Boy Scouts vs. Philadelphia

[bkale]

Have you all seen the Time article about the fight between the City of Philadelphia (mostly the mayor) and the BSA?

 

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1810449,00.html

 

(Make sure you get the entire URL)

 

Ok.. here's my thought... remove the building (Leave No Trace) and give the property back. I am sure the BSA can find a more hospitable location.. especially if the politics of the City is going to blindly enforce integration of ALL social groups.

[evmori]

You do realize the articled you linked to is almost seven months old, don't you?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

And that the city owns the building? Part of the arrangement to allow it to be built on public land was turning over ownership to the city as soon as it was built.

[nldscout]

Old story and no new news that I am aware of at the moment.

 

As I see it the only one who will win here is the Lawyers.

[SctDad]

I think that they should just find a moving company to come in and haul-house. Go out and buy their own land. The city wants their money, and that is all that it boils down to.

[evmori]

Yeah the city wants the money but it the city seems to forget who built & maintained the darn thing!

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I'd say it's the Boy Scouts who forgot that they were leasing public property for $1/year, and deciding to become a private, discriminatory group, shot themselves in the foot. Pick one: government largess/discrimination.

[evmori]

Psst! The BSA has always been a private discriminatory group! They were when they initiated the lease!

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

So Ed, you're saying the BSA should have been kicked out long ago?

[hops_scout]

Good to know we're gonna re-hash this AGAIN

[NJCubScouter]

hops, if you don't want to read it, don't read it.

 

As for what the city of Philadelphia wants, it is the same thing many United Ways have wanted, and what a number of other governmental and non-governmental organizations have wanted: To enforce their own non-discrimination policies. The BSA is free to enforce their membership policies within the BSA, but they cannot impose their membership policies on other organizations or the government.

[evmori]

No Merlyn. What I am saying is the BSA had the same requirements for membership in place when it signed the lease.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

But Ed, leasing public property to a discriminatory organization for $1/year is in violation of the Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance, which dates back at least 40 years. The city can't legally give the BSA a sweetheart deal like that.

[eagle77]

Yeah Ed, those sweetheart deals are only for companys that make nice campaign contributions. The City of Philadelphia could have offered them a much better deal then what they want now. I have lived and worked here all my life and to make anyone go from $1 to a quarter of a million a year is just plain ridiculus, but so is a good amount of that game called "politics".

[evmori]

But Ed, leasing public property to a discriminatory organization for $1/year is in violation of the Philadelphia Fair Practices Ordinance, which dates back at least 40 years. The city can't legally give the BSA a sweetheart deal like that.

 

Merlyn, if this is fact, why did Philadelphia do this in the 1st place?