[contemplator]

Please take the time to learn the subject BEFORE you post.

Get a grip.

My statement was correct. Regardless of who built it or what the reasons were for signing it over to the city at the time, the fact remains that the city currently owns the building. I'd hope that the group has a lawyer who will file a suit arguing that if the city attempts to change the terms of the original agreement then the property ownership should revert back to the BSA without being charged back taxes. This way, if they cant afford the taxes and insurance from that point forward then they could sell the property and purchase something in a lower tax area.

People who enter into agreements with municipal governments or even federal governments expecting that those agreements will be in effect in perpetuity are deluded. One only has to look at the history of treaties signed by goverments or at ever changing imminent domain laws to see that such agreements only last as long as they are politically expedient. I agree with your assessment though, these politicians should have to reconcile their actions with the voters. I'd love to see them tossed out of office.

[True Republican Patriot]

My total Apologies and Your Statement should be Published for Its Understanding and Forsight.

[Stark_GOP]

“...the fact remains that the city currently owns the building.”

---

No. The fact is that the city owns the dirt under the building.