What a farce... No, not farce.
A
tragedy for the nation and the arts, as Trump and his inept board of personal appointees risk losing it by bankruptcy.
The building's name includes the word "Memorial".
Doesn't Donald Trump know what that means?
It was re-named a "Memorial" to honour John Kennedy, some years
after his death, as the first US President to take an active, major role in encouraging the arts in the USA. So it can't bear the name of anyone still alive anyway, by simple definition; but that Trump's name was added only a day or so after the Board of Trustees' agreement shows the letters had been cut and installers engaged,
before the Board voted for it.
I read Mr. T. also wants this on the facade:
“Restored and Renovated by President Donald J. Trump.”
He can't add his own name to it. By law. The Courts have ruled that.
It might want renovating; and over the years considerable sums have been spent on this. It was built in the 1960s and is heavily-used, so it will naturally suffer wear-and-tear, internal systems will wear out or go out-of-date, etc. So rightly, it will need genuine repairs and refits from time to time.
"Restoring" though? It's not a ruin! The decision was by its Board of Trustees (who look after the building), of which Trump is magically Chairman and who has ensured its compliance.
(The US President can and does appoint members to the Center's Board, but presumably, normally by sufficient relevant expertise and expected to help run the Center as they agree best. Trump has made sure only his own yes -men and -women serve.)
The danger lies in Trump's own use of this vital venue - the property of all Americans regardless of their political leanings - as one of his personal playthings, as he seems to be doing.
If his decision to close it for the remaining two years of his Presidency does go ahead, it could go bankrupt by earning almost nothing for that two years while spending a lot of money on... what exactly?. Either that or it will need much more tax-payers' money than the normal subsidy to compensate for lost income.
This after over a year of perfomers and audiences already boycotting the place in protest or being forced out for "political" reasons. That alone must have cost a fortune in lost income even if it stays open.
I understand it is heavily subsidised from State and Federal taxes, but its main income is from sales, venue hire, etc..
In the end, this is the USA risking ruining one of its own major, internationally-known arts venues, perhaps the major one.
Worse, perhaps, undermining the nation's own reputation for encouraging the breadth, vivacity and freedom of the arts.
