Posted on 10/18/2007 9:41:25 AM PDT by Pyro7480
The Boy Scouts of America's refusal to bend its rules to permit gay scouts will cost the organization's local chapter $200,000 a year if it wishes to keep its headquarters in a city-owned building on Logan Square.
Representatives of the Boy Scouts of America's Cradle of Liberty Council were notified that to remain in their 79-year-old landmark headquarters, they needed to pay the city a "fair market" rent, Fairmount Park Commission president Robert N.C. Nix said yesterday. Currently, the rent is $1 a year....
(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...
Boyhood trama?
It’s not confusing. Don’t build on land you don’t own, because you don’t get to keep the building if you do. If you rent, don’t improve the house, because the landlord gets to keep it and you don’t get reimbursed.
Sick b@stards is right! This just proves what I predicted all along:
They must be satisfied that their agenda is solidly in the face of everything and everyone or else they will FORCE it on us.
It might be a girlscout
No, i did not miss the point.
But why should the scouts get free land from the city?
They are not getting free land! The city is not giving them the land. It is letting them use it for $1 per year in return for building the building on it.
If the city does not want to rent to the BSA anymore then they should get their building back.
I am not sure where you got that number from.
However, even in Austin the new Planned Parenthood office and S. Congress and Ben White was bought by PP with out the Austin tax payer contributing a dime.
I agree, but a few clarifying points:
1) These are individual benefits even more than they are for the city. I cannot imagine the original agreement in 1928 to have been, "OK, we'll let you build your offices here and stay for $1 a year, and in exchange you give us some leaders." I'm looking at this issue from a more step-by-step, concrete, and less abstract POV.
2) The BSA is not the only organization, especially in a city the size of Philadelphia, that builds character. Do the others also get similar breaks?
3) Does every Boy Scout mature into an adult with purpose and character? If a former scout commits a vicious crime as an adult, does that take anything away from the scouts? That's why I tend to boil groups down to the individuals that make them up, as everyone's different in some way.
Sorry to ramble, but I'm on your side here. I want the BSA to be treated fairly by the government...and by "fairly" I mean left alone. To be left alone, they'll have to wean themselves off every government benefit they currently receive. If that means a one-time purchase of the land, at fair market price, which they will then own FOREVER, so be it. Gays have nothing to do with this...the government does.
Ahhh... Slowly the facts of the matter begin to sink in. I see you have abandoned the term "free rent" and "free land" for the factually correct $1.00/year rent.
With time you actually may begin to understand even more facts in this specific circumstance. Eventually, you may even understand the whole.
Bravo, exactly right. No free rides! The irony is that Trumandogz is as correct as you are. Taxes shouldn’t go to support anything or anyone except essential services.
Please explain to me why a private organization should only pay $1.00 a year rent for a piece of land?
178 posted on 10/18/2007 10:46:48 AM PDT by trumandogz (Hunter Thompson 2008)
Um for someone who has filled this thread with lots of legalese about tenents and land holders and upgrades, you seem to lack the basic understanding of contracts. If the city made a contract with the BSA in 1926 for $1 then that is the contract. If yuo do not like it, invent the time machine and go back and stop it. Come on now, you sound like a broken record. If even you cannot see the moral degradation hitting our society (this is only one symptom) then you have your head buried so far in the sand it would take a bulldozer to dig you out.
If it ain’t on wheels, it belongs to the landholder as a fixed capital improvement.
He is just another way hunter it.....
have they done this to all organizations with similar arrangeents?
So a group dedicated to CHILDREN is being penalized because they have a policy against a form of RECREATIONAL SEX!
The person in Philidelphia Gov. who came up with this is sick.
Magnificent proof that leftism is mentally deranged.
The city owns the building. That's what happens when you build on land not your own. This is true everywhere. If you build a building in New York City, on city property (which is common), the building belongs to the city unless you have a iron clad contract that says otherwise. In the absence of such a contract, the city gains ownership of the building. NYC won't sign off on such a contract without dozens of defaults stipulated in which the building owner can default and lose the building. Ask Donald Trump. He has a story to tell on this one.
Shortly after the Dale decision, the Boy Scouts hailed it as support for their position that they could set their own standards for leaders and members. That would seem to indicate that homosexuals are not welcome either as scouts or scout leaders.
If the Boy Scouts paid for, and built the building, they should have it appraised and take Philly to court to force the city to buy it. Take the money, and go somewhere else, buy a piece of property, and rebuild.
And the Boy Scouts have violated their lease.
Now, perhaps you could invent a time machine and stop the law that states that the city could not rent to an organization the discriminates.
Not always. Plus that is negotiable. Plus once they become part of the permanent structure YOU are responsible for maintaining it. If a tenant wants/needs improvements, usually the property owner either shares in the cost, or offers a reduction in rent to the tenant to offset the cost of the needed improvement or adjustment to the property in order for it to be suitable for him to conduct his business in. The property owner may even offer (gasp) free rent for a period. Most commercial property owners are very flexible in that regard, because an empty property generates ZERO revenue. Ther are pricks in the business however. Those properties tend to stand out as run down eyesores that are vacant half the time. They become crack houses, places where vagrants dwell, fire hazards, and an overall burden to the city.(the taxpayer) Are you one of those? For some reason, it wouldn't suprize me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.