Replies

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

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

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

I hate to be a stickler but several folks have called me out on this point. According to http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/dec/07121107.html

The famous Beaux Arts style building was built and paid for by the Scouts, and turned over to the city

I would like to see the agreement where they turned it over to the city. If they did it based solely on the 1928 ordinance without a seperate agreement spelling out the terms then they might not have a lot to stand on.

Those were much more innocent times. Today no one would dream of turning over their property to a city government without an air-tight contract spelling out all of the terms and allowing stipulations for the person or nonprofit to get their property back. At the very least since it sits on city land, they should have stipulated that they have option to sell it to the city for fair market value. If the rent for just the land is $200k a year, then it is very valuable property indeed.