Time bomb in new city budget? [Philly votes to boot Scouts]

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Gonzo1, the BSA discriminates against atheists. If they didn't allow Jews (which they could do, of course, since they're a private organization), you'd probably be mystified why Jews would try to remove special government subsidies from a "no Jews allowed" private club, and offer to let them join if they would just pretend to be some other religion. That'd be mighty white of you.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

scoutldr how could you forget the time they threw snowballs at Santa and our now Governor freely admits to being amoung those who tossed snow at Sants, I always saw the city of brotherly love as an ironic twist, sorta like the Little John Charactor in Robin Hood...

[Gonzo1 10]

Merlyn,

It's no secret, I don't like you, but I have been courteous. I find your last comment "That'd be mighty white of you." to be particularly rude and offensive.

 

Besides, you have mastered the art of "deflection" by not addressing the other questions I asked, I really want to know the answers and now I demand an apology for your rudeness.

 

BTW, rent from a city at a low price described here as "peanuts" is not really a subsidy. A subsidy is paying farmers to grow weeds, not crops.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Gonzo1 writes:

It's no secret, I don't like you, but I have been courteous.

 

No, you haven't.

"Sleep tight Merlyn while the feds and the military keep clowns like you safe"

 

"Aww never mind, you probably think Adolf Hitler was a good guy too."

 

That's not courteous.

 

I find your last comment "That'd be mighty white of you." to be particularly rude and offensive.

 

I don't think you understand the phrase. It's a sarcastic way to say you're being "fair" when you really aren't. It's like, oh, I dunno, calling someone a clown or saying they thought Hitler was a good guy, and then complaining that THEY are being rude to YOU.

 

Besides, you have mastered the art of "deflection" by not addressing the other questions I asked, I really want to know the answers

 

Which questions are those? I've answered a lot of your questions, but (as above) you aren't always very specific about what you're asking.

 

and now I demand an apology for your rudeness.

 

I am not apologizing.

 

BTW, rent from a city at a low price described here as "peanuts" is not really a subsidy.

 

I disagree. If I rent a building from the government for $1 that would cost $1000 if anyone else rented it, the government is subsidizing me for the other $999. You can call it something else if it'll make you happy, it's still government-financed favoritism.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[Gonzo1 10]

I think you're an angry, bitter man.

 

Check your PM

 

 

[Beavah 205]

Yah, da parties will please retire to their corners. End of round one.

 

For the record, the ex post facto provision applies to both criminal and civil matters. The city of Philadelphia could not retroactively raise fees back to 1928 and then bill the BSA for 80 years of back rent. But because an eviction is a future event, this is not an ex post facto situation, eh? It might be a contract law matter, or perhaps even a 5th amendment taking, though.

 

Mirlyn, are yeh really bein' careful about your facts, mate? The one year termination bit seems a remarkably naive thing to accept in the initial contract if you're gifting a brand new building to someone. I seem to recall somethin' from a few years back about the city changin' the provisions by ordinance. That jives with da news reports that this vote was also a change in city ordinance rather than a contractual matter.

 

But really, this isn't a question of law in my mind. It's a question of ethics, like other grants of entitlements that are relied on by people. Can the government drop social security benefits to someone who joins a monastery at age 75, because the money would be goin' to the monastic community and therefore supportin' religion? Or is the social security system really an implied contract with the people, where doin' something like that just wouldn't be right. Same deal here.

 

Yah, da proper place to resolve poor ethical practice by public officials is the ballot box. The BSA should really face the music and develop a strong associated lobbyin' organization. Given the demographics of Philly, I'd guess that a petition drive to amend the city charter would have a fair shot, with the support of the black churches (who really agree with the BSA on membership ethics).

 

Dat's the problem, Merlyn, if yeh play the hardball of divisive politics all the time. The BSA, if it really opted to move aggressively into the lobbyin' game, would beat your interests senseless. A formal Scouting lobby would be very effective.

 

Anyway, I'm just fine with the government not gettin' as much revenue from a NFP youth service organization using a public building. What really gets up my nose is my tax dollars funding LGBT programmin' at state colleges and universities. So we can say your tax dollars go to the latter, and mine go to whatever might have been funded by higher BSA rent, and live in peace, eh?

 

Beavah

 

[packsaddle 753]

I'm not in a hotel in Philly but rather in the midst of paradise on Dominica. Mangos are ripe everywhere, the fish are straight from the sea, and the people are all friendly and welcoming. And for some reason, I visited scouter.com and found two troubling things that I hadn't noticed before:

1) denigration of leeches (at least using them in a pejorative manner) and,

2) denigration of Philadelphia.

 

OK, I know it'll be tough to defend leeches but I have to say I like Philadelphia. I always enjoy their little Little Italy and Cheng's Szechuan was the best Chinese restaurant I've ever been to (sadly, it is reputed to have closed). And then there's the Academy of Natural Sciences, Jimmy's Milan, the Bartram Home, the arboretum, Longwood Gardens, and much, much more. And....dare I mention it...if you stand in the right spot and look at Franklin's statue in just the right profile......

Anyway, it's good to see things haven't changed much in the forums. Maybe someday I'll come back, but today I'm off to swim in one more idyllic pool below a waterfall in paradise.

See ya 'round.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Well Gonzo1, I think you're selfish, rude, and woefully ignorant. Happy now?(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[scoutldr 732]

Ok, so the art museum is pretty good. And there was my nice young black friend who emerged out of the rain, quickly sized us up as lost tourists and turned us around and led us by the hand to the restaurant we were seeking. I felt like W.D. Boyce for a minute...until he gratefully accepted the dollar tip I offered.

[Hunt 11]

I was thinking about this situation, and how it might be solved by reasonable people of good will, as opposed to people who prefer to be angry and demonize those who disagree with them. Here's my imagined dialogue:

Council Member 1: I'm concerned about this long-term lease with the Boy Scouts. They are paying only minimal rent, and I've had some calls complaining that the city is subsidizing an organization that discriminates against gays and atheists.

Council Member 2: On the other hand, the Scouts do a lot of good for the city, and they provide services to a lot of low-income boys.

CM 1: True, but I'm not sure we should provide them more support than other religious organizations.

CM 2: I can see that, but they've been in the building--which they built and improved--since 1928. It seems pretty harsh to evict them with only a year's notice, or to charge them market rent, which they obviously couldn't afford.

CM 1: Well, what if we informed them that the lease would be cancelled in four, or maybe five, years? That would give them more time to find more space, and would spread out the costs of improvements they've made recently. Or maybe we could work out a schedule of stepped increases in rent, reaching true market rate in seven years or something like that?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

I'd say the government should cut the BSA the same slack that the BSA cuts for gays and atheists - i.e., about none. However, in this case, the CoL council has known about it for about four years already, even though they say they're always getting "blindsided".

[Gonzo1 10]

Another deflection.

 

I'm done with you Merlyn, on this topic and all others.

[scoutldr 732]

Not knowing the terms of the lease, if the city evicts the scouts, do they have to reimburse the council for the fair market value of the building?

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Then again no visit of Philadelphia is complete without a visit to the Mutter Museum, but it's not for the faint of heart

[evmori 11]

Actually, the BSA has legally discriminated against gays & atheists. They just never enforced it. Sorta like police departments not always enforcing traffic laws. That doesn't make them less legal. And maybe the government shouldn't give the BSA preferential treatment. I still not sure they really do. Seems to be more perceived than real.

 

It still seems like the ACLU is bitter because they lost the Dale case & they are trying to find any avenue they can to drive the BSA into the ground. I hope they enjoy wasting their and their clients money because the BSA will prevail & the ACLU will have to find another dog to kick.

 

Like Gonzo posted, follow the money.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10