My opinion on the rent reduction, however, stands regardless of any lawsuits against the scouts. I've worked in a litigation support capacity on many multi-billion-dollar lawsuits, which private organizations face all the time. The Boy Scouts are no different. I have a neutral opinion on them, neither pro nor anti. In the end, they are either private or they're not -- they shouldn't be able to play both sides of the coin.
Fair enough, you got flamed pretty hard.
Maybe you can help clear up this problem. If the city leased the land with the understanding that the BSA would improve the land and then maintain it along with providing a valuable community service, what becomes of the building and the associated costs the BSA paid for over the past 80 or so years? Does the city own it, does the city pay the BSA fair market value for the building, does the city reimburse the BSA for all costs?
Like I mentioned in one of my earlier posts. The BSA was/is providing a service to the city. I call it bartering, yet others are calling it “free land”. I guess that’s the distinction.
SZ