I was not.
However, from the information you presented upthread, it isn’t entirely clear who owned, or now owns, the land on which the building was built.
I don't think there's any dispute that the city owns the land now. If they didn't, how could they claim rent? From what I can figure out from the bits and pieces is that the land was owned by the city, part of the same parcel that the large adjacent park and the nearby museums were built on. The Scouts offered to build a building on one lot, then give it to the city in return for the $1/year rent, which was "perpetual," but included a clause that allowed the city to end it with one year's notice.
What I've noticed in all of this is that the Scouts don't seem to be claiming any particular legal leg to stand on. They're making a moral argument instead. It seems that if they did have some legal grounds to fight this, they'd be all over it.