5 ms·
> “It sucks that our vision has to come at the cost of artists who have used and loved that space,” Lee said. “There’s no way around it. It absolutely sucks.”
by sdinsn 7y ago
> “It sucks that our vision has to come at the cost of artists who have used and loved that space,” Lee said. “There’s no way around it. It absolutely sucks.”
No way around it? Was this the only building in Detroit?
- DoreenMichele 7y agoIt was the only one they could get. They kept getting outbid by buyers with more cash. Which doesn't excuse it. They apparently got the building in part because they were expected to let the artists stay. It sounds almost like a bait and switch. They probably were not consciously and intentionally trying to scam anyone, but they took the deal and then changed their mind after the fact about how they would handle everything. Also: But Allied Media’s staff grew by 40 percent, another tenant needed more space and the City of Detroit wouldn’t allow the building to claim partial tax-exempt status as a nonprofit if it housed for-profit artists, Lee said.
- crooked-v 7y agoI wonder how viable it would be to set up a one-person non-profit corporation that pays its owner-operator a reasonable wage off the proceeds of sold art.
- DoreenMichele 7y agoProbably impossible given that non-profits require a board. But I do wonder what other creative solutions might have been possible and either weren't explored or weren't pursued agressively enough to succeed die to lack of resources yadda.
- em-bee 7y agoit would be bait-and-switch if the new owners actually made such a promise. but from the article it sounds more like the occupants had a 'blind' hope. the new owner is not in the real-estate business buying buildings to make money of rent, but was looking for a space for themselves. it seems to me like that wasn't communicated well, but also the old owners/occupants seemingly never thought to ask.
- DoreenMichele 7y agoI think I already adequately covered the fact that they weren't intending to scam anyone. But I'm a social creature and, among other things, I have had a college class in Negotiation and Conflict Management. People very often make deals for reasons not explicitly spelled out in the contract and not enforceable under the law. The original owners considered this to be a "passion project." They could have sold it for more money to someone else and didn't. That's part of why this non-profit got the building. It's almost certainly not enforceable in a court of law, but it sounds very much like there was an unstated expectation that the artists would get to stay and that was part of why they got the building at all. I also quoted the part about how tax codes are putting pressure on them that they didn't anticipate. Perhaps they could have found some other solution to the problem or perhaps not. I have no idea what options were reasonable viable alternatives, if any. But based on what I read in this article, I strongly suspect they wouldn't have gotten the building at all had there not be an implicit expectation that they would let the artists stay. Also, the representative of the non-profit in question may not be doing a very good job of making it clear why they had no real choice. Running a thing and being a good PR person aren't outright mutually exclusive skills, but they frequently are different roles in the same organization.
- danielscrubs 7y agoIt’s easy to sit in the ivory tower until the practicalities come banging at the door. Just wish that those organizations would be seen as the screaming children they are iff they don’t come up with solutions.