Judge rules Fiesta Island lease unconstitutional, too

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

The BSA is appealing, but without the city's help:

 

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20040414-9999-7m14scouts.html

 

The Boy Scouts lease of a Fiesta Island aquatics center on city-owned land is just as unconstitutional as its lease of public land in Balboa Park, a federal judge ruled yesterday.

 

U.S. District Judge Napoleon Jones Jr. said the lease of the half-acre aquatics center violates the constitutional separation of church and state because the Boy Scouts is a religious organization.

 

The same judge ruled in August that the Boy Scouts lease of Camp Balboa, where it has its regional headquarters, was unconstitutional because the Scouts require members to profess a belief in God.

...

 

[Laurie]

Also in the article:

 

"The Scouts have leased the aquatics center land since November 1987 at no charge. They have spent $2 million to build the center. The city requires them to pay the cost of operation and maintenance. The lease expires in 2012."

 

They may have leased it at no cost, but they sure put plenty of money into building the center, and then they maintained it. They also, in looking up more info on this center, did not use if for the BSA alone:

 

"San Diego Youth Aquatic Center

 

The San Diego Youth Aquatic Center officially opened its doors in 1992 to all youth organizations and is Desert Pacific Councils newest facility. The Youth Aquatic Center offers one of the nations finest aquatic and outdoor programs to youth in the Southwestern region of the United States. Located on Fiesta Island in the heart of beautiful Mission Bay Park, and adjacent to the newly renovated city operated Youth Campgrounds, the Youth Aquatic Center is home of "Camp Fiesta Island" Scout Camp, an accredited long term resident camp. San Diegos hospitable climate makes year round use of the Aquatic Center for large or small events and activities popular with youth groups and their leaders.

 

Year Round at the Youth Aquatic Center

 

Activities and special event usage for youth organizations up to 500 are available most weekends at the Aquatic Center, September through June. Youth groups such as Boys & Girls Clubs, Boy Scouts, Campfire Boys & Girls, Church youth groups, Girl Scouts, Sea Camp, YMCA Indian Guides and Princesss are welcome to enjoy activities like boating, meeting, picnics, safety education, training, and service projects, youth groups may also hold special events like camporees or regattas. Contact the Aquatic Center for reservations and assistance in planning your activity or event."

 

Now the city has spent close to a million dollars in legal fees:

 

"The city as part of that settlement agreed to pay the ACLU $790,000 in legal fees and $160,000 in court costs and step aside from any further litigation."

 

Money that could have been far better spent, at least IMO. What I don't get is that this center was built by the BSA council, maintained by the BSA council, and then opened to other groups to use. Certain people were excluded from membership in the BSA due to not meeting membership criteria, but they were not denied access/use of the aquatics center. This seems to be just an expensive payback, but those legal fees sure won't benefit the community--the aquatics center could.(This message has been edited by Laurie)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

The Desert Pacific council has the decision on their web site:

http://www.bsadpc.org/content/April%2012,%202004%20Order.pdf

 

Here's a link that won't break

http://tinyurl.com/2a2m5(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[fboisseau]

Merlyn_LeRoy

 

Has anyone from the homosexual and Atheists community step forward to maintain, and provide programs using the two properties that they are working so hard to get the BSA out of? If not what is going to happen to all the youth programs, that were not provided by BSA, that used and relied on these properties being maintained and safely operated?

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

I'd prefer that the properties go to a youth organization that DOESN'T discriminate, like Camp Fire Boys & Girls or 4H. That way, more people will get to use it, especially during the high-demand summer months when the BSA kept the properties to itself (notice that the "year round" activities for the public are not available for July and August).

[NJCubScouter]

I suppose the quickest and most effective way for people to "debate" this would be if all of the posts in the last "Balboa Park" thread could just be automatically copied into this one. Same city, same parties, apparently just about the same lease, same situation, so presumably, the same people will have the same comments. But I guess we are not "there" yet technologically, so people (not including me unless it gets off the subject of this particular lawsuit) will just have to debate it "manually."

 

Note, the above is mostly ironic, tongue-in-cheek commentary. But seriously, the similarities between the two lawsuits make me wonder why they were not either brought as one lawsuit, or combined (or in lawyer-speak, "consolidated") into one for purposes of the court's decision, since it is the same parties, same geographic location and the same issues. I have had cases consolidated with fewer similarities than that. I bring this up mainly because a side-effect of such a consolidation would have been that the threads would have been consolidated, too.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

The two cases ARE the same lawsuit; the Balboa Park lease could be decided in summary judgement (decided on the undisputed facts brought to the court), but the Fiesta Island lease could not be so decided and had to go to trial (by the same judge). That's also why the BSA couldn't appeal the Balboa Park decision until the Fiesta Island decision was settled, because it's really one lawsuit.

[OldGreyEagle]

I am not sure how many more of these court decisions the BSA will have to lose before it wises up. This doing things for the public good clearly isnt working. It may have been a good idea in the past, but clearly. as Robert ZImmerman says , the times they are a-changing.

 

If the BSA is going to spend money on property, lets buy the land, develop it and then rent it out as private property subject to our terms and conditions. Millions spent and then lost? I sure hope BSA officials are not setting up new leases such as this and FOS dollars arent going to defend what will be regrettably but definitiely losing propositions.

 

I hope this will be done, I'd like a scouter, or maybe a Venture Crew to follow the scouting propery once its turned over to the Civil authorities. Lets get videotape of how it is now, and then every year visit those locations again, In ten years it might be fun to see how well the place has been maintained, or not, to compare usage numbers of people using the facilities and programs and them compare BSA administered numbers to non BSA administred numbers and what the comments were about the qulity of the program before and after. If this propery has to be lost, let's at least chronicle what happens and keep it as documentation.

[OldGreyEagle]

Merlyn, or anybody else for that matter,

 

I have a question, Merlyn, you stated above you would prefer to see another Youth group administer the grounds who are not discriminatory such as the Camp Fire Boys and Girls or 4H. Have these or any other group ever done anything like this ever? I have not heard about it, then again, being the scouter I am I have not researched out the doings of any other youth organization. So, what has been the experience of other youth organizaiton's camps on civic property? Or private for that matter? How big are they? WHat are their safety records? WHo can fill the void ?

[evmori]

The BSA should just pull out & watch what they have built go to pot! That would make Merlyn happy. I'm not sure it would make anyone else happy, though.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

The Boys & Girls Club of America handles a lot of the youth programs for military bases. 4H is part of the US Department of Agriculture.

[Hunt]

I read the opinion, and I think it is highly likely that the decision will be reversed, although it may have to go to the Supreme Court. It would be easy for a court to find that the City's action had a primarily secular purpose (the construction of an aquatic center that would benefit multiple groups, not just the Scouts), and that no reasonable person would think that the City's action in leasing the property to the scouts would support religious indoctrination. Also, the judge depends primarily on the idea the City should have sought competing bids for the lease--but he essentially ignores what really happened, which was that the Scouts approached the city to propose the idea, which was then hashed out publicly over several years. I think a reviewing court could easily say that under those facts no true preference was given to a religious organization. This really looks like an "arm's-length" deal in which both sides got something of value--and there is no hint that the City "chose" the BSA to build this facility because of its religious nature. Considering how much money BSA spent, it hardly seems like a sweetheart deal--indeed, the aquatic center only got built because there was a BSA contributor willing to put up the $$$.

But all that being said, I basically agree with OldGreyEagle--who needs the aggravation?

PS--question for Merlyn--leaving the issue of religion aside, would your objections against BSA and its use of public facilities be satisfied if it left the decision of whether to allow gay leaders/members to chartering organizations? Or would you only be satisfied if BSA required all chartering organizations to allow gay leaders/members?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

First, the issue isn't the BSA's USE of public facilities, it's the BSA's special treatment. The BSA can USE public facilities as long as they are treated the same as any other similar situated group.

 

Second, "leaving the issue of religion aside" makes the question pointless; the government can't support the BSA's religious discrimination. I'm an atheist and I'm not going to allow my own government to discriminate against atheists by subsidizing a group that excludes atheists.

[evmori]

First, the issue isn't the BSA's USE of public facilities, it's the BSA's special treatment. The BSA can USE public facilities as long as they are treated the same as any other similar situated group.

 

Let's see the BSA maintained the place all these years at no cost to the city. They made improvements to it at no cost to the city. Anyone can use it. The BSA received "special treatment" because they put all their time and money in the place! So if the Boys & Girls club did the same thing and got the same "special treatment" would you be pitching a fit?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

No Ed, but you can't understand the issues involved.