Philly says Boy Scouts have to accept gays

[Solomwi]

Imagine what the scouts could have gotten for 80 years of rent. Unfortunately their contract says they can't rent out to anyone. So rent is immaterial. The stipulations cancel each other out.

Only in your addled brain. Again, Scouts build building. City owns building from moment of inception. Scouts reap benefit of building through rent-free occupation. In your hypothetical, the Scouts would have to find someplace else to occupy, negating any rent they would have collected on the city's building. The free rent benefit still stands.

[Ben Kenobi]

That's why you leave a damage deposit, to cover some of it.

You'd be surprised what I've seen. Twice I've been the tenent coming in after someone trashed the place.

If you hire renters that do that, you're an idiot. Get better at judging people.

We've had no problems with that, because of our policy of having the cheque come at the end. You fix up the place, add anything, you get out what you put into it.

People are far more apt to do things when they know they are going to get something out of it.

[Ben Kenobi]

Again, Scouts build building. City owns building from moment of inception. Scouts reap benefit of building through rent-free occupation.

City stipulated that the Scouts couldn't lease it out to anyone else. That's a restriction.

In your hypothetical, the Scouts would have to find someplace else to occupy, negating any rent they would have collected on the city's building. The free rent benefit still stands.

They could relocate to an area with cheaper rent. They could relocate to a smaller building. It's not a hypothetical. The stipulation saying that the scouts must occupy the building and cannot sublet is a significant restriction on the property. This counters the rent that the scouts would otherwise pay to the city.

[rah]

Why do you think renters don't give a **** about the condition of the property? Compensate them for improvements, and it's a very different attitude. Just good business sense. You'd charge them for property damage through withholding a deposit, no?

One, i'm not getting into the boy scout issue here because the lawyers seem to have the covered.

I'd only compensate the for improvements that they wouldn't do without the compensation and if I would get some value while being able to afford it at the time. i.e, I'm not going to pay for a coat of paint if after a few years when their lease is over I'm going to have to paint the place anyway. I'm not going to pay for an kitchen addition if I wouldn't be able to raise the future rent high enough to cover the cost of the addition. Most renovation products don't return 100% of the value in terms of resale or renting.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'd only compensate the for improvements that they wouldn't do without the compensation and if I would get some value while being able to afford it at the time.

Ok, well for us, we simply didn't charge for the rent. The value of the rent at the time was a much more significant asset than the improvement. In time, the improvement to the house has been much more valuable.

We'd figure we'd be losing out early on, but that the house would appreciate. This has turned out to be the case, as rents haven't kept up with housing values here.

I'm not going to pay for a coat of paint if after a few years when their lease is over I'm going to have to paint the place anyway. I'm not going to pay for an kitchen addition if I wouldn't be able to raise the future rent high enough to cover the cost of the addition.

Ok. I can understand why you wouldn't pay in either case. I think I would have paid for both the addition and the paint job.

Most renovation products don't return 100% of the value in terms of resale or renting.

Depends on the project, when the project was done, how much it cost for the project to be done. Having to pay the professionals big bucks to get it done is far more expensive then the coat of paint by the tenent.

[Asher]

You'd be surprised what I've seen. Twice I've been the tenent coming in after someone trashed the place.

If you were my landlord, I'd trash the place as well.

[Ben Kenobi]

Class, all class.

I wouldn't do the same to you.

I lost two weeks once because of it, that's how long it took to clean the place. Never saw a penny of the rent back, even though I had to find another place in the meantime.

The second place, was about a week or so.

[giblets]

Asher isn't the one who deserves it.

[Solomwi]

City stipulated that the Scouts couldn't lease it out to anyone else. That's a restriction.



They could relocate to an area with cheaper rent. They could relocate to a smaller building. It's not a hypothetical. The stipulation saying that the scouts must occupy the building and cannot sublet is a significant restriction on the property. This counters the rent that the scouts would otherwise pay to the city.

Why do you keep up with this bull****? Of course it's a hypothetical. You're using hypothetical rents collected to offset rents actually waived, and ignoring the necessary hypothetical rents incurred. Doesn't work that way. Absent some evidence pointing to a specific, cheaper office the Scouts would have rented, the presumption is they'd have gone somewhere comparable and paid comparable market rent, making the hypothetical rents on each side a wash. The bottom line remains that the Scouts received a gratuitous benefit from the city. Hell, the Scouts even admitted that in their complaint:

"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, and that many other organizations that limit members or services to members of a particular group continue to enjoy without punishment or the threat of punishment," the scouts' lawsuit reads.

It's amazing that you continue to be so confident in positions the Scouts themselves have refuted.

[Ben Kenobi]

You're using hypothetical rents collected to offset rents actually waived

Why would the rents that the scouts could collect be substantially different if both are based on market principles?

Absent some evidence pointing to a specific, cheaper office the Scouts would have rented

What, the alternative back in '28? The whole reason they did this deal with the city is because they were already leasing the land. I'm sure if the city had turned them down, they'd have found something else. Or they would have cancelled the lease with the city on the land.

the presumption is they'd have gone somewhere comparable and paid comparable market rent, making the hypothetical rents on each side a wash. The bottom line remains that the Scouts received a gratuitous benefit from the city. Hell, the Scouts even admitted that in their complaint:

"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

Do you enjoy extemporaneous remarks? Yes, it was a benefit. Is it gratuitious? No. Stick to the script.

[Solomwi]

Yes, it's gratuitous. There's no corresponding detriment incurred by the Scouts for its receipt (for the millionth time, ownership of the building doesn't fit the bill). That's also why they're challenging it as being bundled with an "unconstitutional condition." If you can't overcome your legal illiteracy, at least try not to put it on display.

What, the alternative back in '28? The whole reason they did this deal with the city is because they were already leasing the land. I'm sure if the city had turned them down, they'd have found something else. Or they would have cancelled the lease with the city on the land.

False, as demonstrated by links you provided earlier in the thread.

Why would the rents that the scouts could collect be substantially different if both are based on market principles?

Again with the selective quoting? The point isn't that those rents would be different. It's that the hypothetical rent is offset without touching the waived rent.

[Berzerker]

so what point did you have in mind JM?

[MrFun]

MrFun, can you tell me if anything is wrong with saddle shoes? I mean if they're let's say, cream and cinnamon color and paired with blackwatch plaid trousers and a navy waistcoat? Do you think the hue of the cinnamon would clash with the overall water tones of the outfit?

I'm asking you because after the other thread, I've decided to ask Apolyton's gay community about clothes and I don't trust Asher's ability to dress even himself properly.

I'm not fashion conscious. I'm t-shirt and jeans kinda guy.

[Al B. Sure!]

What are you gay guys good for?

[MrFun]

If only you knew . . . .