:52 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

This is very twisted. If you sell Detroit's architectural heritage, you kill any chance of the city ever coming back. Sending our fountains, building details, and other pieces of architectural beauty does not tell people how beautiful Detroit is because there wouldn't be anything left. My favorite part about this city is the stuff. Without it I would not be inclined in the least bit to attempt to stay here when I am done with college. And trying to buy things back, HA. If you sell a piece of art that is going to appreciate in value and you don't have the money for it now it is unlikely that you will ever have the money to get it back, or even have willing parties to sell it back. Doing this would basically mean the end of the city. It would be so destructive and counterproductive, and once it was all over there would be nothing left. No money, no beautiful buildings, nothing.
Top of pageBottom of page

Charlottepaul
Member
Username: Charlottepaul

Post Number: 77
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Sunday, December 03, 2006 - 12:47 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Interesting opinions. Certainly one can argue that in Detroit there are underutilized gems. Some of these have been torn down. Why would you not want to save a few of the highlights? Maybe selling them off puts too much of a bad connotation on the cit's finances. So OK, a slightly different idea: Have a sort of Detroit exhibit in a location in another city (maybe even a traveling one). One certainly would not take all of the gems from Detroit leaving nothing here, but a sampling of sorts. Would this sort of venture not serve to peak the interest of those outside the city in what Detroit has to offer?
Top of pageBottom of page

Gistok
Member
Username: Gistok

Post Number: 3175
Registered: 08-2004
Posted on Sunday, December 03, 2006 - 1:45 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Charlottepaul.... we're not talking trinkets and icons here, we're talking things that weigh hundreds and thousands of tons!

And the last thing we need is to take a few sculptural items off of the Merrill Fountain, and say the Hurlburt Memorial Gate, just to name a pair.... and then folks WILL think that the scavengers have been here, and others will follow suit and continue scavanging... no thanks!
Top of pageBottom of page

Dhugger
Member
Username: Dhugger

Post Number: 108
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Sunday, December 03, 2006 - 2:03 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Selling Detroit. Yes why not sell the Rivera court frescos in the DIA or say sell ad space below the paintings. Ah forget it let's just pilage the entire DIA collection and sell it all.

Let's sell ad space and naming rights for every fountain, building, public park and walk way. SELL, SELL, SELL till we have nothing to be proud of in the city of Detroit.
Top of pageBottom of page

Michmeister
Member
Username: Michmeister

Post Number: 24
Registered: 10-2006
Posted on Sunday, December 03, 2006 - 3:12 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Like I said on another thread, it is time for someone who REALLY got rich here to step up and give something lasting back and that would be putting a little polish on our neglected little ex-metropolis.If the city would shine a little better, then investors would not be as wary of the city as an investment and the folks living there would feel a bit better about themselves and sooner or later it all starts looking a little less grey. What I`m saying is , hey, Eminem!Replace a street light anonymously, Hey, Kid Rock! Fix up an apartment house on a non-profit basis. People constantly living in dirt are going to feel like it.The turn around has got to come from somewhere. Stop waiting for governmental solutions-they aren`t coming.At least not from these boobs. They need to stop playing "party politics" and start everyone swimming in the same direction. Thank you, that is my humble, non-requested opinion, michmeister.
Top of pageBottom of page

Rhymeswithrawk
Member
Username: Rhymeswithrawk

Post Number: 189
Registered: 11-2005
Posted on Sunday, December 03, 2006 - 8:56 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Selling Detroit. Yes why not sell the Rivera court frescos in the DIA or say sell ad space below the paintings. Ah forget it let's just pilage the entire DIA collection and sell it all.


That's not even CLOSE to the same thing. I'm guessing you haven't been to visit the Merrill Fountain or Lee Plaza lately?
Top of pageBottom of page

Bearinabox
Member
Username: Bearinabox

Post Number: 77
Registered: 04-2006
Posted on Sunday, December 03, 2006 - 9:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

I would only consider this acceptable in buildings where demolition is actually imminent. If the city had sold some architectural details from the Statler, for example, I don't think anyone would have complained. But the Merrill Fountain should stay in Detroit, whether people are perceived to be enjoying it or not.

(Message edited by BearInABox on December 03, 2006)
Top of pageBottom of page

Dhugger
Member
Username: Dhugger

Post Number: 110
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Monday, December 04, 2006 - 10:54 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Rhymeswithrawk: yes I am familiar with Lee Plaza. I witnessed the lion controversy [street level & on the forum] and have driven by to watch the roof removal as of last March. [street level & on DY]

Not as familiar with Merrill Fountain today. Last walk in that area was Spring of 2006. Yes . . . I walk these city streets on a regular basis. [photo below - summer 2005]


I like Michmeister's idea with regards to the rich & famous adopting icons of Detroit and renovating them. Perhaps groups such as the Detroit Chamber of Commerce or the Detroit Economic Club might renovate Merrill Fountain or other public icons. I belong to a group and will make this suggestion and volunteer time.
Top of pageBottom of page

Swiburn
Member
Username: Swiburn

Post Number: 26
Registered: 07-2006
Posted on Monday, December 04, 2006 - 11:06 am:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Yes, I agree that corporate sponsorship is the way to go here, not selling off items . That might not even be legal, depending on the terms of the original agreement. Some estates stipulate that the gift remain in the public's trust.
Top of pageBottom of page

Fnemecek
Member
Username: Fnemecek

Post Number: 2157
Registered: 12-2004
Posted on Monday, December 04, 2006 - 2:27 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)


quote:

Does the city actually own the Lee Plaza?



Yes, the Lee Plaza is owned by Detroit Housing Commission.

Regarding the general question of selling off city assets, there are a few isolated cases where I believe it is a good idea.

It's a sad fact, but there is no realistic possibility of the Lee Plaza being salvaged at this point. There are still several pieces terra cotta artwork in a DPD evidence locker. Selling them at auction isn't a bad idea, in my opinion.

Also, I believe that any property that the City owns outside of the City limits should be auctioned off. The Rackham golf course is a prime example. IIRC, there are a couple of other parcels that Detroit owns in the suburbs as well.

None of this will completely solve the City's economic problems. However, it would ease the amount of cuts we will have to make in other services.
Top of pageBottom of page

Dhugger
Member
Username: Dhugger

Post Number: 113
Registered: 03-2005
Posted on Monday, December 04, 2006 - 8:41 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

Fnemecek I agree that a few of Detroit's assets may be at the point of selling. My concern would be that the city get fair value for the property outside the city limits such as Rackham Golf Course.

Perhaps my trust level is very low with regards to big bureaucracies.

Rhymeswithrawk you sure opened a challenging and controversial topic here. What to keep & try to save? What to sell? How to stay financially solvent. Round table summit material . . . very interesting.
Top of pageBottom of page

Ha_asfan
Member
Username: Ha_asfan

Post Number: 53
Registered: 06-2006
Posted on Monday, December 04, 2006 - 9:50 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

If Rackham Golf Course is any indication on Detroit selling for a fair value, well, it ain't. The 6.25 million plus the 5 million after the deed restrictions have been lifted and houses sold is still way under value for the land. IF the Rackham deal had been a fair up and up deal, a more realistic price would have been closer to 25 million dollars. The Rackham deal will turn out to be the worst deal the city ever entered into. I'll bet you that Detroit will end up with
ZERO money and NO GOLF COURSE.
Top of pageBottom of page

Citylover
Member
Username: Citylover

Post Number: 1919
Registered: 07-2004
Posted on Monday, December 04, 2006 - 10:16 pm:   Edit PostDelete Post   Move Post (Moderator/Admin Only)

So when people gripe about the divisiveness of the area and the suburbs like Livonia opting out of SMART I will refer to this thread and those of you that support Detroit selling off things. Some of those things like the Rackham course are very important to those people that actually live in the area of the golf course. But money speaks loudly so Detroit selling it's past is the same as Livonia opting out of SMART.

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.