Boy Scouts countersue San Diego

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/7885696.htm

 

SAN DIEGO - The Boy Scouts sued the city of San Diego in federal court Thursday, seeking to stop the city from terminating a lease of 18 acres in a public park that it has held for nearly a half-century.

 

The lawsuit names six members of the City Council who voted to approve a $1 million settlement of a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union over land in two public parks the city leases to the Boy Scouts for free or a nominal charge.

...

[FScouter]

The City left the Boy Scouts no choice but to sue them, said George A. Davidson, attorney at Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP and Legal Counsel for Boy Scouts of America. The Boy Scouts cannot stand by while their constitutional rights are violated. Boy Scouts are a private voluntary organization, no different than many other nonprofits who lease property from the City on the same terms.

http://www.bsalegal.org

[Proud Eagle]

That is interesting, I had never heard of that site before. I guess BSA wants info to be publicily available but not highly publicised.

 

The counter suite makes sense, especially if it is limited to mainting the lease. After all, the council has a very large investment made in that piece of property. They would have to be fools to give it up without a fight. On the other hand they may have been better off trying to negotiate a new lease rather than fighting a very public legal battle. (Though some of what I have read indicates the ACLU might file again if some new lease, even under reasonable terms were negotiated.)

 

OK, I took a look at the site and now I know why I had never heard of it. It was only created this week.(This message has been edited by Proud Eagle)

[evmori]

Unless the ACLU is going after all these other groups, it sounds like selective prosecution to me.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Proud Eagle]

After having viewed the presentation at the Federalist Society on the Wyman case I wonder what impact, if any, it would have on the San Diego case. It seems it very well could, because a decision in favor of BSA would largerly require all charitable groups to be treated on with neutrality, irregardles of expressive behavior. That would mean that BSA would have to have the same opportunity as other charities, but that it couldn't be given privlidges above those available to others. The case with the berth for the Sea Scouts would also seem to be impacted in the same way.

 

I am constantly amazed at the implications of some of these cases. It seems that Dale, and potentially Wyman, really may change the way freedom of association and expression work. Who would have thought that the BSA would ever be at the center of a series of court cases that could redifine any catagory of rights?

 

I do have to wonder about the distinction between provision of services and benefits of membership and employment in 2nd Circuit on Wyman. It seems that groups that target their services are engaging in discrimination by giving a preference to one group. While they may provide services should someone else not targeted seek it, they are making it easier for those who are targeted to learn about and recieve services. Also, the atmosphere created by targeting services and by publicly taking various positions, would be a hostile environement for members, employees, and recipients of services that do not agree with the group in question.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

Ed, I know you don't understand these things, but the ACLU isn't a government agency, so it can't be a case of selective prosecution. The ACLU is a nongovernmental group that brought a lawsuit against the city for a specific contract that the ACLU claims is illegal; the ACLU isn't obligated to bring lawsuits against ALL such contracts. If you or anyone else think other leases are unlawful, you can file a lawsuit, too.

 

Besides, so far the only decision in the case concerns how the lease was renewed - the city didn't open it to bidding by community groups, they simply awarded it to the BSA, and since the BSA is a religious organization, the city can't do that.

[Laurie]

Proud Eagle: The BSA Legal site is new and the link is posted on National's front page. I visit there regularly to check out new things (programs particularly), and I just spotted the legal site this week.

[evmori]

Merlyn,

What I meant was the ACLU decided to take up this case against the BSA. They very well could have filed against any other group that has a similar lease. Most of the groups listed are religious & according to you the church & state must be separate so these groups should have their leases revoked, too!

What you fail to understand is the BSA has spent a lot of money improving & maintaining their section of the park and in return receive reduced rent! By revoking the lease, the city of San Diego will be responsible to pay for the ongoing improvements & maintenance thereby incurring a greater burden on the taxpayers!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

Like I said, Ed, if you think any of the other leases are illegal, you're free to file your own lawsuit.

 

But remember, to file a lawsuit you need a plaintiff who has standing to sue; the ACLU has plaintiffs for their suit, and to sue any other leases, you need to find plaintiffs with standing for THOSE leases. The BSA's insistence on throwing out atheists and gays made it pretty easy to come up with plaintiffs for their particular lease.

 

If the lease is voided, San Diego will likely lease it to a similar organization that doesn't have the BSA's discriminatory baggage, like 4H. From a taxpayer's point of view, no extra burden (and if the taxpayer is gay and/or an atheist, they will even be able to join, instead of the current situation, where they can't).

[evmori]

My point, Merlyn, is if the BSA lease is illegal, then those leases to religious organizations are also illegal! The ACLU has chosen to attack th BSA & not the other groups ergo selective prosecution!

 

BTW, I don't agree that the BSA lease or any similar lease to other religious organizations IS illegal.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

Ed, just re-read what I wrote. The ACLU only has plaintiffs for a suit against the BSA lease. If you, or the ACLU, or anyone else wants to challenge other leases, you need to find plaintiffs.

 

And the judge didn't rule that all leases to religious organizations are unlawful, he ruled that the manner in which the BSA's lease was renewed was unlawful. The judge even refrained from issuing a summary judgement on the Fiesta Island lease because there wasn't enough information on that lease for him to rule - which means it's still possible he could rule that the Fiesta Island lease is legal. He certainly hasn't ruled that the city can't lease property to religious organizations.

[NJCubScouter]

I think it's a sad commentary on the current state of the BSA that there is a new BSA web site trumpeting its litigation activity, and that the new site is promoted on the main BSA web page right there with Boy's Life Magazine, Florida Sea Base and Good Turn for America. Litigation is what I do for a living, but there's something wrong when it is a featured activity of a youth organization. And the BSA can no longer claim, as it once did, that it is in court only because it is being sued by "activists." Both of the lawsuits in the "What's New" section are ones where the BSA is the plaintiff. Who is the "activist" now?

 

I also find it interesting that the BSA's counsel is Hughes Hubbard and Reed, one of the most prestigious (and therefore expensive) law firms in the country. I doubt they are donating their time. The lawsuit in the San Diego case (on the site in pdf form) has the names of 3 Hughes-Hubbard lawyers in 3 different offices on it. Ka-ching! Now, I certainly don't begrudge another lawyer making a living, and that firm is worth almost every penny. But it's a lot of pennies, probably 30,000 or 40,000 pennies (3 or 4 hundred $) per hour, per lawyer. So when your pack or troop writes its recharter check this year, that's where some of it is going. And by the way, not that this means the BSA is necessarily wrong, but the track record of Hughes Hubbard in the Connecticut case is zero for 2, and the Supreme Court grants petitions for certiorari very rarely, so all the money spent on that particular case has produced no benefit for Scouting so far.

 

Ultimately I don't see any of this benefiting the youth who the BSA is supposed to serve.

[evmori]

Merlyn, If the ACLU is actually about defending the Constitution then why don't THEY bring suit agains these other religious groups?

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I keep telling you (and you keep refusing to learn) that they need PLAINTIFFS WITH STANDING to file lawsuits. Where are the PLAINTIFFS WITH STANDING to sue over other leases?

 

Courts don't just let anyone file lawsuits, they'd be even more swamped than they are now. You need to have a PLAINTIFF who has proper STANDING to file a lawsuit.

 

The ACLU can't sue unless it has a PLAINTIFF it can represent.

 

Right now, they only have plaintiffs against the BSA lease.

[evmori]

Got ya. Sorry for being so stupid! It seems there are other groups that have the same lease as the BSA & the BSA is being singled out! Doesn't seem fair to me.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10