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 ...
No, actually it's true. A California case, Evans v. Berkley, that resulted when the city of Berkley stopped providing free use of a marina to the Sea Scouts because of their policy towards homosexuals. The California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Berkley and against the Scouts and said that the city had done nothing wrong and said, "We agree with Berkeley and the Court of Appeal that a government entity may constitutionally require a recipient of funding or subsidy to provide written, unambiguous assurances of compliance with a generally applicable nondiscrimination policy. We further agree Berkeley reasonably concluded the Sea Scouts did not and could not provide satisfactory assurances because of their required adherence to BSA’s discriminatory policies." When the case was appealed to the Supreme Court, the court rejected the appeal without comment, and let the lower ruling stand.
Not when the rental agreement included building a valuable and durable structure on the property. And not legally either as others have pointed out.
I once bought some real estate for "$10 and other valuable consideration." The legal document was final and binding. It also provided good cover when I sold the real estate and some of my enemies searched the public records in frustration to learn what I had paid for it. They even sicced an IRS tax auditor on me. The auditor lost interest as soon as the truth was shown to him.
Please ping your Scouting list.
Mayor John Street declared that the “Brothers are in charge of Philly”. The BSA did more to help the “Brothers” than White gays.
I support private property rights. However, what many on this thread support is the Government subsidizing private organizations via a major rent abatement.
And while I have no problem with the Boy Scouts (I was one), I think that giving such an abatement to the Boy Scouts can and will lead to other organizations being granted the same abatement as the Boy Scouts.
Today it is the Boy Scouts with such an abatement and then it is the Girl Scouts after that Planned Parenthood will be able to lease a building from the city for $1.00 a year.
Where does it stop? Do you really believe that the Philadelphia city council will consult the majority of Free Republic posters prior to granting such a deal to Planned Parenthood?
I will be constant on the issue. No abatements for pro sports, no abatements for major corporations, no abatements for the Boy Scouts, no abatements for Planned Parenthood and no abatements for the Red Cross.
Nah. Philadelphians would just rather kill each other on the streets than learn to tie a square knot. This is what happens when a culture collapses in upon itself-- and begins to die.
I am familiar with that situation. My issue is with the sentence from the news article that you quoted, which said, "Unlike the scouts, public officials are also bound by a line of Supreme Court opinions barring taxpayer support of any group that discriminates."
This language is so entirely overbroad, it is meaningless. First, the City Council has the right to pass its own laws and additions to its discrimination statutes, and is not bound by the terms of a suit over a marina in California. They would be "bound" only if someone sued the Phila City Council all the way to the Supreme Court and the SCOTUS bound them based on the terms of a lawsuit in Philadelphia.
The civil rights industry in this nation accepts no law or decision as final, provided they are fighting on the left — an inherent abuse.
Secondly, the phrase "any group that discriminates" is bogus. A wife discriminates against men other than her husband who want to have sex with her. A homeowner discriminates against persons who want to enter his property uninvited. Discrimination has become a code word for "bad" and "evil", when it is fundamentally a life-supporting mental faculty that makes you put your hat on your own head and not someone else's.
As another example of the media's slant on issues, the recent court ruling in Maryland that Maryland's marriage law does not constitute illegal discrimination was assailed in print as "court rules against gay marriage", when in fact the court did nothing of the kind, and even indicated in the decision that the definition of marriage was constitutionally the work of the legislature, not the courts.
To quote the sage of Philadelphia, Ben Franklin, "Believe half of what you see and none of what you read."
Duh...at least one of you stooges is catching on.
Would you pay 12,000 a month rent to live in your own house that you built and paid for? Yeah, you probably would. forget it.
Perhaps the Boy Scouts should investigate the tale that passes around Masonic circles about the Freemasons funding and building Philadelphia’s city hall (which is directly across the street from the Pennsylvania Grand Lodge). As the story goes, the Masons built and paid for it, and leases it to the city for —
— hold on now —
ONE DOLLAR!
Hmmmmm... I’m not saying it’s true - I only know the story as it’s told - but perhaps it’s worth looking in to.
(And no, I don’t believe that the Mason’s rule the world or any of the myriad of silly conspiracy theories flying around the nut farm these days)
This is disgusting behavior towards the Scouts.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping lists.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
I believe that this should have been given some consideration the amount of rent was decided upon.
The land belongs to the City of Philadelphia but has been leased since 1928 for that token sum to the scouts, who built the landmark Beaux Arts building.
But then fairness is out of the question these days, when homos are in the picture. Obviously it wasn't -- and never will be, when queers are in the picture.
Now, who could be against such an oath? Gays and lesbians, that’s who,. Is it the “morally straight” part of the oath, the gay community does not like? Or, is there another objective? The gays have objected to the fact that the scouts uphold to their standards of not allowing a gay to lead these impressionable boys, on the basis of discrimination. The local council changed its policy and admitted gays in 2003, but shortly thereafter, the national scout organization overruled that decision. Back In 2000 the Supreme Court ruled that Boys Scouts of America was a private group, and could not be compelled to admit gays. So, you would think that the efforts by the gay community to infiltrate the Boy Scouts were over. Right. Think again.
The city council of the city of brotherly love has reversed its pledge, reversed its agreement, and reversed its long-standing contract with the Cradle of Liberty Council of Boy Scouts in Philadelphia. They voted 16 to 1 to break a 79-year-old agreement allowing the Cradle of Liberty Council of the Boy Scouts to occupy a building in a city park. The Scouts built the building in 1928, and turned it over to the city in exchange for a rent-free lease “in perpetuity.”
“In a 16-1 vote, the council approved a resolution that would terminate the Scout’s rent-free lease on a building at 22nd and Winter streets. The resolution states, “The City of Philadelphia’s Home Rule Charter and the City’s Fair Practices Ordinance reflect broad City policy abhorring discrimination and the Boy Scouts’ policy and conduct is directly contrary to the principles of equal access and opportunity enshrined in Philadelphia law….”
The boy scouts continue to refuse to admit homosexuals as scout leaders, and that is considered as discrimination, so therefore, the city of brotherly love cannot have any of that stuff. “In light of that continued refusal, this council can no longer allow the organization to use a city building free of charge,” said Councilman Darrell Clarke.”
Source: http://asiseeitnow.wordpress.com/2007/07/02/boy-scouts-thrown-out-of-philadelphia/
.
Sounds like a good plan! : )
Very, very true.
No...it said that the City Council had passed a resolution in 1928 to allow the use in perpetuity, but that doesn't mean there's necessarily any perpetual lease agreement.
In 1928 City Council adopted a resolution allowing the Boy Scouts to use land at 22nd and Winter streets “in perpetuity,” as long as any building on the premises housed Boy Scouts-related programming. But City Council members voted May 31 to authorize termination of the lease on grounds that the city will not “subsidize” any organization that discriminates against gays.The BSA can still use the land...as long as they pay the rent of $200,000.
I beg your pardon?
It really is blackmail.
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.