the other side of the coin

[evmori]

Now, do you think there will be any blow-back from those groups against the BSA for getting everyone in this pickle?

 

I'd bet the blow-back would be directed toward the city!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[packsaddle]

If the 'in perpetuity' wording really meant literally forever, then there would be no reason to have a lease at all. In essence it would mean that BSA effectively owned the property. So it is time for all the lawyers to collect their adipose tissue and belly up to the bar, so-to-speak.

 

BSA has, in fact, changed. I remember when their discrimination extended beyond religion and gender preference. The racial discrimination that I observed long ago is gone now as a matter of policy. In another thread, Fuzzy mentioned that 2 out of 4 bases for discrimination is progress. True. It still fails the legal standard though.

 

As long as we're repeating ourselves in one more familiar thread, BSA knew the consequences of their policy - and the consequences of their win at the Supreme Court. Time to stop whining when those expected outcomes arrive, stop wetting the bed every time another situation like this comes along. After all, BSA got exactly what BSA wanted. They shouldn't expect to have the cake and eat it too.

Either buy the property, pay fair market rent, or move elsewhere. Just stop the whining.

[Beavah]

If the 'in perpetuity' wording really meant literally forever, then there would be no reason to have a lease at all. In essence it would mean that BSA effectively owned the property.

 

Nah, there was an important exception, eh? The lease was in perpetuity as long as the property was used for Boy Scouting. So, it retained the city's rights in the event the BSA tried to sub-lease to a laundromat, or build an apartment building to raise money, or....

 

I understand the argument that a government body can choose (presumably on behalf of the people it represents, or at least on behalf of the lobbyists it represents) to subsidize or not subsidize whatever it feels like.

 

The problem I have is that these days government bodies make up more than 25% of the spent dollars and employment in the nation. In some states, the government also owns way more than half the land. So the decision by a government body to subsidize or not subsidize something has nearly the same effect as government endorsement or repression of that viewpoint. It is very difficult for a "private" entity to survive a government ban because the government has grown to be such a large percentage of our economy.

 

If, for example, states or the federal government decided to stop "subsidizing" churches, temples, mosques, etc. by giving them preferential tax treatment, the property tax bills alone would wipe out those religious institutions in all urban areas and many other places. The income taxes would destroy most of the rest. Most churches, orthodox temples, and mosques share the BSA's viewpoint with regard to sexual orientation. So if the rationale being used in Philadelphia holds, it becomes a very effective mechanism for the state to use its economic power to suppress many or most organized religions, and their related social services and educational arms.

 

The only solution to this is greatly reduce the scope of government, or ensure that preferential tax, rent treatment, government grants, etc. are given in a manner representative of the general populace.

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[evmori]

If the 'in perpetuity' wording really meant literally forever, then there would be no reason to have a lease at all. In essence it would mean that BSA effectively owned the property.

 

Not true. The city retains ownership of the building & the BSA can use it forever. The BSA doesn't own it.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[packsaddle]

Beavah, as a fair tax advocate I think your scenario regarding the demise of the churches is faulty. Indeed, some may not be able to pay. But those weak organizations probably ought to fail if their members can't keep them afloat any other way.

I would argue that the fair way for society to support these institutions is for the members to pay their way - without the government handout. My church would be just fine, as would all the others I know in this area. As a matter of fact, because a larger tax base would be available, each individual would likely have to pay a smaller personal tax burden, thus freeing their funds to support THEIR church. To me this is the only fair way to do this. All it requires is for those who see the tax decrease not to be stingy with their money.

 

I realize that I am in a minority view, however, and that most people want the government to rob everyone for their own faith subsidy. I just think that's wrong.

 

Thanks Ed, I knew it was coming.

[SaintCad]

I find it hard to believe that the city would not write into the lease a way for it to cancel the lease. I'm curious to know who brought the "in perpetuity" part of the lease out to the public's view. I suspect that it goes something like this:

 

Lease) BSA may use the property in perpetuity. The city may cancel this lease for any reason . . .

 

Spin-Doctor) See there. BSA gets to use the property forever.

Skeptic) But doesn't it say the city can cancel the lease?

Spin-Doctor) In perpetuity means forever. Philadelphia is unfairly oppressing the BSA

Skeptic) But you're only reading one section of the lease. What does the rest of it say?

Spin-Doctor) IN PERPETUITY! IN PERPETUITY!