Alrighty then. Good catch. I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t understand how adopting a “resolution to use land in perpetuity” is in all practicality different from issuing the “lease in perpetuity,” but it appears you’re correct on the terminology.
Both sides are making good points here. On the one hand, the BSA built the building and continued to maintain it and paid for refurbishments, all on their own. On the other hand, the BSA didn’t build the building on land they own. So, LEGALLY, the BSA may not have a chance. But, it’s a shame that the city may be able to charge them so much in rent or take the building.
IANAL, either, but here's how I see it...let me use an analogy or two.
Say the US Congress passes a resolution to consider Saddam Hussein an ally...but then Saddam invades Kuwait. Does that resolution mean that we have a treaty and can't back out of it? No...it was an internal decision regarding our posture toward someone.
Likewise, as I understand it, the $1 idea was a resolution passed by the City Council, but it was not put into a contract, perpetual lease, etc. Therefore, the Council may simply change its posture in light of its view of SCOTUS opinions.
No doubt this is politically motivated; doubt that there's truly the SCOTUS backing for this. But regardless, I don't think that this can be fought on the idea that there is some contract being broken. But again, IANAL.