Skip to comments.City Hikes Boy Scouts' Rent by $199,999 over Gay Ban (Philadelphia)
Posted on 10/18/2007 9:41:25 AM PDT by Pyro7480
click here to read article
I thought only liberals and MSM made knee jerk judgments and reactions to two-bit headlines.
Yes, that is true, although there have ben troops that have kicked out atheist and gay youths, that is up to the troop, not the national or council level.
You can’t even be honest in your own head! LOL
That’s alright the Lord love you anyway!:)
Most, if not all, scouting organizations participate as unpaid volunteers at community functions and special events. If they didn't, the city would have to staff those events at a significant cost.
Your statement is a non-sequitor.
It’s now been established on the thread that the boy scouts built this building with their funds, and the City gets plenty of benefits from the Boy Scouts.
Yes, the Boy Scouts do deserve public help. Such as allowing the boy scout troops to use schools for meetings, etc. The benefits to the community in reducing juvenile delinquency and building up solid citizens more than pays for the minor costs involved, which is less than the maintenance of a park or two.
You’re bearing false witness against me while inhaling and praying for me while exhaling.
As I said, you make no sense.
Must be bi polar?
And if a tenant wishes to improve a property the improvements become property of the landlord.
Broad-brush generalities are typically false. It's a drive-by smear.
Your math skills are as poor as your legal skills.
$0.00/year is "free rent".
$1.00/year is a legally recognized amount.
Please keep playing, you have been the sole entertainment value in this thread thus far.
Holding the catholic church accountable for its action is not being a bigotry however if you read my comments it was anti-government not anti catholic as I was noting the government was trying to destroy one of the few great organizations left they have not already destroyed.
This comes from my 1st amendment belief in freedom of assembly in that we have a right to pick our friends and those we associate with.
Did you merely refer to a historical event? The events I think you are referring too involved a few priests. Your post attacks ALL Catholics.
the city engaging on thug tactics. asking the boy scouts to lower moral standards or pay the price?
I think he/she must be allergic to reading beyond headlines and message boards.
I’ve never heard anything about the Boy Scouts refusing to admit gay scouts—I’ve just heard they didn’t want gay scout leaders. But then it’s hard for me to wrap my mind around a scout being sexually active, much less homosexually active. I would think any kind of sexual activity outside marriage would violate the oath of a Scout.
Where did you get your legal degree? How long did you spend reviewing the relevant documents between the parties in this case? How long did you spend in the law library researching all the issues involved?
Welfare? Get over yourself.
Whoops, you have me mixed up with someone else. I’m not the guy who posted the comment that the guy called bigoted.
If folks want the BSA “off of welfare” then they need to put up or shut up. The BSA is not on welfare, it was started as a volunteer organization and has basically been one ever since. With growth comes organization and the need for paid professionals to ensure continuity. There is also the cost in buildings, land, maintenance and salaries to name a few.
Years ago, it was noticed that the BSA is the best “one stop shopping” for values based programs that develop the future crop of our country’s leaders. If that isn’t worth 1 stinkin’ dollar per year, I don’t know what the hell is.
I have never discounted the merit of the Boy Scouts to a community.
However, should all organizations that some people feel are a benefit to the community receive rent of $1.00 per year?
The bigot here is edcoil, not that guy. Your point is well made.
Did you read my post with the other source? The BSA built the building, and they pay $60,000/year to maintain it. They’ve invested millions to refurbish it.
So, the situation is different from what the article suggests. If they can, they should demolish the building as they’re leaving. Or the city should at least pay top dollar for it.
Please explain to me why a private organization should only pay $1.00 a year rent for a piece of land?
To the best of my knowledge they do not. Your memory is correct concerning gay Scout leaders. There was a controversy awhile back about admitting Scouts who were avowed atheists due to the "Brave, Clean, Reverent" credo - possibly people are conflating the two issues.
Thanks, not a lawyer, yet I figured I was on some kind of “right” track.
Answer my questions first.
The poster made a classic FR mistake of spouting off before reading the article. Now, the poster is too full of him/her self to admit the mistake and back down. So they keep spouting more and more uninformed garbage as they spin themselves deeper and deeper into a hole of their own making.
I enjoy watching the show. It's entertaining.
Well they do, and for a variety of reasons as others have pointed out to you.
They provide a benefit for the cities residents, whether it be recreation, or some other service the public enjoys for little or no cost.
what you propose is that the citizens "the city" build and maintain all these places and charge the appropriate fee for the publics use of them, which of course will negate the need for many of them completely.
Rather than try defend your hopeless position, you should admit that you never put much thought into it.
Imagen a city that ran according to your way of thinking. It would have NOTHING to offer it's citizens, no recreation, no community clubs, skating rinks, soccer fields, sports clubs, yacht clubs, womens centers, and charities run facilities of ANY sort.
Kids would have even LESS to do than they do now, they wouldn't even have scate board parks to contain their vandalizm, because they would have to pay to get into them.
Those kids, teens and young adults with nothing to do, and no money to pay for anything to do WILL find something to do, usually to YOUR property.
Plus it would be a real crappy city to live in.
Tenant improvements to a piece of property become the property of the land owner.
Read post 65 with the CAPS and get back to me.
I wouldn't put it beyond a city like Philadelphia to try to use eminent domain to just kick the scouts out regardless of who owns the building. Both sides may have to go to court to try to figure out all of the ownership and financial issues...which would be unfortunate.
Keep in mind I'm on the scouts' side here. Ideally, they should just be able to purchase the land and remain there as long as they want without ever paying a cent of property taxes. That should be true, BTW, for all homeowners and private organizations as well. I only wish I could be more politically active.
See the 2nd paragraph of post 172.
My apologies. That one is a bigot too.
Are you saying that your city offers private organizations rent of $1.00 per year to yacht clubs, soccer fields and skating rings?
Have a merry day contrarian...
Paragraphs give me hives!
Is this a ground lease? If not, then it is not comparable. The Boy Scouts would be within their rights to demolish the building when they left; your tenants are not.
And commercial vs public-non-profit is apples v oranges.
The City is getting a great deal with the $1 ground lease of the building, benefits to the community way beyond the minor subsidy on this ground lease.
Of course! Everyone’s a bigot except for you and “Character Counts”.
Love the ad hominems. Seems like you love them too, based upon reading your past posts.
You raise the point I’ve been trying to make - without knowing the details of the original agreement between the scouts and the city, we can’t know whether the city’s action is justified.
“So therefore, every non-profit organization in Philadelphia should get free land from the city.”
Did or did not the city of Philidelphia, in 1928, sign a written contract agreeing to the arrangement?
It matters not a wit how ill-advised the “bargain” may have been, or with some now appears to be. Contract law is binding on all parties — even the PC variety.
For 79 years the arrangement worked well for the city’s image, and thus to its advantage — including that of attracting morally-upright families, thus increasing the cities tax base. Otherwise, the contract would not have been agreed upon in the first instance.
The arrangement was never questioned until the sodomites took control of Philidelphia, in similar fashion where they have acquired control of every other city and organization — through the silence and inaction of “good” men.
Ironically, the purpose of the Boy Scouts is the formation of character, so to bring about a citizenry of good men, whom may rise in their adulthood to sound leadership — precisely the reason why sodomites desire the destructioon of the BSA. Good leaders must needs be moral men, not weak, easily manipulated, gutter trolls.
Liberals have no use for men of reason and moral character. Let’s not help their cause by advocating tax envy. The contract ought stand a court challenge.
Did the article state that the $1.00 a year rent was in perpetuity?
That seems to be the one major point that ALL of us seem to be missing. We aren’t privy to the original agreement, yet we’re tossing all kinds of arguments around. Thanks for the stabilizing post.
Yes, but should any organization only have to pay $1/year for rent? (Sarcasm on) I agree with your sentiments. Let's see how long this goes. I give up.