[BykrBayb]

The building in question was constructed with money raised by the Scouts 80 years ago. Since that time, the Council has paid all costs associated with the maintenance, repair, and improvement of the building. The land on which the building sits had been turned over to the city by the Scouts with the understanding that the Scouts would be able to stay in the Beaux Arts style building "in perpetuity."

The city isn't doing the Boy Scouts any favors. The Boy Scouts have a legal claim on the property. I'm sure some "legal scholar" will come along and explain how the homophiles have all the rights, and homosexual pedophiles have a constitutional right to other people's children.

[Non-Sequitur]

The Boy Scouts have a legal claim on the property.

The Scouts have a legal claim to the building. The city owns the land it sits on, and have been allowing the Scouts to use it rent-free. Since there was only a hand-shake agreement on the rent-free status to begin with then the city is free to change it at any time. So if the Scouts lose the case then I assume the city has to give them something for the value of the building they're forcing the Scouts to abandon?