Some kids don't like to swim in anything but a filtered, chlorinated, tiled, heated swimming pool. They don't like the feel of nature. They can't stand having the weeds touching their feet. I tend to think that this is what scouting is all about. Getting outdoors. Learning to not be so squeamish about the natural world.
Yes. I know. The rules allow the scout to be tested in a swimming pool, and I am not suggesting that we impose our own requirements on the scout. I just have the feeling that this scout, and many others just like him, are really missing out on the scouting experience.
That is true, but I was responding to the idea of conditions in a previous comment demonstrating where such things have precedent. The particulars of this are certainly not the same, but the idea of having to give back a gift is not new, even when times and sentiments change.
EVANS v. ABNEY is precedent but immaterial to the issue being discussed. The restriction created by the settlor in that case - use of the property by Whites only - was held unenforceable under federal law, causing the trust to fail under Georgia state law. The trust having failed, the property reverted to the heirs of the settlor of the trust, the odious Senator Bacon, as a matter of Georgia law.
My two cents: Once a gift is given, it is the recipients to do with as they please. If it was a conditional use agreement, where they can use the property/ building as long as it stays named after her, then that is a different situation.