[Gondring]

Nope... ever heard of “adverse possession,” my FRiend?

IANAL.

[Non-Sequitur]

Nope... ever heard of “adverse possession,” my FRiend?

And I'm sure they may try to argue it, but whether it applies in this case will depend on what the Pennsylvania statute says.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Nope... ever heard of “adverse possession,” my FRiend?

Not gonna work. While some articles have said that the Scouts have been there rent-free, the fact is that they've paid a token rent of $1 per year. That invalidates any adverse possession claim.

[muawiyah]

Adverse possession doesn't ever start if you have permission to be there. The court could rule that the Boy Scouts didn't actually have permission. Then adverse possession comes into play.

The city may well have lost control, if not ownership, of the land in question.

As far as the Boy Scouts building is concerned, a government can never claim "adverse possession". Instead this becomes a "taking". Kelo didn't exempt the government from paying for property it takes. That ruling simply allowed certain governments in some states to pay for it and then give it away to rich people who felt a need.

I would imagine a court could set a very high value on that building and stick Philadelphia with a major bill.

This stuff is all pretty basic. I think all the court is going to get into here is a timetable for events and a computation of who owes what for which, and the homosexual community will be blamed for it all ~ which they should be. Greedy bunch of little piggies they are too!