skeptic

Let me see. I will lease this land and pay for all the upkeep, any improvements I need for our intended use as a headquarters, swimming pool area, indoor and outdoor meeting area, and campsite. When it is not in use for our specific purposes, it will be open for use by outside groups as well, as long as they meet certain liability requirements. So, a facility for youth primarily is booked up by the group who actually runs and maintains it during the time when youth are most likely to use it. But, if it is not, others still can use it. Oh, but I want to use it when it is used by the group that runs and maintains it, but they are a heinous group that disagrees with my personal beliefs and life style, so I cannot be anywhere near them or their facility. So, I am harmed and should be allowed to use the facility under "my" terms. Oh, but I do not intend on maintaining it or allowing anyone connected with this awful group to be near me during my use. Oh, I also do not want to use any other part of this very large public area, as it is not maintained as well, or the persons who hold the leases want too much money. Makes total sense to me.

Ed; their feelings are hurt.

Well Merlyn, that is an interesting comment. Having read "all" the available documents, and having actually used Balboa and visited the area numerous times, I am fairly cognizant of what they say, how the area is used, and so on. I also have read numerous "legal" statements and opinions by qualified lawyers and judges who disagree with the judicial decisions made by the judges who ruled up to this point. The fact that the initial ruling was made by a single judge who refused to even consider any others' thoughts or submissions reflects the reality; that this is a PC decision that refuses to seriously consider any views from other legal minds that might reflect that there is error in the decision. So, here we are. The judicial machine moves glacially forward, with many cogs unwilling to get involved due to politics (most likely), and the youth and the public as a whole are left to bear the penalty. But, "IT IS YOUR RIGHT!!". You are correct on that.

If you read the legal documents, you will note comments regarding GS, as well as others. My understanding is there are time frames with GS usage having priority over public use. Of course, the GS have bent to the PC harassment and eliminated some of their traditional rules.

Merlyn; How do you feel about the fact the Girl Scouts having similar special treatment for their members at the neighboring camp? They take precedence over outside users during certain times. Should the lawsuit be expanded to include them as well? Perhaps also the other groups with similar leases who all have priority times for their groups?

Besides the Jambo, nothing I have seen; maybe simply surviving to then. In the red and rumors of issues with SE and camp selling. I try to stay out of the politics, but it is always there in the background. And sometimes it will directly affect us on the troop level.

Merlyn: I have no idea if you have ever actually seen either Mission Beach or Balboa Park; but if you have, you would know that the areas in question are only a very small part of the parks overall. So, if you are not able to use a particular area for a certain time frame, there are many other similar areas still accessible. If it is the equipment and facilities that are at issue, then, we come back to why you think BSA should pay for these items and their upkeep, supervise safety considerations, and so on, yet not have some type of relatively minor priority of use for their own groups. It has little or nothing to do with blocked off time in the summer keeping these individuals from using the park or beach. Again, if the facility is in use, then arrange another time or another place. It is not that difficult for reasonable people; but, as you note with your Shaw quote, unreasonable people are somehow more important. And we bemoan the state of the country, even as our supposedly unbiased and wise leaders and educators continue to bow to PC minorities and the "Me, Me" attitude. Rights are not license if you actually "read" the constitution with some sort of fairness to more than yourself. Most of our founders have likely polished their bones to a high luster by now watching some of the things that pass for balanced interpretation. (Of course that means nothing to you, since you do not believe in God). Very little, if anything, has changed from you over the past year or more that I can see. When someone challenges you with a legitimate question or statement that would require a possible shift in your view, you simply ignore it and throw out the same PC fodder. I keep waiting for you to actually look beyond your blinders and admit that there are areas where you may have room for flexibility or compromise for the better good. It is really rather sad to see this from someone who seems on many levels to be well read and intelligent.

ssscout: The limiting factor for some is the BSA; they are a terrible and malicious organization that should be ostracized and have any privileges offered to others by the government, directly or indirectly, taken from them or not offered to begin. Merlyn has already admitted that the rights of his PC crusade (dare I use that word in relation to him?) take precedence to any logical or balanced decision.

Actually, the plaintiffs have gotten a favorable ruling from one judge whose logic defies the word. And, if somehow, this finally goes in the favor of the plaintiffs when it reaches the high court, then many other similar arrangements will have to go by the wayside at even further detriment to the public good. But, the PC will have won their egocentric "right". Meanwhile, you still cannot give me an answer to my question as to why all this effort and money cannot be used for the benefit of others, rather than to attack those that actually do. I really do not expect an answer, as I am sure you have none; only an excuse or egocentric response.

Merlyn; Why shouldn't they, since the scouts have been there and developed everything. If someone else wants a similar deal, put it on unused land. There is plenty there that could benefit from it. But, then that would require someone to come up with the money to develop it. Based on the development there in Balboa and on the beach, that would be hundreds of millions of dollars. The scouts put the money into it; why should they not continue to have the use? If others want to do something similar, then let them develop it on separate locations, rather than whine that they were not offered the same site at the same deal. If they want the deal on the same sites, then they should reimburse the scouts for all money spent, adjusted to today's dollar value, since scouts have been in Balboa since the 20's. The real question is why these litigious individuals don't simply use their resources to develop programs for use that fit their needs, rather than waste them on attacking groups with whom they disagree. Because they really do not care about others, only their own egocentric desires?? Try and give a rational and inclusive answer if you can. (Pulling chain hard!!!)(This message has been edited by skeptic)(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Okay, here is a possible resolution to this whole affair. Since in Mission Park on the beach, and in Balboa Park next to the zoo and so on, there are many acres of untended land, the city can give similar leases to a group who wishes to offer a similar program on the beach, and similar facilities in Balboa. They then can set their own requirements which would be inclusive of anyone and everyone (except for BSA groups, since they already have "their" space), no matter what their beliefs. Then they can put their own money into the development of the areas, and the regular upkeep so that they are safe and utile. Certainly in Balboa, this would be a great boon, as their are many areas of the park that are terribly overgrown and unsafe, since the city does not have the funds or ability to take proper care. Of course, we all know that if the areas in the suits were not already developed and useful, they would have no interest to the litigants, even if they actually applied to use them. And, if they were run down and not useful, the city would not have renewed the leases in the first place. So, Merlyn, take up the campaign. Maybe the ACLU can put some of their own money into the plan, along with the many wealthy, mistreated members of the Gay, atheist, and agnostic communities.

So Merlyn, you think everyone should get to choose when they are able to use a facility, even if it is in conflict with some other group or individual. So, when the Zoological society at the San Diego Zoo has a special set of hours for members to attend and see new things, or simply enjoy as members, someone who is not a member should have the right to participate during that time too, even though they do not meet requirements? Or, the Southern California Surfing association arranges for a blocked off beach area for their surfing contest. I want to surf there during that period, even though I am not a member or even able to surf well enough to participate in the contest; but I should be allowed to because I want to? I can sue if they won't let me go to the zoo at their special time, or surf on that specific beach at that specific time? There are benefits for "paying" for things, like the upkeep of the zoo, or the maintenance of facilities. In this case, it is a time blocked off specifically for the organization's members. Who do you think is paying for the equipment used at the beach facility, or the upkeep of the pool, amphitheater, and campsites in Balboa? It is not the city. Who asked the scouts to build and maintain the beach facility? Other youth groups, with the blessing of the city. Now, they should lose the use because somebody is thin skinned or can't make plans based on other peoples' schedules? Such obtuse reasoning is simply too irrational. With that reasoning, then I should have sued 25 years ago when I tried to reserve a site at the Balboa camp for my troop during our spring break, but couldn't due to its meeting rooms, amphitheater, and the surrounding areas being booked by an outside group that did not want boys possibly interfering with their day program they had going on on the premises. We really only needed it for camping at night; but we had to abide by the rules about bookings. So, we went to the Camp Fire camp area. When it happened the next year as well, we simply went somewhere else. That is what reasonable people do; find alternatives.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Whatever the convoluted decision by these questionable solons finally is, it is still nonsense IMHO. I continue to wonder how anyone with any kind of self esteem would lend themselves to such foolish reasoning as to say they are somehow "injured" by even the thought or presence of the BSA, or any other group with beliefs with which they may not agree. How weak must their ego be if they are threatened or emotionally scarred by an idea held by someone else with whom they have not even made contact? It is much like the stupidity of a complaint by the Somis, Ca. man who threatened a suit against the city of Ventura because they had a lighted cross, related historically by the way to the very founding of the city, on the hill above the town. They had to occasionally see this terrible thing while driving by on the freeway over a mile away, or if they should happen to look in the right direction while visiting the area. Such insecurity does not say much for them; and neither does this San Diego nonsense say much for the people bringing suit.

Another really odd ruling from 9th Circuit. Not only is it strange, but also 4 judges recused themselves. What does that say about this whole thing? Read in the BSA Legal link, or google it.

In ours, new Ordeal members get a service flap as part of completion of the Ordeal; but the primary flap, which is restricted to 4 per life, cannot be purchased until Brotherhood is completed. At that time, they can buy two; one for Ordeal and one for Brotherhood. A third can be bought for Vigil, and one more for completion of a local hike, approved by the lodge, to the peak featured on the flap. Incoming members from another lodge cannot buy flaps to cover past levels, so when I joined as a Brotherhood member, I was restricted to 3 max. But, as noted, most Ordeal members disappear after the initial weekend. Also, it is really sad that few members attend Ordeal weekends unless they are going for Brotherhood. Most who do are adults, rather than youth. I cannot help but think that many of the changes in election and ceremony have contributed to the once high esteem OA membership had. Now that it is pretty much a "make 1st Class and camp 15 days and nights, including one summer camp" rubber stamp in a majority of units, it has lost a lot of its luster. And I see the same thing happening in some units regarding Eagle, unfortunately.

Not sure why you might feel a Vigil knot was needed. If you are active, then you should be wearing the arrow ribbon with the Vigil device on it. Why would you need a knot?

Would be great if that were the case in Southern California. Even pre-typed in doc format has much chance of showing up in print, especially if it is about something already occurred like Eagle dinners, or annual meetings. At least we can post on-line now to a blog; but it is not the same. Oh well, what can you do but keep trying.

If the pro's on this subject would simply stop the foolish "in your face" attitude, it would surely be a lot less negative. As Pack has said, Gays have been, and are in the program; but they do not seem to have had the need to make it "an issue", so it wasn't/isn't. But, both sides of the argument tend to wear blinders and are unlikely to change spots based on what is said here. Even though I agree with the current policy over "no policy"; I would prefer that it be made a CO decision on a local level. Eventually it will like work itself out. But it would likely happen more quickly if "radicals" on either position would stop their idiocy. JMHO

NJ; thanks for the reminder. "Sexual orientation was not an issue until sometime in the late 20th century; and then 'Somebody' made it an issue.! Wonder who that was? Also, I rather wonder why someone that is so upset about this to take away the privilege is not also suing to make the Council stop starting all their meetings with an invocation. Isn't that somehow also not legal? Inquiring minds want to know.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

Here is material from the city's website regarding this. The actual termination decision in 2006 seems to not be available anywhere, which seems odd to me. Also, the final approval of the resolution is pretty sloppy if the minutes are to be noted. I also found it sad that while perusing minutes for the month of May in 2007, I could not help but notice how many comments and concerns about out of control youth were there. 11-16-06 Transmitting a resolution approving the termination of the arrangement with the Philadelphia Coucil of the Boy Scouts, or its successor, the Cradle of Liberty Council of the Boy Scouts, whereby the Boy Scouts Council occupies a City building located at 22nd and Spring Streets. (File No. 060877) 1 5/31/07 STATED - INTRO. OF BILLS, RESOLUTIONS 2 of the first resolution. 3 CHIEF CLERK: A resolution 4 approving the termination of the 5 arrangement with the Philadelphia 6 Council of the Boy Scouts or its 7 successor, the Cradle of Liberty 8 Council of the Boy Scouts, whereby the 9 Boy Scouts Council occupies a city 10 building located at 22nd and Spring 11 Streets. 12 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA: The 13 Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke. 14 COUNCILMAN CLARKE: I was 15 going to move for the adoption, but I 16 think Councilman O'Neill wants to -- 17 COUNCILMAN KENNEY: Madam 18 President? 19 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA: Yes? 20 COUNCILMAN KENNEY: I'm not 21 sure what it does. Would you read the 22 resolution? 23 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA: I'm 24 sorry. Was the resolution circulated; 25 do we know? 58 2 COUNCILMAN CLARKE: No, it 3 hasn't been circulated. It's an 4 approval of a lease, which 5 traditionally is not circulated, but I 6 don't have a problem with -- 7 COUNCILMAN KENNEY: I'm sorry. 8 The question is: Can we approve a 9 lease with a resolution? 10 COUNCILMAN CLARKE: Yes, yes. 11 COUNCILMAN KENNEY: Okay. 12 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA: 13 Could you please -- 14 COUNCILMAN CLARKE: It's 15 approving the termination of a lease. 16 COUNCILMAN KENNEY: Oh, the 17 termination. I'm sorry. Never mind. 18 COUNCILMAN CLARKE: 19 Unfortunately. 20 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA: Do 21 you still want it read? 22 COUNCILMAN KENNEY: No. 23 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA: Okay. 24 The Chair recognizes 25 Councilman Clarke for a motion on the 59 1 5/31/07 STATED - INTRO. OF BILLS, RESOLUTIONS 2 resolution. 3 COUNCILMAN CLARKE: Madam 4 President, I move for the adoption of 5 the resolution. 6 (Motion seconded.) 7 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA: It 8 has been moved and properly seconded 9 that the resolution be adopted. 10 All those in favor will 11 signify by saying aye. 12 Those opposed? 13 COUNCILMAN O'NEILL: No. 14 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA: 15 Okay. The record will reflect that 16 Councilman O'Neill voted in the 17 negative, and all other members voted 18 in the affirmative; therefore, the 19 resolution is adopted.5/31/07 STATED - INTRO. OF BILLS, RESOLUTIONS (Resolution No. 070522) RESOLUTION Approving termination of the arrangement with the Philadelphia Council of the Boy Scouts, or its successor, the Cradle of Liberty Council of the Boy Scouts, whereby the Boy Scouts Council occupies a City building located at 22nd and Spring Streets. WHEREAS, In 1928 the City of Philadelphia gave the Philadelphia Council of the Boy Scouts (now known as the Cradle of Liberty Council of the Boy Scouts, and referred to here as the Boy Scouts) permission to build, at its own expense, a building located on City land located at 22nd and Spring Streets; and WHEREAS, As reflected in the grant of permission, set forth in an ordinance of Council approved December 14, 1928, the building was to become at once the property of the City; and WHEREAS, The Boy Scouts, pursuant to that grant of permission, built a building at that location, which it currently used as a regional headquarters; and WHEREAS, The national Boy Scouts organization has a policy of discrimination based on sexual orientation with respect to its members and scoutmasters and has required the local Boy Scouts to implement its discriminatory policy by excluding participation on the basis of sexual orientation; and WHEREAS, The local Boy Scouts unfortunately has implemented that discriminatory policy and publicly has declared its intention to continue doing so; and WHEREAS, The non-discrimination provisions of the Citys Home Rule Charter and the Citys Fair Practices Ordinance reflect broad City policy abhorring discrimination and the Boy Scouts policy and conduct is directly contrary to the principles of equal access and opportunity enshrined in Philadelphia law; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to this policy, the City seeks to ensure that the benefits of City subsidies are made available to all citizens on a non-discriminatory basis; and WHEREAS, The Citys ongoing subsidy of a discriminatory organization through the allowance of free use of a building is directly contrary to the Citys policy and practice of refusing to support discrimination, and of ensuring non-discriminatory access to City benefits; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to the terms of the permission granted to the Boy Scouts, the building and property is to be surrendered to the City within one year after notice of a desire to terminate given by the Commissioners of Fairmount Park, with the approval of the Mayor and City Council; and WHEREAS, The Fairmount Park Commission and the Mayor, through the City Solicitor, have provided notice of ejectment from the property to the Boy Scouts on July 20, 2006, subject to withdrawal upon agreement by the Boy Scouts to pay fair market rent; and WHEREAS, The Fairmount Park Commission has approved at its meeting on July 24, 2006 the July 20, 2006, notice and has approved termination of the arrangement with the Boy Scouts, subject to withdrawal upon agreement by the Boy Scouts to pay fair market rent or the Boy Scouts ending its discriminatory policy and practice; and WHEREAS, The Boy Scouts have failed to respond to the City regarding the July 20, 2006 letter; now therefore RESOLVED, BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, That termination of the arrangement with the Boy Scouts, whereby the Boy Scouts occupy City land and a City building located at 22nd and Spring Streets, is hereby approved, subject to withdrawal upon agreement by the Boy Scouts to pay fair market rent or the Boy Scouts ending its discriminatory policy and practice. Introduced October 25, 2007 Councilmembers Kelly, O'Neill, Ramos and Krajewski RESOLUTION Calling upon The City of Philadelphia and Fairmount Park Commission to allow the Boy Scouts to remain in the facility located at 22nd & Spring Streets until they obtain a suitable new location, and urging them to compensate the Boy Scouts in full, for any and all improvements which they have made to the facility throughout the term of their lease. WHEREAS, In 1928, the City of Philadelphia gave the Philadelphia Council of the Boy Scouts (now known as the Cradle of Liberty Council of the Boy Scouts, and referred to here as the Boy Scouts) permission to build, at its own expense, a building located on City land located at 22nd and Spring Streets; and WHEREAS, As reflected in the grant of permission, set forth in an ordinance of Council approved December 14, 1928, the building was to become at once the property of the City; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to the terms of the permission granted to the Boy Scouts, the building and property is to be surrendered to the City within one year after notice of a desire to terminate given by the Commissioners of Fairmount Park, with the approval of the Mayor and City Council; and WHEREAS, The Fairmount Park Commission and the Mayor, through the City Solicitor, provided notice of eviction from the property to the Boy Scouts on July 20, 2006, subject to withdrawal upon agreement by the Boy Scouts to pay fair market rent; and WHEREAS, The Boy Scouts notice of eviction was inopportune, and does not allow the Boy Scouts adequate time to search for a suitable new facility; and WHEREAS, Over the course of their lease, the Boy Scouts have paid for numerous improvements to the facility located at 22nd and Spring Streets which is a city owned facility and thus, the City of Philadelphia should compensate them for the improvements; and WHEREAS, The Boy Scouts have provided countless community services to The City of Philadelphia and have offered innumerable programs for hundreds of thousands of children since 1928, all at no cost to the City; now therefore RESOLVED, BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, That it hereby Calls upon The City of Philadelphia and Fairmount Park Commission to allow the Boy Scouts to remain in the facility located at 22nd & Spring Streets until they obtain a suitable new location, and urges them to compensate the Boy Scouts in full, for any and all improvements which they have made to the facility throughout the term of their lease.

While I would love to think that the comment about cool is not pertinent, I am afraid it may be too close to the truth. I have noticed over the years that fewer and fewer units seem to have even a slight clue as to what it means to be respectful during flag ceremonies, much less how to actually march and do parade maneuvers. When I was a scout and explorer back in the dark ages we did the good old O'Grady drills and had a color guard unit with the white leggings and even plugged special parade rifles. We were sponsored by a VFW post, and they were serious about us looking good. I have tried a few times to get my own boys to do some semblance of proper marching, but they seem to have very little interest. While I am sure there are likely a few extremely spiffy units out there, they likely are not very common. Just to get them to stand at attention for more than 30 seconds is a challenge. A few years back I mentioned trying to put together an Eagle/NESA honor guard team for local flag presentations. The leaders of the other units all said it would never happen; that it would take too much time and commitment from the older scouts. March in a parade? Not likely! JMG(grumpy)O

Wonder what the feelings are about this one. While I tend to think the companies reap what they sow, it is a bit scary to think what will happen if they do go under. There is some rational for bailing them out, in my mind, probably at least as much as the banks, and very likely more, as they are more related to the real people who labor in the middle class trenches. What say you all? Please try to not go off on tangents of vitriol and non-scout comments.

While tying the correct knot may be preferable, the real issue is that he was able and willing to act to rectify the situation, and that he had the ability to get support of his patrol. That is the ideal of being a leader, and what we hope may happen with our own charges at some point. What makes this movie so appealing to many of us is that it does an exceptional job of showing both the dedication of concerned adults, and the ability of a "fun" program to develop young minds and character.

One of the things Scouting still does if kept in its purpose is to wean scouts from the over-protective mode too prevalent today. As GW points out, that includes numerous skills besides swimming. The apparent great interest by many youth, including non-scouts, in the recent book (the title escapes me; sorry)that challenges them to try things no longer normal to their generation certainly shows that they are still interested. Signaling was a skill that required a lot of effort and time for many of us; but it taught more than the skill. The perseverance required was itself a learning tool.

The local elementary school libraries love them; I take my read copies in to one of them every few months. They seem to be one of the most popular items in the library I am regularly told. Also heard rumor that they plan on putting merit badge books out in regular stores as well. Anyone seen them yet?