Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Freedom_no_exceptions

Fair enough, you got flamed pretty hard.

Maybe you can help clear up this problem. If the city leased the land with the understanding that the BSA would improve the land and then maintain it along with providing a valuable community service, what becomes of the building and the associated costs the BSA paid for over the past 80 or so years? Does the city own it, does the city pay the BSA fair market value for the building, does the city reimburse the BSA for all costs?

Like I mentioned in one of my earlier posts. The BSA was/is providing a service to the city. I call it bartering, yet others are calling it “free land”. I guess that’s the distinction.

SZ


114 posted on 10/18/2007 10:22:07 AM PDT by SZonian (Tagline under repair until further notice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies ]


To: SZonian
"The BSA was/is providing a service to the city. I call it bartering, yet others are calling it “free land”. I guess that’s the distinction."

Sometimes the government will invoke the principle of "mutual offsetting benefits" ("MOB") to justify "giving" land to a private entity for some purpose which is deemed to have a public benefit of greater or equal value. So a city might give land to a developer who wants to build an art museum or low-income housing or a free health clinic for the poor..
175 posted on 10/18/2007 10:45:04 AM PDT by Steve_Seattle ("Above all, shake your bum at Burton.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies ]

To: SZonian
I would need more information to answer your questions. I don't know what the original understanding was between the city and the Boy Scouts in 1928. Does the city own the building as well as the land, and if so, how did that come to be? Was there any transfer of funds along the way other than the $1 rent?

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.

187 posted on 10/18/2007 10:48:52 AM PDT by Freedom_no_exceptions (No actual, intended, or imminent victim = no crime. No exceptions.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson