Fire at Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris | 15th April 2019

[Pogue Mahone]

@Pogue Mahone

The report @Paul the Wolf linked says nothing about the source of the 100m received so far; the guardian opinion piece mentions that 20m was paid by celebrities. The main thrust of the guardian piece is that the charity by the rich has been slow, and it seems it will only be realised when the correct concessions are made to them.

So do you still regard the guardian article as inaccurate? Have you read it?

Of course not. Who needs facts when I’ve got opinions!

Seriously, though. Based purely on other people’s posts about what’s going on I can’t see the issue here. Rich people pledge money to help repair cathedral and prefer to wait until there is a concrete plan in place before providing funds to pay for it. What’s the problem? Seems a big ask to expect them to transfer tens of millions of euros to sit in someone else’s bank account while we wait months and months to decide how to spend it. That’s certainly not my experience of the way charitable donations are processed.

If they’re willing to give their own money towards a project that is of benefit to everyone, then good on them. Can’t see the point in getting riled up about the finer details about how this donation will be paid.

There’s a separate discussion to be had about the morality of some people being rich enough to be able to spare this sort of cash but that’s been done to death in a million threads and I don’t see why it needs to be dragged into this thread as well.

 

[berbatrick]

Of course not. Who needs facts when I’ve got opinions!

Seriously, though. Based purely on other people’s posts about what’s going on I can’t see the issue here. Rich people pledge money to help repair cathedral and prefer to wait until there is a concrete plan in place before providing funds to pay for it. What’s the problem? Seems a big ask to expect them to transfer tens of millions of euros to sit in someone else’s bank account while we wait months and months to decide how to spend it. That’s certainly not my experience of the way charitable donations are processed.

If they’re willing to give their own money towards a project that is of benefit to everyone, then good on them. Can’t see the point in getting riled up about the finer details about how this donation will be paid.

There’s a separate discussion to be had about the morality of some people being rich enough to be able to spare this sort of cash but that’s been done to death in a million threads and I don’t see why it needs to be dragged into this thread as well.

Some of the money was needed earlier - for the salaries of the workers, etc. The bulk of that money does not appear to have come from the big headline-grabbing donations. So it seems that the big donations have been motivated by (as the article suggests) the opportunity to brand some part of the rebuilt structure, rather than philanthropy (which is the only thing that could motivate a small, un-named donation). Also I'm not sure if I'd call it just a donation if it's contingent on a particular plan - that seems more like shareholding to me.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Some of the money was needed earlier - for the salaries of the workers, etc. The bulk of that money does not appear to have come from the big headline-grabbing donations. So it seems that the big donations have been motivated by (as the article suggests) the opportunity to brand some part of the rebuilt structure, rather than philanthropy (which is the only thing that could motivate a small, un-named donation). Also I'm not sure if I'd call it just a donation if it's contingent on a particular plan - that seems more like shareholding to me.

That's literally a fiction. Admittedly plucked out of the arse of the Grauniad journo - rather than your own - but you can see why repeating stuff like that reveals the agenda of people sharing/commenting on this story.

The piece actually does give a far more plausible explanation for the donors to want to put their own timeframe on making these donations:

French law grants a whopping 66% tax relief on any donation – the power is entirely private. The annual cap on such contributions doubtless constitutes a prudent reason for the big donors to stagger their generosity.

Another article linked to the Gaurdian piece makes it clear that it's not really an issue anyway. This is a long term project, so it's no big deal if some of the large donation take a year or two (or several) to come through.

Olivier de Challus, one of the cathedral’s chief guides and architecture experts, said one of the reasons the rich French donors haven’t yet paid is that there are still so many uncertainties about the direction of the reconstruction work.

De Challus said architectural experts are using digital models to try to establish how much damage the fire did to the cathedral’s 13th-century stone, and whether its structures are fundamentally sound.

“It doesn’t matter that the big donors haven’t yet paid because the choices about the spire and the major architectural decisions will happen probably late in 2020,” he said. “That’s when the large sums of money will be required.”

 

[Silva]

If the newtre dame comes with a l'oreal logo we should burn it down again

 

[oates]

If the newtre dame comes with a l'oreal logo we should burn it down again

But that would just mean we have an agenda Silva.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

If the newtre dame comes with a l'oreal logo we should burn it down again

Even better! You can bump this thread and say I told you so! Won’t that be great!

(Won’t happen, though, obviously)

 

[berbatrick]

That's literally a fiction. Admittedly plucked out of the arse of the Grauniad journo - rather than your own - but you can see why repeating stuff like that reveals the agenda of people sharing/commenting on this story.

The piece actually does give a far more plausible explanation for the donors to want to put their own timeframe on making these donations:


Another article linked to the Gaurdian piece makes it clear that it's not really an issue anyway. This is a long term project, so it's no big deal if some of the large donation take a year or two (or several) to come through.

However, tax relief is capped at 20% of annual taxable income

https://efa-net.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/EFA-Tax-Survey-Report-Dec-2018.pdf
suggests that they could be giving much more if this was the only concern, since their income would be substantially more than (donation)*5.


from the Voice Of America article, just above the section you quoted

“How the funds will be used by the state is the big question,” Verot said. “It's a voluntary donation, so the companies are waiting for the government's vision to see what precisely they want to fund.”

While the cleanup and consolidation work now underway at Notre Dame is hugely important, it does not fit that description, said another foundation official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

That suggests wealthy donors want their money to go toward long-lasting, immortalizing structures and not on the ephemeral but equally vital tasks of cleaning and securing a site that poses real health risks for Parisians.

The Bettencourt Schueller Foundation said it, too, hasn't handed over any money because it wants to ensure its donation is spent on causes that fit the foundation's specific ethos, which supports craftsmanship in art.

so it's hardly like the opinion writer is making shit up.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

https://efa-net.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/EFA-Tax-Survey-Report-Dec-2018.pdf
suggests that they could be giving much more if this was the only concern, since their income would be substantially more than (donation)*5.


from the Voice Of America article, just above the section you quoted


so it's hardly like the opinion writer is making shit up.

Of course it is. Nothing you’ve provided gives any substantiation to the idea they want to brand some part of the rebuilt structure. It’s definitely possible they want to generate some PR out of their money being spent on x,y, z projects during the rebuild but that’s miles away from the “L’Oreal Spire” naming rights he seems to be implying they’re holding out for.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Of course it is. Nothing you’ve provided gives any substantiation to the idea they want to brand some part of the rebuilt structure. It’s definitely possible they want to generate some PR out of their money being spent on x,y, z projects during the rebuild but that’s miles away from the “L’Oreal Spire” naming rights he seems to be implying they’re holding out for.

Even for a normal person donation, there always is a concern on how much of the donation actually ends up in hands of the intended audience/purpose and how much gets lost in administrative/support stuff. I presume something similar is happening here, as in maybe they want their funds to be used for actual restoration rather than support activities.

 

[caid]

Even for a normal person donation, there always is a concern on how much of the donation actually ends up in hands of the intended audience and how much gets lost in administrative/support stuff. I presume something similar is happening here, as in maybe they want their funds to be used for actual restoration rather than support activities.

Isn't that the problem? Their donation comes with strings attached and clauses. The normal person donates money and hopes it gets used sensibly.
They've used Notre Dame being burned down as a PR exercise to take credit for its future renovation and rebuilding but when the bill has been due they've had minimal contribution. That should result in bad PR surely? That should result in a cynical view of when they tweet in 5 years that thanks to L'Oreal the ceiling of Notre Dame has been restored with a picture of one of the greatest works of art in human history.

 

[Pogue Mahone]

Isn't that the problem? Their donation comes with strings attached and clauses. The normal person donates money and hopes it gets used sensibly.
They've used Notre Dame being burned down as a PR exercise to take credit for its future renovation and rebuilding but when the bill has been due they've had minimal contribution. That should result in bad PR surely? That should result in a cynical view of when they tweet in 5 years that thanks to L'Oreal the ceiling of Notre Dame has been restored with a picture of one of the greatest works of art in human history.

Is that a problem, though? They’re giving a shit-load of money which would otherwise have to be covered by French tax-payers. If they think this expenditure can be partially offset by some good PR then isn’t that just a win win? Even if they decide that they can optimise the PR opportunity by deferring funding until the really expensive work gets underway.

And that’s assuming that all these wealthy donors really are entirely motivated by the potential for good PR. An assumption that currently has zero evidence to back it up.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

Their donation comes with strings attached and clauses. The normal person donates money and hopes it gets used sensibly.
They've used Notre Dame being burned down as a PR exercise to take credit for its future renovation and rebuilding but when the bill has been due they've had minimal contribution.

One...as Pogue said, the restoration will take many years to come and bill is not due yet. Two, there are no strings attached. They said they'll contribute to restoration and I believe they are sticking with that. The article says "cleaning and securing the site"...surely you don't have to wait for a $10m contribution to do that? And there will be plenty of overhead expenses in addition to actual restoration cost. The Govt/Church should find other ways to fund those. And finally...If you are donating $10, then it's ok give and hope. Expecting the same for a $10m donation is frankly not reasonable at all.

 

[caid]

Is that a problem, though? They’re giving a shit-load of money which would otherwise have to be covered by French tax-payers. If they think this expenditure can be partially offset by some good PR then isn’t that just a win win? Even if they decide that they can optimise the PR opportunity by deferring funding until the really expensive work gets underway.

And that’s assuming that all these wealthy donors really are entirely motivated by the potential for good PR. An assumption that currently has zero evidence to back it up.

No, its fairly meaningless.
If it wasn't a PR exercise they wouldn't have publicly pledged money and they wouldn't give much of a shit which part of the bill they take credit for. PR is fickle, live by the sword die by the sword.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

It may not be owned by Vatican, but still is a catholic cathedral. I see Vatican has only offered "technical expertise" in support of the restoration. Surely a cause so closely linked to their religion deserves more?