Posted on 02/06/2004 6:59:25 AM PST by John Jorsett
The Boy Scouts of America filed a federal lawsuit yesterday against the city of San Diego, charging that the city violated the group's civil rights by settling a Balboa Park lease dispute with the American Civil Liberties Union.
Carla Kerr, a New York lawyer representing the Scouts, said the group hopes the lawsuit will force the city to recommit to its $1-a-year lease with the Scouts, which is similar to agreements made with other nonprofit groups in the park.
"The city is engaging in viewpoint discrimination by saying we have this program available to other organizations but not you," Kerr said.
The city agreed in January to cancel its lease with the Scouts for Camp Balboa, which the group has occupied since 1946. As part of the deal, the city agreed to pay $790,000 of the ACLU's legal fees and $160,000 in court costs.
The settlement was designed to end the city's part in the lawsuit the ACLU filed against city and the Scouts in August 2000, two months after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts could refuse to admit gay troop members or troop leaders. The ACLU's lawsuit accused the city of showing favoritism toward a religious organization.
In July, U.S. District Judge Napoleon Jones Jr. agreed with the ACLU, ruling that the lease violated the constitutional separation of church and state. Jones also rejected the Scouts' contention that canceling the lease would violate the group's civil rights.
Mayor Dick Murphy would not comment last night on the Scouts' lawsuit because he hadn't seen it, said his deputy press secretary, David Hicks. The mayor referred calls to the City Attorney's Office.
City Attorney Casey Gwinn said there is no legal basis for the lawsuit, which he said "looks like a public relations argument more than it looks like a legal argument."
"The City Council acted prudently in approving a settlement agreement that simply puts the city on the sidelines, while the Boy Scouts (fights) its battle with the ACLU," Gwinn said.
Gwinn said the Scouts' decision to name the six council members who voted in favor of the settlement, as well as the city's real estate assets director, in the lawsuit was "just mean-spirited." He said they were acting in their official capacity, not personally.
Kerr contended the Scouts were forced to sue because the city still expects the Scouts to fulfill the obligations of the lease, even though the city has agreed to cancel it. One of the requirements is investing $350,000 in the site by April, she said.
"The city has started to harass the Scouts by trying to get the Scouts into a position of breaching their contract," Kerr said.
Requiring the Boy Scouts to continue making improvements at the site was not harassment, Gwinn said, but was requiring them to live up to their lease. He said the terms of the lease remain in place until all court action, including appeals, is concluded.
Councilman Jim Madaffer, whose two sons are Boy Scouts, said he didn't blame the Scouts for suing.
"The city extended the lease less than three years ago and then made a deal with the devil," said Madaffer, who voted with the mayor against canceling the lease. "Perhaps this will force the city and the Scouts to work together once again."
City Councilwoman Toni Atkins, who voted to approve the settlement, said the city had no choice but to settle.
"We were in a position that we had to decide to protect taxpayers' dollars," she said.
Atkins, a lesbian, voted in December 2001 against renewing the Boy Scout lease and voted last month to cancel it.
She said the city chose "to step out of the fray" when it agreed to cancel the lease, but the Boy Scouts' lawsuit puts the city back in the middle.
"I don't know how many fronts they want to fight this battle on," Atkins said. "It would seem to me that their action today pushes the city to join the ACLU in fighting against them. I don't understand that strategy."
Every front you care to engage them on.
"It would seem to me that their action today pushes the city to join the ACLU in fighting against them. I don't understand that strategy."
Handing over $950,000 to the ACLU and abandoning support of the BSA already qualifies as joining the ACLU against the BSA. Thought you could just walk away from this, didn't you? Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.