Boy Scouts countersue San Diego

[OldGreyEagle]

personally I try to stay away from the court system, but, just what does "Plaintiffs with standing" mean?

 

NJ, I think I understand your position, but I also think it may not be bad to fight back a little as well

[scoutingagain]

I hope this isn't a trend. It does seem resources could be put to better use to serve youth than litigation.

 

If local governments or other organization wish deny the BSA special priviledges because of the BSA's discrimanatory position on gays and atheists they have a right to do so. However, they should be prepared to deny similar priviledges to any other private organization that limits it's membership including women's groups, religious organizations, private men's clubs, private ethnic based clubs, charitable organizations that limit services or benifits to specific groups, etc. If not, it seems to me the ACLU should be willing to take up BSA's case so the BSA can gain access to the same or similar priviledges enjoyed by other private organizations.

 

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. It's just too bad there will be alot of resources expended that could have been put to better use in my opinion.

 

SA

[NJCubScouter]

OGE says:

 

personally I try to stay away from the court system,

 

Good move, I only get involved in the court system because it puts food on the table.

 

but, just what does "Plaintiffs with standing" mean?

 

In order to file a lawsuit, you have to have some involvment with the subject matter of the lawsuit (to say it non-lawyerly-like.) Having the required level of involvement in a case in order to be able to file a lawsuit, is called having "standing to sue," or just "standing." Most of the time it isn't an issue. If someone hits you with their car or owes you money and isn't paying, you obviously have standing to sue them. It's more complicated when you are challenging an action by the government that is not specifically directed at you. I believe the legal buzz-word is that you have to be "aggrieved" by the action in order to sue. So, if San Diego gives a no-rent lease to the Boy Scouts, and you want to challenge that action in court, and you happen to be a heterosexual who believes in God, the court might say that you have no standing. It doesn't hurt you that the government made a deal with a group that excludes gays and atheists, at least not directly. That is why a group like the ACLU would look for a San Diego resident who is gay or an atheist and who is therefore paying taxes to a government that is using public property to give a no-rent lease to a group that excludes him from membership. That is probably enough to have "standing."

 

I hope that helps. There is probably a better way to explain this, but it's late on a Friday afternoon and I'm tired.

 

NJ, I think I understand your position, but I also think it may not be bad to fight back a little as well

 

Fighting back in defense of a policy that makes sense, I have no problem with. If a local government were to decide that it wasn't going to rent land to a group that wears uniforms because that promotes militarism, I would probably say, go ahead, file the lawsuit because it's for a good cause. But when the BSA is fighting to be able to get special favors from the government, when it is excluding people who I don't think should be excluded, it becomes a bit difficult to watch.

 

[molscouter]

"That is why a group like the ACLU would look for a San Diego resident who is gay or an atheist and who is therefore paying taxes to a government that is using public property to give a no-rent lease to a group that excludes him from membership. That is probably enough to have "standing.""

 

Which makes evmori's point. The ACLU targeted the Boy Scouts and then found plaintiffs who would back them up. Why don't they do the same to other "religious" groups. Answer, because it isn't sexy.

 

[NJCubScouter]

The ACLU targeted the Boy Scouts and then found plaintiffs who would back them up. Why don't they do the same to other "religious" groups.

 

First of all, the ACLU sues on a lot of issues besides the Boy Scouts, including government entanglement with religious groups and activities.

 

Second of all, the ACLU is allowed to sue (or find other people to sue) whoever they choose to, and it doesn't change whether the activity they are trying to stop is legal or illegal. The courts decide that.

 

Third of all, you have the same right to sue, or to find other people to sue, that the ACLU has. There are groups on the other side of the political spectrum who do just that. Is this a great country, or what?

[berkshirescouter]

Third of all, you have the same right to sue, or to find other people to sue, that the ACLU has. There are groups on the other side of the political spectrum who do just that. Is this a great country, or what?

I disagree with this. It is only true if you have the money to sue. Too many times the ACLU has sued and won because no money was available to fight it. This follows the golden rule, he who has the gold makes the rules.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

The issue of the Boy Scouts' Balboa Park lease was first brought up (that I know of) back in 1992, when the BSA revoked the membership of Chuck Merino of the El Cajon Police Department Explorer Post when the BSA found out he was gay.

http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/merino-newspapers.html

[Proud Eagle]

I think it is odd that there was no section in the original lease allowing for renegotiating or renewing the lease. Or was the problem with the way that the original 1950s lease was issued?

 

Those sort of things are certainly the norm with private leases. I also know they are found in many government leases. It is just common curtesy to provide for offering the same party the same property (though likely under new terms) after the initial lease expires.

 

NJ, think about this. The building on the property and other improvements the council have made would likely cost millions to replace, even if they were able to get another property for free. So there is at least some financial sense in doing this. Also, if you look at the settlement the City made, it is questionable. The City didn't get forced by the courts to end the lease, rather it volunteered to end the lease as part of the settlement. Certainly the courts did produce a judgement in the case, but that was only after the city volunteered to pull the plug on the lease. So while the lease may have been illegal, the city's actions of seeking to terminate the lease before the court's had ordered it to do so, is possibly illegal as well.

 

It seem the City was pretty well boxed in. Their only choices were to violate the contract by making a deal to end the contract, or to fight it all the way and incurr the various expenses relating to that.

 

Anywase, even if BSA loses and is forced into a competitive bid situation, it may still be able to keep the property. The city could probably set up the terms such that greater standing was given to those who had a good record of stewarship of land or something like that. There are all sorts of ways that can be done.

 

In my home town the city went with a more expensive company siting superior materials in its bid package. In another case the city issued bid specifications that were technically impossible. (It required the existance of materials and equipment that do not, and never have, existed.) They got two bids that came close, and basically just picked one. Then the unions sued if I remember correctly because the non-union contractor picked had a lengthy record of poor workmanship that was well ducumented in a series of complaints and suits. That didn't change anything of coarse and the union quickly dropped it when the city didn't reverse its decision. The city of coarse got done over. The contract they signed had provisions for the city paying cost over-runs. They ended up paying far more for the cheaper contractor, and had to have them come back and re-do parts of it later. To make matters worse the non-union labor came from several states away so there was little money returned to the community.

[hops_scout]

Alright, how bout this one..... our council owns the property of our camp, BUT does not own the road. I dont remember who owns it, but I'll betcha that group or person didnt put it up for bidding:) You gonna come bring a suit against our council, too?

 

Also, we are having a similar problem right now in our county. Two cities both want a YMCA. The local YMCA board, whatever, decided to build it kind of in the middle of the cities. Here's where the problem is--- the property is city-owned property that is outside the city limits. The new mayor and attorney (second or third one since the mayor came into office last year) are now saying that the contract is illegal and wont finish the deal. This is after most has been done. Money has been raised, down payment has put paid, etc and just now is the mayor saying it is illegal and everything!

 

Did anybody ever see this article?

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/zeiger/030802(This message has been edited by hops_scout)

[evmori]

molscouter,

Exactly my point! Who cares about a bunch of religious organizations no one ever heard of! The BSA is getting their merit badges sued off by everyone else! We'd better get on the band wagon!

 

What a crock! The BSA violated nothing. The ACLU is forcing the city of San Diego to violate the BSA's rights by forcing them to pay higher rent while there are other groups who get the same breaks the BSA got & they aren't forcing those groups to pay higher rates! Maybe this is the way they do things in Frostbite Falls!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10(This message has been edited by evmori)

[Fat Old Guy]

"I keep telling you (and you keep refusing to learn) that they need PLAINTIFFS WITH STANDING to file lawsuits."

 

Thank you for that legal lesson. Where were the plaintiffs with standing when the small towns get attacked by the ACLU for having a Christmas scene in a city park? None of the town residents cared.

 

It seems that there are two sets of rules. One for the atheist/homosexual crowd and one for decent folks.

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

Ok, FOG, perhaps you'd like to list the court opinions you have read, in which "small towns" were succesfully sued to remove "Christmas scenes," but with no "town residents" as plaintiffs.

 

But seriously (folks), here is an article (actually its a letter from the New Jersey League of Municipalities to its member-mayors) that verifies that "standing" is indeed an issue that must be "won" by the plaintiffs in every case. I didn't choose it because it is from NJ, but because it was the first thing to come up on a Yahoo search, it seems to state the law pretty well, and it happens to be from an organization that is "pro town" and includes as its members some of the cities and towns that have been sued on this subject.

 

http://www.njslom.org/ml121202.html