Philly"s cold shoulder

[Lisabob]

SSScout, I believe that some Scoutreach folks do get paid to do pretty much what you described, typically in inner city environments where there is a need for scouting, but not the family or community resources to provide appropriate volunteer leaders.

 

Scoutmomma - Ouch! Here's hoping you heal quickly and in the meantime, take it easy!

 

 

[scoutmomma]

SSScout asked of Hans Zeiger "he lives in Washington State??"

 

Here you go: From a 2007 op-ed column in the Philadelphia Inquirer: "Hans Zeiger, an Eagle Scout and assistant scoutmaster in Puyallup, Wash., is spokesman for the Scouting Legal Defense Fund, a project of the American Civil Rights Union in Arlington, Va." And from his website: "Hans Zeiger is only a sinner saved by grace. Current Magazine has recognized Hans as one of America's 15 emerging college students, and as the top young religious leader on the nation's campuses. A native of Puyallup, Washington, the 21-year old Eagle Scout is author of Reagan's Children: Taking Back the City on the Hill (Broadman and Holman, 2006) and Get Off My Honor: the Assault on the Boy Scouts (Broadman and Holman, 2005). He is an American Studies major at Hillsdale College in Michigan."

 

Lisabob, thanks for the healing wishes. I will miss the wide-eyed respect I get from the Scouts for being brave (or foolhardy) enough to try snowboarding (none of the other parents do), but a hot beverage and a warm fire sound nice, too!

[MarkS]

If I correctly recall what I've read, CoL completed a major renovation of the property some years back. That combined with regular maintenance exceeds an average of $200,000 a year.

 

Seems like Philly just bought themselves a money pit.

[MarkS]

Merilyn said, "Government-supported discrimination doesn't fit their agenda. Things were fine until the BSA decided it was a private club that needed to discriminate against people."

 

I don't agree that honoring the original lease constitutes government-supported discrimination. All the BSA has done is not succumb to creeping normalcy.

[scoutmomma]

I don't agree that honoring the original lease constitutes government-supported discrimination.

 

The City of Philadelphia says otherwise, or this never would have come up. As I understand it, their concern is not to violate their own non-discriminatory policy because they don't want to lose federal funding.

 

All the BSA has done is not succumb to creeping normalcy.

 

What do you mean by "creeping normalcy?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Marx wrote:

I don't agree that honoring the original lease constitutes government-supported discrimination.

 

Leasing government property for $1/year is subsidising the BSA, which is a discriminatory organization. They can stay if they pay market rates, because then the city won't be subsidising them.

[Beavah]

Leasing government property for $1/year is subsidising the BSA, which is a discriminatory organization. They can stay if they pay market rates, because then the city won't be subsidising them.

 

Leaving aside all the other issues, a savvy BSA negotiator could turn this around to the BSA's benefit. With the city now needing to pick up maintenance & renovation costs, wrap utilities into the lease as well. I guarantee the average city will screw up their utility cost estimates. It could wind up a net gain for the BSA.

 

Beavah

 

[evmori]

It would be a hoot if someone leases the building then sub-lets it to the BSA for a buck!

[scoutmomma]

a savvy BSA negotiator could turn this around to the BSA's benefit

 

I can't help thinking that if they'd had a savvy BSA negotiator in the first place, CoL wouldn't be in this pickle now. The way things have played out, the entire situation is lose-lose for everyone. There is no "win" left in it. That's something I really detest -- how BSA & CoL keep trying to paint the City of Philadelphia as the villain in this piece, rather than admit that their actions have played any part in creating this mess. SSScouter suggested CoL note the definition of "A Scout is Obedient." I would add that they should note "A Scout is Courteous" before continuing to bash the city.

[MarkS]

scoutmomma said, "The City of Philadelphia says otherwise, or this never would have come up. As I understand it, their concern is not to violate their own non-discriminatory policy because they don't want to lose federal funding."

 

Merlyn said (sorry about butchering your username), "Leasing government property for $1/year is subsidising the BSA, which is a discriminatory organization. They can stay if they pay market rates, because then the city won't be subsidising them."

 

Agreed that the city is saying that BSA was violating the ordinance they wrote subsequent to the original lease and that it's fair for the city to ask for fair market rates but to say that because an organization gets a fee or tax break from a government entity means that the government agrees with and supports the policies of an organization is a stretch.

 

scoutmomma asked, "What is creeping normalcy."

 

Creeping normalcy is a sociological theory that says unacceptable change will become accepted by a society if the change occurs in incremental steps over a long period of time. It is considered by many in academia as one of the leading causes of the collapse of societies.

 

My use was in reference to the BSA maintaining its standards for its values-based program while the rest of society is compromising its values.(This message has been edited by MarkS)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

MarkS writes:

Agreed that the city is saying that BSA was violating the ordinance they wrote subsequent to the original lease and that it's fair for the city to ask for fair market rates but to say that because an organization gets a fee or tax break from a government entity means that the government agrees with and supports the policies of an organization is a stretch.

 

I'm not saying that at all, and I don't think the city council was saying that, either.

 

The city council said that they, the city council, would be violating the ordinance by continuing a lease arrangement with the BSA. And I'd say that subsidising an organization is pretty direct support of that organization.

[CalicoPenn]

The argument that continuing to let the BSA use the building below market rate is a better option than the City taking over maintenance when the BSA moves out is a straw man argument as it assumes that the City won't turn around and lease the building to someone else for fair market rent, or to a non-profit that doesn't violate the City's non-discrimination ordinance at the current BSA terms. I haven't seen anything that says the City wants the BSA to move out because the City wants to use the building. I don't see any reason why the City wouldn't go ahead and market the building for lease to someone else, or for that matter to declare it surplus property and market it for sale.

 

 

Let's not forget what Scoutmomma, who is on the ground in CoL has told us - the majority of the operations of the Council are done in the Valley Forge service center. From a business perspective, this could be the best thing that has happened to the CoL Council - since the City is reclaiming the building, CoL can now freely consolidate the rest of their operations which would be more cost effective, without having to be the party trying to end the Lease in Perpetuity. The City is ending the Lease with Cause (though many might argue the cause stinks, nonetheless, it likely meets the legal definition of "Cause" in Pennsylvania). If the CoL Council wanted to break the Lease because they just wanted to consolidate operations, they wouldn't have "cause" to do so and it would be much more difficult.

 

As for additional negotiations by a savvy BSA negotiater, I suspect the City's position would simply be there would be no changes other than the imposition of Market Rent. The Lease is already an absolute net lease which makes the BSA responsible for everything, including renovations, repairs, replacement of the building, insurance - the works. I doubt that would change.

 

Calico

 

[packsaddle]

There is a finite probability that some internal equivocation existed regarding the split offices of CoL, prior to the Philadelphia decision. It is possible that a savvy BSA attorney calculated that BSA could force consolidation (a win for one side in BSA internal politics?) while at the same time looking like a victim (another win, sort of?).

[yelruh]

The reason there are two offices is that it was two councils before 1996? When they merged.

 

I've been to the Valley Forge Scout shop a lot, since it is actually closer to us then our own Council's.

 

I know they combined functions to cut costs. Better for a Council to manage 3-4 camps, then for two councils to try and manage 2 each. there are some costs that they were able to cut, because they duplicated each other.