Posted on 10/18/2007 9:41:25 AM PDT by Pyro7480
The Boy Scouts of America's refusal to bend its rules to permit gay scouts will cost the organization's local chapter $200,000 a year if it wishes to keep its headquarters in a city-owned building on Logan Square.
Representatives of the Boy Scouts of America's Cradle of Liberty Council were notified that to remain in their 79-year-old landmark headquarters, they needed to pay the city a "fair market" rent, Fairmount Park Commission president Robert N.C. Nix said yesterday. Currently, the rent is $1 a year....
(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...
I saw your point first, but it bears repeating on a thread of this size. I'm also glad the conversations are less about gays and more about private organizations and government benefits, which is the real issue here.
Precisely. While it may seem fairly clear what was originally intended, if the Scouts don't have it in writing they have a problem. Whatever they do have in writing - and I would guess it's something or they'd be silly to have pumped that much money into upkeep - will end up the bone of contention in court, which is where this is certainly heading.
"God is love, but get it in writing." Gypsy Rose Lee
EXCELLENT POINT.
Perhaps the city should just sell the land to the scouts for $1 a year.
Probably the same deviants who want to turn Episcopal churches into Bathhouses and Condos are the ones who want to take this landmark (it is eligible for national landmark status thus precluding alteration or demolitions) and turn it into a stain.
For land use- absolutely. I don't know of any city that doesn't. Vacant land requires maintenance, and that becomes the cities burden if it isn't in use.
Ain't logic a bitch?
"Unlike the scouts, public officials are also bound by a line of Supreme Court opinions barring taxpayer support of any group that discriminates.
In Philadelphia, officials wrestled for months for a way to let the scouts remain at their longtime headquarters.
At one point in 2005, the city and scouts seemed poised to agree on a policy statement adopted by New York scouts. That statement, while not renouncing the bars against atheist or gay members, affirmed that "prejudice, intolerance and unlawful discrimination in any form are unacceptable."
But last year, Diaz wrote Cradle of Liberty Council officials to say the suggested policy statement could not be reconciled with the city's own anti-discriminatory fair-practices ordinance.
Again, both sides began trading proposals. That ended May 31, when City Council voted 16-1 to authorize ending the lease with Cradle of Liberty Council."
The city has to abide by the anti-discrimination laws in place. San Francisco would have cut the Scouts loose - I believe Berkley did - but at least Philly tried to find a compromise. In the end their hands were tied.
The Scouts stand head and shoulders above the Philadelphia city government and it’s officials.
THEY should be kicked out of the city and the officials tarred, feathered, and ridden out on a rail.
THEN put the scouts in to restore the dank cesspool of filth that Philadelphia has become. Rotten to the core.
The city can say that the Scouts can keep their building. Just get it off the city lot.
That's the conclusion I reached later in post 119. But there's more to this case. For example, the lease was supposed to be "in perpetuity." It'll be interesting to see how the case turns out.
I doubt that. IF you developed commercial property,(whish I seriously doubt) I'm sure you would take advantage of every government grant/ cost sharing arrangement and tax break possible.
Are the churches built on city land? I don't think so.
I don’t believe I was attempting to refute his points about the lease (which would be unwise, as I have not reviewed it). Yes, I have law degree.
As to your question (”Ain’t logic a bitch?) . . . only for some, it would seem.
I would love to see the contract between them.
Thanks for the clarification.
Is it safe to assume they couldn’t even demolish it without the landowner’s approval? (E.g., return the property to its “as received” condition.)
The Scouts built the building, then donated it to the City. That is the value exchanged — the property, especially in that location, is worth many millions. In addition, they pay various other licensing and utility fees.
The fact that they built this mega-million dollar building and donated it to the City as a condition of the original rent agreement.
Like hell it is. Lot's a people and business build on leased land. usually, and I'm sure this is true in the boyscouts case as well, a long term lease was signed. The builder does have the option of removing the building. In fact, sometimes the building owner abandons the building after it has outlived it's usefulness, leaving the city to tear it down. This happens in every city, which is why you see these death traps all over the place. the city would gladly sign another 100 year lease for a buck IF a developer would come along and tear down the building. These properties are always being looked at, and developers make deals with the city to redevelop these lots. This is where grants, cost sharing from state/fed. government, etc. come in to play. It's the way of the world. A property can be sitting for 20 years by the time a re-development plan comes to conclusion. I've worked on many of them.
I’ve worked on many of them.
from the engineering side of things.
The reverse is also true. Just across Logan Square from the Scouts headquarters sits the Roman Catholic cathedral and the Archdiocese buildings. It's just a matter of increments before the tax exemptions for churches will be assailed because of "discrimination."
If the lease has expired, yes the can. I didn't see that it was in the article however.
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.