Jump to content

Council Relations

Discuss issues relating to Scout Councils, districts and working with professionals

641 topics in this forum

    • 16 replies
    • 1558 views
    • 10 replies
    • 1278 views
    • 16 replies
    • 1557 views
    • 18 replies
    • 1417 views
  1. New Council

    • 6 replies
    • 1387 views
    • 12 replies
    • 1256 views
    • 6 replies
    • 2006 views
    • 13 replies
    • 1310 views
  2. Unit Commissioners 1 2

    • 21 replies
    • 2133 views
    • 10 replies
    • 1307 views
    • 5 replies
    • 1032 views
    • 30 replies
    • 2273 views
    • 5 replies
    • 997 views
    • 23 replies
    • 2480 views
    • 7 replies
    • 1098 views
  • LATEST POSTS

    • It's my understanding that LEC contacted our metroparks and they did not have the funds either.  I could not find the email or facebook post where I read this but am confident in what I read.  Scouts aren't using the camps.  I don't see how giving the camp away helps the council or the scouts.  If attendance at the camp was active, the camp would have been profitable.  It also doesn't make much business sense to me to have two council camps requiring resources that are within fifteen minutes of each other. 
    • Totally agreed. Also, anyone who is an advocate for the out of doors needs to pay attention to what is and may well be happening in the months and years ahead. BSA and scouts are not the only ones looking to unload properties or cut budgets. Universities, private institutions, churches, and county and state park systems are all potentially facing financial issues. The first thing on the block is generally valuable property currently used for environmental or other outdoors related access purposes as well as the budgets that allow them to remain accessible. We are going to be in a real fight in the next couple of years to retain access to outdoor spaces for many of our youth. Let's be careful with how we manage these precious scout properties. Even if no longer sustainable by us, we can at least attempt to try and put them in better hands. 
    • When my council absorbed a nearby struggling council in the 90's, the struggling council's camp was considered redundant, and had not been hosting summer camps for a few years anyways. It was decided to give/sell it to the local metropark system under the agreement that they would waive the usage fee for Scout groups. Today it is a beautiful and oft used public park. My favorite parts to visit is the old camp outdoor chapel which is still standing, as well as the transplanted Oak Tree from Gilwell Park. 
    • These camps were often gifted or earned through blood, sweat and tears of prior generations. Their loss is incalculable. Frankly, a better steward would have found a way to make sure the property remained close to its original use. There are plenty of opportunities to work with conservancies, land trusts, or government agencies to recoup some funds but still keep the property accessible to the scouts or the public or at least keep it from being developed. Our scout LNT or OE directives, even if not explicit, should at least encourage our actions in those directions. 
    • Even so...  Points to be made. 1) God ain't making any more real estate.  A sold camp will never be a camp again.  2) If in the big swing of things,  two successful camps (well used, popular with Scouts,  real Scouty programs) are better than three struggling ones,  I can accept that. If the reasons for Stig's failure are LEARNED.... 3)  How do the local zoning folks feel about it ? 3 acre estates?  Club Med on the Erie?  Quarter acre  duplexes?  Mixed Use, planned community like Columbia MD or Greenbelt MD ?   Does it front on the big lake?   CNG Port ?   
  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...