2011 - The Year We Take Back Congress and Make Obama's Life Hell!

Thursday, May 29, 2008

A Few Righteous Slaps in the Face,...



Days before a deadline to vacate their historical Center City headquarters because of their policies on homosexuals and atheists, the Boy Scouts have sued the city, saying their constitutional rights have been trampled.

The federal suit, assigned to U.S. District Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter, asks for a court order prohibiting city officials from evicting the Cradle of Liberty Council from its building, a Beaux Arts structure at 22d and Winter Streets. The scouts had been facing a deadline of Saturday to change their policy, begin paying market rates - about $200,000 a year - for the half-acre of city-owned land near Logan Square, or vacate.

The civil-rights lawsuit, filed Friday in federal court in Center City, contends that the city is violating the scouts' rights under the U.S. and Pennsylvania Constitutions.

"The City has imposed an unconstitutional condition upon Cradle of Liberty's receipt of a benefit that Cradle of Liberty has enjoyed for nearly eight decades," the suit reads.

Mayor Nutter, asked about the lawsuit at a speaking engagement yesterday in Harrisburg, said: "The issue is very, very clear and has been clear for a very long time. . . . I do find it interesting that somehow, some way, the Girl Scouts have figured out how to provide services to all girls and not discriminate, and the Boy Scouts have not figured out how to do the same.

"Our position is, you cannot discriminate in terms of delivery of services on city property," Nutter added. "The U.S. Supreme Court has opined that the Boy Scouts can have any rules that they want, and at the same time you can't discriminate on public property."

If the judge rules in the city's favor, the lawsuit asks that the Cradle of Liberty Council, which represents 70,000 members in Philadelphia, Delaware and Montgomery Counties, be compensated for its investment.

The building was erected by the Boy Scouts at a cost of $200,000. Cradle of Liberty officials say they renovated the building in 1994 for $2.6 million and spend about $60,000 a year on maintenance.

Regardless of the lawsuit's outcome, its filing means the scouts will not be on the sidewalk come Monday morning. Lawyers for both sides said the lawsuit preserves the status quo until the court rules, a process that could take months or more.

The lawsuit maintains that about 100 private organizations with membership criteria - including 15 youth groups - lease city property at rents of under $2,000 a year.

Only the Boy Scouts, the suit continues, have been threatened with eviction.

The lawsuit mentions the Roman Catholic Church of the Maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary, which the suit says has paid a nominal rent for a church building in Pennypack Park since 1935; Zion Baptist Church, which pays $25 a year to lease three parcels of recreational land for the Clara Baldwin Home for seniors; and Women for Greater Philadelphia and the Colonial Dames of America, which have free perpetual leases for historic mansions in Fairmount Park.

"This city allows numerous organizations to use city-owned property and does not necessarily refuse them based on restrictions on membership," said Center City lawyer Jason P. Gosselin, who filed the suit on behalf of the Cradle of Liberty Council.

City Solicitor Shelley R. Smith said she believes the difference between the Boy Scouts and the other groups that lease city land or buildings is that the other groups do not discriminate in the social services they provide.

Smith said you cannot be a Boy Scout if you are openly gay or an atheist: "If we find that these other groups are doing that, we will take the appropriate action."

The Cradle of Liberty Council's predicament is one that scouting councils nationwide have faced since a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in a case the scouts won.

In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, the Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, that the scouts are a private group and thus have the right of "expressive association" under the First Amendment to set their own membership rules.

But the scouts' legal victory soon soured as municipal officials began reexamining long-standing relationships with local scout groups.

Local public officials say they are bound by another line of court rulings that bar them from using taxpayer support for any private group that discriminates. Other supporters, such as United Way, also dropped the scouts.

The scouts have maintained that they cannot change their membership policies without being ejected by the national scout organization and cannot afford the rent.

Scout officials say $200,000 a year would fund 30 new Cub Scout packs of summer camp for 800 needy children.

In October 2006, the Supreme Court refused to review a California Supreme Court ruling affirming the City of Berkeley's decision to revoke free marina use for a Sea Scouts group.

Gosselin said he did not believe the high court's ruling in the Berkeley case meant the Cradle of Liberty lawsuit could not succeed.

"Their decision not to take up the case on appeal was not a decision on the merits of the case," Gosselin said. "They don't take that many cases."

Philadelphia has an added wrinkle: a 1982 Fair Practices Ordinance that also bars the city from supporting any discriminatory groups.

Gosselin said the 1982 ordinance raises another question: "This situation has existed for 20 years. Why now?"




BEIRUT, Lebanon - Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Saniora won a new term yesterday with the backing of a pro-U.S. coalition, angering the Hezbollah-led opposition, which had pressed for a change in leadership.

The decision came amid a two-day outbreak of low-level violence between supporters of the country's two main political camps.

Saniora was named anew to the government's most powerful executive position just three days after former army chief of staff Michel Suleiman was elected president and assigned to name a government after an accord meant to end a 19-month political crisis.

"Our national unity and coexistence are what we hold most precious and are the secret to the survival of this country," Saniora said in a televised address. "I address myself to my brothers in the nation from all sides and backgrounds with an open mind."

Saniora's victory appeared to catch the opposition off guard. Syrian- and Iranian-backed factions and most analysts said they believed the majority pro-U.S. coalition known as the March 14 movement would nominate parliamentary majority leader Saad Hariri, leader of the country's Sunni Arab community.

Hariri had met for more than an hour Monday with Manoucher Mottaki, the foreign minister of Iran. The meeting suggested that he might have gained the blessings of Hezbollah's primary international patron.

Although the pro-government camp denied any intent to rile the opposition, the move was seen as an attempt by the March 14 coalition to show its independence. The powerful opposition bloc had won numerous concessions, including the ability to veto any cabinet decisions by the government, in the agreement early this month after Hezbollah fighters seized control of western Beirut for a short time.

Although opposition leaders said they would abide by the decision of the pro-government camp, Hezbollah's television channel, Al Manar, attacked the prime minister as having brought the country to "political, economic and social catastrophe," noted that he received the approval of only 68 out of 127 lawmakers and warned of political instability in the next government.

Labels:

5 Comments:

At 9:22 PM, Blogger Charlie on the PA Turnpike said...

Mayor Nutter, asked about the lawsuit at a speaking engagement yesterday in Harrisburg, said: "The issue is very, very clear and has been clear for a very long time. . . .

The right of due process and freedom of association has been crystal clear for a lot longer, Mr. Mayor.

Any law school undergrad who reads the 19 page suit can tell you how easy it is for the City to disprove the Scout's claim.

That is, it's easy if, in fact, their rights haven't been violated.

Your move, Mr. Mayor.

 
At 10:46 PM, Blogger Brian Westley said...

Freedom of association does not obligate the city of Philadelphia to lease a building to the BSA for $1/year. They can pay market rates like anyone else.

 
At 9:18 AM, Blogger Charlie on the PA Turnpike said...

They can pay market rates like anyone else.

If the terms of the eviction are upheld as lawful - and all the City needs to do is simply provide documentation that would refute the claims that the rights of the Scouts were violated (something fairly easy to do, I imagine, if the City is in the right), then the City would have to justify the reported $200K/yr lease rates.


What will need to be considered are the improvements made to the 1928 plot; if those improvements are truly worth $200K/year, then the Scouts are deserving reimbursement. Is the City really certain they want to go down this road?

Returning to the greater point of freedom of association: I wonder when the roughly 100 other civic organizations and churches in the City - which all have similar sweet-heart leases - will face the same draconian measures as have the BSA.

 
At 12:57 AM, Blogger Brian Westley said...

Here is the city resolution where they give the Boy Scouts the required 1-year notice that they are terminating the arrangement. The Boy Scouts gave the building to the city back in 1928 as part of the original agreement which allowed them to build on public land; any improvements since then, like any other instance of building on leased property, belong to the owner of the property if there is no agreement stating otherwise.

Returning to the greater point of freedom of association: I wonder when the roughly 100 other civic organizations and churches in the City - which all have similar sweet-heart leases - will face the same draconian measures as have the BSA.

City officials have already said that any other leases found to be in violation will also be terminated. I think cities should follow their laws instead of allowing arbitrary violations depending on whether the lessee is popular or not.

 
At 7:32 AM, Blogger Charlie on the PA Turnpike said...

Come on, Brian, even you can do better than that. The COL's suit states the City did not give prior public notice, nor permit any public debate, prior to the City Council voting on the resolution you refer to in your comment.

If the City did provide for public notice and debate, that's overly simple to demonstrate to prove the Scouts are wrong. Otherwise, their due process rights have been trumped.

Your claim that the Scouts aren't entitled to any reimbursement goes straight to a completely separate argument over eminent domain; still, since the alleged value of the property is said to be $200K, which is reportedly high even for Philadelphia, it would be interesting to see the City justify that claim as well.

I think cities should follow their laws instead of allowing arbitrary violations depending on whether the lessee is popular or not.

Well at least we have a point of agreement. Because a few radical Councilmembers find the BSA unpopular, they shouldn't be targeted for eviction above anyone else who (allegedly) is in violation of a law (which, by the way, the COL BSA has never been adjudicated as being).

 

Post a Comment

<< Home