[Non-Sequitur]

That's fair enough, if the city owns the property free and clear. It doesn't; the city is contractually obligated to rent the property to the Boy Scouts for $1 per year.

The city does own the property and if there was a contrct with the Boy Scouts then we wouldn't be having this discussion. There was, apparently, an informal agreement which the city has chosen to void.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

There was, apparently, an informal agreement which the city has chosen to void.

I would want a link before I took for granted that just because the transaction between the Boy Scouts and the city took place a couple of generations ago it follows that everything was done on a handshake basis. There were lawyers, even back then - and it would have been a serious undertaking for the Scouts to build their - repeat, their - building. If they hadn't considered it their building, why did they build it?