Philly/C of L update

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Both sides are asking for a summary judgement; a trial could start later this month unless there's a summary judgement before then.

http://epgn.com/view/full_story/6838124/article-City-requests-immediate-eviction-of-Scouts?instance=2nd_top_story

 

There's also this part:

The motion is accompanied by an affidavit signed by R. Duane Perry of the LGBT Working Group, stating that the Cradle of Liberty Councils former executive director attributed a suicide to the Scouts antigay policy.

 

On one or more occasions, the Boy Scouts then-executive director, William T. Dwyer 3d, told us that he personally opposed the Boy Scouts policy of discrimination, because discrimination is wrong and because of a suicide that he attributed to that policy, Perrys affidavit states.

 

Perry couldnt be reached for comment.

 

Dwyer, who resigned as executive director in October 2009, couldnt be reached for comment.

 

Anyone here know anything about this?

[acco40 95]

I agree that the city, which has an anti-bias policy, should not rent subsidize organizations that go against that policy.

 

I also agree with the BSA's position, or more accurately the C of L council's position that the affidavit in question has no relevancy to the litigation at hand (i.e. the suicide reference).

[Beavah 205]

Aw, acco, yeh fed da troll. Now this will become an all-about-Merlyn thread

 

Da CoLC built the building out of its own funds and then surrendered it to the city in exchange for a perpetual lease. So if da city is going to cancel the perpetual lease, shouldn't they offer to pay the council the current fair market value of the building?

 

B

 

[NJCubScouter 1389]

First of all, Beavah, if anyone's a troll in this thread, it's not Merlyn. Merlyn raised an issue. Acco discussed the issue (and I agree with him.) You attacked another forum member. Who's the troll?

 

And then you went on to discuss the issue. I have a better question for you: Shouldn't the parties abide by the language of the contract they entered into? It's my understanding that that's all the city is trying to do. It isn't obligated to pay the BSA council anything.

[evmori 11]

Defend all you want NJ. Beavah isn't the troll.

[Gunny2862 11]

I guess it all depends on what the meaning of perpetual is.

Until we change our minds? Until you do something we get pressure from someone else who doesn't like it? Why would anyone build a building and give it to the city under a perpetual lease agreement unless the idea was that they would perpetually be entitled to inhabit/use it?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

"in perpetuity" in a lease simply means it doesn't automatically lapse after a year/month/whatever. Leases like that persist until someone exercises one of the ways to end the lease, which in this case was giving one year's notice by either the city or the BSA.

[skeptic 992]

Ah, the naivete of those from yesteryear. Back when the agreement was made, honor was perhaps more important to people. Everyone, at the time, certainly understood what the reason for the agreement was. And until the past 25 years or so, before freedom began being interpreted as license too often, ego-centric-ism became a way of life for many, and "PC" twisting became a staple for many lawyers, the intent was honored by both sides.

 

So, we are left with the current legal morass, not only here, but in other parts of the country. The shame of course is that while the legal contortions are taking place, the kids most benefited lose out. And, in many of the cases, if the government entity ends up with property, it will fall into disrepair and become overgrown, as they will not have the resources to care for it.

 

Oh well! (:-

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Yeah, the halcyon days when whites-only public swimming pools (paid for by everyone) were common, and lesser citizens knew their place, eh skeptic?

[evmori 11]

Yeah, the halcyon days when whites-only public swimming pools (paid for by everyone) were common, and lesser citizens knew their place, eh skeptic?

 

I'm not speaking for skeptic, Merlyn, but no. When your word was your bond.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Ed, Philly hasn't gone back on their word; the agreement said that either side could unilaterally end it with one year's notice, and the city gave that.

[Beavah 205]

Yah, contracts require a meeting of the minds, eh?

 

I don't reckon that the real understanding of the contract at the time it was drafted was that the council could build the city a building for free and then be kicked to da curb one year later so the city could take possession of a shiny, new building paid for by someone else.

 

My guess is that the understanding was closer to da traditional meaning of "perpetuity". It's da only rational way to read the contract, and such contracts were fairly common back then for public entities to enter into. Serves the public good - yeh get somethin' nice for the town, yeh get the organization's services for da community, and if the organization ever folds the land and building can continue to be used for public purpose instead of being turned into condos or a McDonalds .

 

Still, not having read da filings, I'd expect the case to go against the CoLC. Da BSA of late has been usin' some really weak, ideologically-driven law firms. From what I understand, this is another example. If Irving weren't such a mess right now, they'd be well advised to do a better job tryin' to coordinate legal, PR, and lobbying strategy across da country on cases like this one.

 

Beavah

 

[GernBlansten 10]

"At the time", Beavah, did the words in the contract that either party could terminate the contract with one years notice mean something different?

[T2Eagle 902]

Even if we disagree with them I dont think its necessary to vilify the other side. It's not hard to think of agreements that might have been made back then that we wouldnt want to continue today. If you purchased a house and promised not to sell it to anyone Asian, African-American, or otherwise undesirable I would hope we wouldnt consider it a matter of honor to not break that promise.

 

Here the good people of Philadelphia, using proper democratic processes, have, through their duly elected representatives decided that they dont want to continue to provide any support to groups that discriminate based on religious beliefs and/or sexual orientation. Its not crazy to say that renting one of the choicest pieces of real estate in the city for a dollar a year is providing support to just such an organization.

 

Its worth noting that the volunteers running that council wanted to bring their policies in line with what is the majority position in their city, but they were ordered not to by National, and the city has said the scouts can stay at that location if they give up the citys support and pay market rate rent. Depending on the terms of the original agreement and other considerations it is very possible that if the scouts vacate the building they will be compensated for its value.

 

Now we certainly have arguments on our side and thats why we have courts to sort them out. But just because they are in disagreement with us doesnt mean the people of Philadelphia are being dishonorable.

 

[CalicoPenn 729]

It's my understanding that the BSA has a ground lease with the right to build on the property but that anything they build on the property becomes part of the land and is owned by the lessor (City of Philadelphia) and not the lessee (CofL Council BSA), without any requirement for compensation of construction and maintenance costs to the lessee. The compensation for the construction and maintenance of the building has already been received by the BSA in that they have not had to pay market rents for the building throughout the history of the ground lease.