Ooh, "a libertarian gone mad"--I like that. I listened to the Scouts' "reasoning" on the radio. They boiled down to 1. It's tradition, we've done this for 80? years. And 2. We can continue to give thousands of disadvantaged youth a once-in-a-lifetime outdoor camping experience. Wow. My idea of taxpayer subsidized help for disadvanged youth is not a camping experience in a public park.
I asked myself, "These are reasons to "spend" taxpayer money?" You might argue that it's not "spending" but it would be lost revenue in exchange for "benefits" to the community as provided by the Scouts. So it, at the very least is a barter deal and, from what I can tell, doesn't sound like a very good one. I'm underwhelmed by this "benefit".
Further, Balboa Park--where someone seems to think the Scouts will be a sanctuary from homosexuals--has repeatedly been raided in the past for public sex including anonymous homosexual sex. There's a bit or irony here, wouldn't you agree? If that's what the Scouts want to offer, they can find the money needed for a full market value lease via (your?) private donations. They can also use a (safer!) private camp facility.
I know the "Radio Mayor" and others have painted this as an "us vs. NAMBLA and the radical homosexual agenda" case but there are other things that *must* be asked. One must determine if the tax payer will be getting a reasonable return on this decade's long sweetheart deal. It sure hasn't with the Chargers and from what I heard on radio, I'm highly skeptical about what the Scouts are offering in return. You may have a different point of view.
This is a taxpayer give away, for 30 yrs (the length of the deal seems to be different that I recollected earlier), for what I'm hearing are an unjustified reason (tradition) and slim benefit (camp-outs) to the community at large. It seems a number of Freepers (blindly) support it because of the benefits to one of their "pet" causes. That cause is the Boy Scouts of America.
Rest assured, if it was a give away to an alternative "scouts" organization which allowed full homosexual participation which had done as much direct local community "good" with the taxpayer break, and offered the above two-point justification for the deal, would you support the lease or not? I would not support it anymore enthusiastically than the Boy Scout's request.
It is really important that we make a big impact tomorrow
I'm sure it was; I'm sorry I was too busy to attend. I'm sure the Boy Scouts will get their deal. The homosexual activists will have a rallying point against the city or politicians or Scouts or whatever to further their causes and raise funds.
I admit to some concerns with the city engaging in a sweetheart deal, presumably to the benefit of the public good with a legal discriminatory private organization. If the Scouts were paying a market rate for city land and facility use they could legally discriminate in any fashion they chose. However, when you're asking for *special treatment* from the Public in exchange for services it's not unreasonable to expect fair treatment regarding all disadvantaged youth otherwise eligible for the Scouts' program. The Scouts exclude atheist kids just as it would youths who identify themselves as homosexual.
In the scope of the "us vs. the gays" pro-Scout argument, which you seem to suggest is the only *relevant* one, the bottom-line in my view is this: if you're going to feed at the taxpayer's nipple then you have to be willing to shoulder additional responsibility and to meet a higher burden of non-discrimination regardless of your private status and legal rights thereof.
Please remember that the taxpayers of San Diego don't *owe* ANYTHING to private organizations.
| Take a look at this. This is what protested the Boy Scouts in San Diego. |
This is the future and if you say anything about this thing, you will be called a bigot. If anyone thinks that this should be in charge of young boys then I must have awakened in an alternative universe. No more listening to Art Bell.
Jimbaugh |
 |