Newport won't rent to Boy Scouts

Newport News-Times (Oregon) ^ | 8/19/2004 | Joel Gallob

[RonF]

The Newport City Council unanimously voted this week to turn down a request from the Boy Scouts to rent the building that had, for years, housed the office of Mrs. Santa Claus - Dorothy Grover.

The problem with the request, explained City Manager Sam Sasaki after the meeting, was "a question of separation of church and state."

Newport resident Tom Gravon had contacted the city administration, and sent a letter to the News-Times on the issue, raising the question of the appropriateness of a municipal government leasing a property to an organization with broad ties to various religions.

The building was originally built by the Lions Club, noted Mayor Mark Jones. "It appears we're not able to lease it exclusively to the Boy Scouts," Jones said. He asked the city council "to direct that the building be taken over by Newport Parks and Recreation Department for rental purposes."

"We received an e-mail from (City Attorney) Chris Minor," who's in Seattle, said Sasaki, and Minor urged the city to let the lease run out and expire this coming November, and seek another tenant.

[RonF]

So if you can't rent a building to the Boy Scouts, how can you give churches a property tax exemption? How is renting to the Boy Scouts violating the principle of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, ..."? The BSA is not a religion, and favoring it (or even renting a building to it) is hardly favoring one religion over all others (which is what "establishment of religion" is)?

[TommyDale]

The Newport City Council and City Attorney need to get educated on the Constitution, and even on court decisions that prove they are full of bovine excrement.

[TommyDale]

It's warfare, folks! Anyone out there?

[BibChr]

I glanced back to up to make sure this wasn't from Scrappleface.

Nope. Just Warshington.

Dan
(c;

[So Cal Rocket]

Lock and load, buddy.

[maestro]

Newport won't rent to Boy Scouts .....

'That's only fair,.....',says Kerry.

/sarcasm election poster

[Southack]

"It appears we're not able to lease it exclusively to the Boy Scouts," Jones said."

...Jones then added that Boy Scouts could also not be rented access to toll roads, unless other cars with certified athiests were present...

< /mocking >

5 Legislative Days Left Until The AWB Expires

[Steve_Seattle]

The Scouts are not a religion per se, but they have a recognition of a supreme being as part of their pledge, and they require members to accept the pledge. They also, for moral reasons, do not accept homosexuals as scout leaders. I think what the scouts represent, then, is not a religion, but a "creed," a belief system, and most civil rights laws prohibit government from discriminating on the basis of "creed," among several other categories. So refusing to rent to the scouts seems to be a violation of their rights under the law.

[Southack]

fyi

[Between the Lines]

While I disagree with the Newport City Council for there reasoning not to rent to the BSA, I do not believe that any city should rent space to any group exclusively as they have done in the past with the Boy Scouts. The BSA is entitled to have equal access to public facilities, but not exclusive access. When a city has policies that allow exclusive access to public facilities this opens up the door to all kind of corruption and politicizing. If we allow groups exclusive access what happens when an overzealous liberal government is elected and decides that these properties should be filled with the Gay Scouts and Planned Parenthood and all other kinds of depraved organizations?

I know I will get grief for this, but it is what is right.

[Steve_Seattle]

Yes, it appears the officials in this town do not understand the Constitution at all. By their reasoning, a municipality couldn't rent an auditorium to a religious group for a Christian music concert because that would be "violating the separation of church and state." Idiocy. Sounds like a bunch of rubes down there.

[Steve_Seattle]

The City of Seattle had a lot of surplus property after voters turned down a project to create a freeway (the property had already been bought by the City as right-of-way for the freeway.) For years, as it tried to figure out other ways to do the freeway project, the City held on to this property and leased the various parcels to a number of businesses. Was there something wrong with that, as long as the city charged fair market value? I don't see the problem, even if they rented a parcel to a church. The question is: why does the city own this property in the first place? If it has no use for it for governmental purposes, it should be sold.

[Grendelgrey]

....so let me ask the obvious...how can the state pay rent support to families with religious convictions?Are known "Church Goers"exempted from state aid?

And just to be a smart guy...How is it that Jesse Jackson can collect $$$$ for PU$H and churches of all types collect tithes from congregants who are known to be on welfare or other state support?Does that not violate the precious separation clause?

The whole voucher issue is predicated on state funding not going to religious schools.Really where are the Tithe Police when you need them?Somebody drop a dime....

[Salvation]

Oregon Ping

Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Oregon Ping List.

[gcruse]

Thanks for the ping.

[gcruse]

IF they rented the auditorium exclusively to a religious organization, would that change your view?

[Between the Lines]

Was there something wrong with that, as long as the city charged fair market value?

Yes, Should a city hold enough property in one location then the city would control what the fair market value is in that area.

I don't see the problem, even if they rented a parcel to a church.

Here in the "good ol' boy" south this is a big problem. Many cities rent unused properties to churches and organizations like the BSA for much less than market value (sometimes as little as a dollar a year) just to build their constituency. Of course they pick and choose who will get these "deals".This appears on the surface to everyone as altruistic (after all they are non-profits) but let us not forget that the taxpayers are subsidizing these organizations. And again what happens when a liberal government is elected and gets to choose who can rent these properties.

The question is: why does the city own this property in the first place?

Exactly!

If it has no use for it for governmental purposes, it should be sold.

I would have to disagree with this. There are civic applications such as meeting halls, recreation areas, sports fields and the like that is appropriate for government to own. But no one should have exclusive rights to these properties.

As far as the properties that the city of Seattle condemned to make way for the freeway and now owns, why haven't they tried to sell it? It is hard to believe that they could find no buyers.

[Steve_Seattle]

"IF they rented the auditorium exclusively to a religious organization, would that change your view?"

It gets back to why they have this property in the first place. Municipal auditoriums, concert halls, and stadiums are normally rented to a wide variety of tenants, secular and religious. There is no constitutional issue whatsoever. Now, if for some reason the city owns property such as a single-family house or a business property, you should ask: why does the city own this? Is this being used for governmental purposes, or is it basically surplus property? It sounds to me that in the Newport case, this is property that the government has no use for, and is therefore leasing out. My opinion is if this is surplus property, it should be sold; but if the city wants to lease it and save it for some possible future governmental use, I don't see any constitutional problem whether they lease it to one tenant, secular or religious, or use it as a revolving facility for short-term rentals, as long as they charge fair-market rent. (Although governments do sometimes use the "comparative-value" principle, whereby low rents are given in exchange for an ostensible public service provided by the renter.)

[No Longer Free State]

Sue the bastard who apparently can't remember that the Supreme Court has already ruled otherwise.

[Steve_Seattle]

"As far as the properties that the city of Seattle condemned to make way for the freeway and now owns, why haven't they tried to sell it? It is hard to believe that they could find no buyers."

I think they finally did sell them, but only after many years. They explored other options for the freeway, and held onto the parcels why they did so, but the public just didn't want the freeway so the city finally gave up.