I don't agree with what Alexander is implying. I think it's reasonable that there be a firewall around some assets.
That's not to say that I agree with Rosen's approach.
Seems like a conflict that Rhodes appointed Rosen, and now Rosen is securing the art. I would suspect that Rhodes has instructed Rosen to do what needed to be done so that Rhodes can put his stamp on the bankruptcy without looting the DIA.
I'm fascinated by the mere fact that the art collection can arguably cover the cities liabilities. It would be a shame to loot Detroit's art to cover it's liabilities. But then again it would be a shame to stiff the pensioners who thought they had a secured a safe retirement. But then again it was a shame to promise those pensioners a safe retirement if you didn't have the funds to back it up. Kind of torn over here if you can't tell. I'll defer to the Detroit denizens on hubski to make up my mind for me.
No matter where you live, this is a tough one. As bad as I feel for people who will lose money, I think that art transcends any particular individual, and therefore the collection should be off limits completely. None of these 'assets' was collected as investments, anyway. That is, they were never suppose to be assets at all. On the front of the museum, there's an inscription carved into the marble. It reads: "Dedicated by the people of Detroit to the knowledge and enjoyment of art." To me, that says it all.
I think that is the argument to be made. That the donators gave the city the art for the benefit that viewing it would give them. They didn't give it to the city so that the city could pay its bills in the future.