The city owns the building. That's what happens when you build on land not your own. This is true everywhere. If you build a building in New York City, on city property (which is common), the building belongs to the city unless you have a iron clad contract that says otherwise. In the absence of such a contract, the city gains ownership of the building. NYC won't sign off on such a contract without dozens of defaults stipulated in which the building owner can default and lose the building. Ask Donald Trump. He has a story to tell on this one.
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.