Oh I'm sure that the Boy Scouts assumed that was true but as it turns out there was no lease and no contract. They're at the mercy of the city and state.
Surely there has to be a compromise. The building is worthless without the city lot it's built on. The lot is worthless to the city so long as the historical building sits on it. Sell the lot to the Scouts for a token amount and that should settle everything.
I wonder, that since at the time the scouts build the building, then donated it (and the land?) to the city in exchange for a payment of one dollar/yr. “in perpetuity” (probably to avoid taxes) that since the city wants to negate this agreement, should not the building and land be returned to the scouts as a result of this act.
I would think that the public should get on board and tell the city to give it back to the scouts.
Sounds like an issue that should be voted on, rather than the city spending taxpayers money on lawyers.
You are assuming good will on the part of the City Council, which is not the case; rather, it is a Democrat ideological persecution of the Scouts because they do not permit homosexual behavior. If it were a simple problem-solving exercise, it wouldn't be a problem.
San Diego and other cities have been having huge lawsuits involving Christian crosses on public lands erected after WWII as war memorials to the many Christians who died serving our country. Present city governments want to retroactively tear down these memorials, saying they violate discrimination policies. In some cases, private groups have purchased the plot of land under the memorial to try to solve the problem, only to have the ACLU attack dogs go back in and run up ruinuous costs splitting more legal hairs. The fights will continue.