More on Philadelphia

[Beavah 205]

Da other thread had mostly degenerated into other things, so I thought I'd share an article I thought was a good one. And perhaps return da discussion to whether public-private partnerships really have to be restricted based on the belief of the private entity... or whether they should be based on whether the public entity is achieving a public purpose by the partnership.

 

http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/pa/20071026_Punishment_will_hurt_community.html

 

Punishment will hurt community

 

By Hans Zeiger

 

Almost 80 years ago, the City of Philadelphia granted to the local Boy Scouts a low-cost rent on land at 22d and Winter Streets, "in perpetuity." This has proven to be a valuable partnership, both for the city and for its most important youth organization. But last week, the city penalized the Boy Scouts for its membership policies by raising the rent from $1 to $200,000 a year. This was wrong.

 

Proponents of the high rent say that the scouts' policy prohibiting homosexual members and leaders conflicts with the city's nondiscrimination code. But that's not necessarily true. Before the city finishes off its relationship with the local Boy Scouts, we should note the nature of that relationship.

 

The purpose of the relationship is not to enforce the Boy Scouts' membership policies on the people of Philadelphia. The scout oath is only applicable to scouting members, who swear to it.

 

The Boy Scouts of America is a private organization. As government cannot dictate the scouts' membership policies just because it has a partnership with the organization (the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of the Boy Scouts to establish its own membership rules in 2000), the scouts cannot change public policy by effect of its partnerships with government.

 

Therefore, the scouts' ban on homosexuals is none of the city's business.

 

Government must work with the private sector in a variety of ways. Whether it's selecting a coffee brand for the mayor's office or contracting out maintenance services, governments must often do business with private corporations.

 

Just as important, city government can and should partner with private civic or faith-based organizations. Through the Amachi Program, people of faith in Philadelphia are able to volunteer with the Big Brothers Big Sisters program. Churches and other religious organizations comprise 40 percent of Philadelphia's welfare-to-work programs. And hundreds of churches and synagogues across the city partner with public schools for campus safety and mentoring. Philadelphia is a model for the nation in these kinds of partnerships, which makes the weakened relationship with the Boy Scouts all the more bizarre.

 

Government cannot restrict its relationships with the private sector to morally "value-neutral" organizations. To force such restrictions on public-private partnerships would suggest that value-neutrality is even possible (it is not), and that organizations that emphasize moral and religious values are inferior to strictly secular groups.

 

In fact, it is organizations such as the Boy Scouts, which do emphasize moral principle, that are far more effective than other kinds of organizations at addressing the challenges of inner city schools, child poverty, drugs, and gangs.

 

Yet public-private partnerships are in no way a public adoption of the beliefs and values held by private organizations. It makes no difference to a broken inner city school whether it is the Boy Scouts (which exclude atheists and homosexuals) or the Girl Scouts (which do not exclude atheists and homosexuals) that come to improve the playground. If the Kiwanis and Rotary Clubs and City Hall decide to work together to raise money and talent for an after-school program, who could say no?

 

For nearly eight decades, it has made sense that the Boy Scouts have their headquarters on city property, and it has made sense to help the Boy Scouts in doing their "good turn daily" by making that headquarters available for low rent.

 

People in Philadelphia have understood what the Boy Scouts mean to the community. Scouting serves 40,000 children in Philadelphia. That's 40,000 children who are learning and growing and contributing to their neighborhoods.

 

When the Boy Scouts face the unfortunate task of cutting back from essential programs in order to pay rent, the big tragedy will not be the loss to an historic nonprofit organization. The tragedy will be the lost opportunities for the city of Philadelphia.

 

[packsaddle 753]

Zeiger states that the Philadelphia decision is wrong. But I'm still looking for his reasoning. There is nowhere in his article any reasoning for why the government should subsidize BSA using taxes from members of the public who are excluded from membership by the recipient of those tax subsidies, BSA.

 

Scouts can still use playgrounds. Scouts can still do service projects. None of that is relevant to his contention.

Of course, governments do contract with many private vendors. However, if a paving contractor, for example, is known to discriminate on the basis of race, for example, they can probably forget about getting another contract. Or else the government can expect a lawsuit for breaking the law.

Same principle.

[eolesen 10]

The land was acquired almost a century ago, BSA paid for all of the construction costs, and after 30 years, I'm pretty certain that's all been fully amortized. It's now a sunk cost. BSA pays for all of the upkeep and recurring costs.

 

So, if there's no out of pocket cost to the city for leaving them where they are, what is your reasoning for saying that the city's taxpayers are subsidizing BSA?

 

Granted, allowing the city to lease the property out at a market rate would add money to the City's coffers, but that's not using tax dollars in any way. It's just allowing the City to spend more than they currently do, and $200K won't go very far towards reducing the tax burden for Philly taxpayers.

 

It is just the opposite of Owasipe... Here the City wants to cash out at BSA's expense, and in Owasipe, BSA wants to cash out at the county's expense.

 

It's all about greed. Plain and simple.

 

That's why it's wrong.(This message has been edited by eolesen)

[packsaddle 753]

The money may be important for one argument but it is trumped by the law. Philadelphia would be in violation of the law if it continued the subsidy. The subsidy constitutes a cost to the taxpayer in that revenue is not currently collected for the lease. This is the revenue that a fair-market lease would bring to the city but currently is not collected for the taxpayers because the property is leased at the $1 per year rate. This is not 'rocket science'.

 

BSA knew the terms of the lease and chose to act the way they did.

BSA knew the consequences of their legal stance and the risk of sticking to their principles. These are the consequences.

Philadelphia has chosen to stick to the principles established in our Constitution and interpreted by our courts. They have chosen not to break the law.

Coincidentally, they stand to gain some revenue that was previously uncollected and will not have to pay out legal fees for a losing court battle.

This is also not 'rocket science'.

[eolesen 10]

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but unless taxpayers have previously paid for facility costs (which both sides admit they haven't), it is misleading if not dishonest to call $1 rent a subsidy.

 

Where BSA went wrong was deeding the building to the City and accepting their word for the perpetual lease. It just goes to show that trust and honor have no place in the business world.

[nldscout 18]

No its not rocket sience, its IDIOT SCIENCE!!

 

Move somewhere else and burn the friggin building to the ground, leave them what the BSA started with, an empty lot

 

[packsaddle 753]

Eolesen, there are indeed dishonest business persons out there but this was a rather standard lease agreement. BSA didn't have to sign it if they didn't agree to the terms.

BSA wouldn't be in this situation today if they hadn't chosen to take the stand they did with the SC. The consequences were obvious and if BSA didn't foresee this, maybe it really IS idiot science. But BSA is and always has been in control of its own fate.

 

nldscout, not exactly a scout spirit sentiment, IMHO, a spiteful act of arson.

[GernBlansten 10]

The local option would have alleviated the Philly problem and still allowed units chartered by the LDS to exclude whoever they wish. Win/Win situation.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, packsaddle, it's humorous to say that Philadelphia is bound by the law when they passed the law themselves. And they choose to ignore it with other kinds of public-private partnerships, like da Amachi Program which is cited - which partners faith-based organizations with Philadelphia to provide mentoring to children of incarcerated parents. Are we claimin' da Catholic Church doesn't discriminate in its leadership or membership? But they are uniquely well situated to provide mentors to at-risk hispanic kids, eh?

 

I think the author thought Philly is wrong because he's arguing that public-private partnerships are a good thing for the public and should be encouraged. Elected officials should act in the best interest of the public, rather than furthering their own discriminatory agenda. From a public policy perspective, do we really care if it's the Salvation Army that takes the lead on sheltering the homeless? Is it really awful to give the Salvation Army a building for $1 rent if they provide services for free that would otherwise cost the city millions?

 

Beavah

 

 

 

[evmori 11]

Local option is nothing more than the BSA tossing the Law & Oath out the window.

[GernBlansten 10]

If the Salvation Army or the Catholic charity restricted the beneficiaries of its service to a certain subset of society, would that make it similar to the BSA deal?

 

ED: like the local option on female leadership?

[Beavah 205]

If the Salvation Army or the Catholic charity restricted the beneficiaries of its service to a certain subset of society, would that make it similar to the BSA deal?

 

Kinda like da Salvation Army making folks receivin' services attend a religious talk?

 

Kinda like Alcoholics Anonymous 12-step program including a Higher Power?

 

Or should we talk instead about how "public" entities restrict the beneficiaries of some of their services?

 

Beavah

 

[evmori 11]

Local option allowing females as leaders??????

 

Follow the money!

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Beavah writes, quoting Gern at first:

If the Salvation Army or the Catholic charity restricted the beneficiaries of its service to a certain subset of society, would that make it similar to the BSA deal?

 

Kinda like da Salvation Army making folks receivin' services attend a religious talk?

 

Kinda like Alcoholics Anonymous 12-step program including a Higher Power?

 

The SA can't require attendance at a religious talk to receive benefits paid for by the government. There are lawsuits over their religious requirements for employees when government financing is involved: http://www.nyclu.org/node/1086

 

There have been a number of rulings that people can't be sentenced to AA or as a parole requirement due to their religious message.

[GernBlansten 10]

"Kinda like da Salvation Army making folks receivin' services attend a religious talk? "

 

Nah Beavh,

More like the Salvation Army refusing to help anyone who was an athiest. If they did that, wouldn't you expect the same treatment that the BSA is getting? No govmint funding.