Philly says Boy Scouts have to accept gays

[Ben Kenobi]

Solomwi, here's the actual facts of the matter.

In 1928, the city gave the local Boy Scouts Council permission to build a headquarters building on city land, to be the regional Scout headquarters, with the proviso that

the completed building would be city property,
which the Scouts could use exclusively for their own activities
without having to pay rent.
The Scouts also had the obligation to maintain the building.

Ho, ho. That changes things. The city signed the contract prior to building construction.

That's three stipulations.

One, that the building would be the property of the city.
Two, that the scouts could use the property exclusively for their own activities. They could not rent the building out to other people.
Three, without having to pay rent.
Four, the Scouts also had the obligation to maintain the building.

They have to compensate them for the whole value for the building, solomwi.

The Scouts also had the obligation to maintain the building. The building was completed in 1929 and has been in continuous use since then. Annual maintenance costs to the Scouts have averaged $60,000 in recent years, and they spent $1.5 million on a major renovation project in 1994.

So the Scouts even have to maintain the building. This is a slam dunk, Solomwi.

[Solomwi]

No, it's not required. The philosophy is that the tenant gets the use of the improvement while he occupies the land. Ever live in an apartment where they tell you you can put up a ceiling fan, but can't take it down when you leave? Same principle.

You mean the terms of the lease you admit you've never read? The Scouts occupied the building for their own benefit, and were saved the need to pay rent elsewhere. That offsets any potential rental income you want to impute to them. Your "point" is retarded.

[Solomwi]

Solomwi, here's the actual facts of the matter.



Ho, ho. That changes things. The city signed the contract prior to building construction.

They have to compensate them for the whole value for the building.



So the Scouts even have to maintain the building. This is a slam dunk, Solomwi.

No, that doesn't change anything. The building was still a fixture built on the city's land. The Scouts never had a legal right of ownership over it, so such a right can't be consideration for an enforceable contract. Well, at least you're finally looking for actual facts rather than making them up. Good for you.

At best, the Scouts can try to claim maintenance costs, since that's typically the landlord's responsibility. In light of the free rent, though, they probably won't get very far.

[Ben Kenobi]

The unjust enrichment claim asserted that if the city evicted the Scouts, the city would unfairly benefit from the major investment the Scouts have made in maintaining and renovating the building, but the court found that Pennsylvania contract law does not allow an unjust enrichment claim to be asserted when the parties’ relationship is governed by a contract – in this case, the original 1928 grant of permission to build, which was premised on an obligation by the Scouts to maintain the building. So those state law claims fall out of the case.

So it's all on breach of contract. If the scouts can prove that the contract was breached, they'll get the sum for the building.

http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/leonardlink/2008/10/boy-scouts-defe.html

[Solomwi]

Solomwi, here's the actual facts of the matter.



Ho, ho. That changes things. The city signed the contract prior to building construction.

That's three stipulations.

One, that the building would be the property of the city.
Two, that the scouts could use the property exclusively for their own activities. They could not rent the building out to other people.
Three, without having to pay rent.
Four, the Scouts also had the obligation to maintain the building.

They have to compensate them for the whole value for the building, solomwi.



So the Scouts even have to maintain the building. This is a slam dunk, Solomwi.

How do you get from 1-4 to compensation? One is true by operation of law, regardless of agreement. Two is a restriction on the city, not the Scouts (i.e., the city swears off taking back part of its own building to rent to someone else). Three is a concession to the Scouts. Four is the only obligation undertaken by the Scouts. Maintenance for free rent. That's your idea of a slam dunk? Here's a clue, sweetheart: the Scouts won't have to maintain the building once they're out of it.

[Ben Kenobi]

No, that doesn't change anything. The building was still a fixture built on the city's land.

With permission from the city. They can sue for breach of contract. They built the building, construction costs included, maintenance costs included, in exchange for free rent. The city of Philadelphia accrues a benefit from the improvement to the property.

The Scouts never had a legal right of ownership over it, so such a right can't be consideration for an enforceable contract. Well, at least you're finally looking for actual facts rather than making them up. Good for you.

I've never been making them up. The scouts should be compensated for their investment in the building, as the city has broken their contract with them. What would have happened had the scouts not built the building? As soon as the city broached their end of the contract the clause that said, "this building is the property of the city" is also terminated. They cannot claim that the contract is binding on one party and breach their own obligations.

The only thing that the scouts would be on the hook for is the property taxes on the building going back to 1928.

At best, the Scouts can try to claim maintenance costs, since that's typically the landlord's responsibility. In light of the free rent, though, they probably won't get very far.

Constitutionally, one of two things will happen.

The city council could be found guilty of breaching their constitutional rights, and then have to pony up a considerable settlement.

Or they could be sensible and pay out the 8 figure value for the property, and all parties walk away happy.

[Solomwi]

So it's all on breach of contract. If the scouts can prove that the contract was breached, they'll get the sum for the building.

http://newyorklawschool.typepad.com/...outs-defe.html

Did you miss the previous sentence, about breach of contract also being dismissed?

The Scouts argued in this lawsuit that they thought they had a compromise deal with the city based on their disavowal of “unlawful discrimination,” but a subsequent City Attorney disavowed any agreement reached with his predecessor, which was never reduced to writing and never formally approved as a contract by the law department, as required by municipal law, thus the court’s dismissal of the breach of contract claim.

Note that the Scouts didn't even try to sue for breach on the 1928 deal. Furthermore, in the bit you quoted, that deal is characterized as maintenance for permission to build. In other words, the Scouts' contractual obligation was maintenance, not ownership of the building.

Selective quoting.

[Solomwi]

With permission from the city. They can sue for breach of contract. They built the building, construction costs included, maintenance costs included, in exchange for free rent. The city of Philadelphia accrues a benefit from the improvement to the property.

No. Unjust enrichment (your last sentence) and breach of K have both been dismissed.

I've never been making them up. The scouts should be compensated for their investment in the building, as the city has broken their contract with them. What would have happened had the scouts not built the building? As soon as the city broached their end of the contract the clause that said, "this building is the property of the city" is also terminated. They cannot claim that the contract is binding on one party and breach their own obligations.

Then where did you get the substantial income stream to the city from renting part of the building, for starters?

Constitutionally, one of two things will happen.

The city council could be found guilty of breaching their constitutional rights, and then have to pony up a considerable settlement.

Or they could be sensible and pay out the 8 figure value for the property, and all parties walk away happy.

No. Compensation for the building's value remains your own delusion. Your first option is a possibility. After all, courts make mistakes, too. Most likely, though, is option C, where the city is found not to have violated the Scouts constitutional rights by refusing to extend a subsidy against municipal law.

[Berzerker]

When was the last time you read the Bible?

You are getting Peter and Paul mixed up.

And missing the point (as usual).

JM

He's shown over and over again that he can't read or comprehend anything anyone posts here, no surprise he doesn't understand the bible.

Yeah, I'm thinking of Paul (dont have a heart attack over it boys, Jesus H Christ) and he certainly did have something to do with the formation of Christianity - which was the point. I was responding to this:

The Christian Romans weren't the ones writing the books

Paul was writing plenty, so what point did you have in mind JM?

[Ben Kenobi]

Then where did you get the substantial income stream to the city from renting part of the building, for starters?

The city asked for the stipulation that the scouts couldn't rent the building or use it for other purposes. This is an imputed loss of the rental stream to the tenents for the life of occupancy.

This works no differently then to say that the city would accrue all rents earned on the property over the time period, which is why this clause is in there.

No. Compensation for the building's value remains your own delusion. Your first option is a possibility. After all, courts make mistakes, too.

Settlement would be the best option for the city of Philadelphia. Their treatment of the scouts is why this even reached the courts in the first place. The city wants to walk away with all the cards. Kicking the scouts out, getting the whole building for free, and not having to pay compensation. They will get 2 of the 3.

Either the scouts stay, and they get the building, and they don't have to pay compensation OR

The scouts leave, they get the whole building for free and they pay compensation. OR

The scouts leave, retain title to the building, and the city pays them nothing.

Most likely, though, is option C, where the city is found not to have violated the Scouts constitutional rights by refusing to extend a subsidy against municipal law.

The contract is the problem. The city is in breach of contract, so there will be some compensation.

They can't rewrite inconvenient contracts at will.

[Ming]

Just like everything else, Ben just makes up legal opinion, makes up numbers, pulls stuff out of his ass, ignores reality, selectively quotes, and calls things facts.

None of his moronic opinions should surprise anybody.

[Ben Kenobi]

None of his moronic opinions should surprise anybody.

Hey folks, if you don't agree with Ming you are a moron.

If you do agree with him, you are the second smartest man on the planet. After him of course because he has spoken.

[Solomwi]

The city asked for the stipulation that the scouts couldn't rent the building or use it for other purposes. This is an imputed loss of the rental stream to the tenents for the life of occupancy.

This works no differently then to say that the city would accrue all rents earned on the property over the time period, which is why this clause is in there.

That's a bizarre reading, and even then, doesn't account for a substantial income stream to the city, as you claimed. The city is seeing a grand total of one dollar a year from the property.

Settlement would be the best option for the city of Philadelphia. Their treatment of the scouts is why this even reached the courts in the first place. The city wants to walk away with all the cards. Kicking the scouts out, getting the whole building for free, and not having to pay compensation. They will get 2 of the 3.

Either the scouts stay, and they get the building, and they don't have to pay compensation OR

The scouts leave, they get the whole building for free and they pay compensation. OR

The scouts leave, retain title to the building, and the city pays them nothing.

You keep forgetting the most likely scenario: the Scouts leave, the city retains title, and doesn't have to pay the Scouts the value of the building. The Scouts can't retain what they never possessed and currently don't possess.

The city is actually sitting pretty well here. The state law claims have been dismissed, leaving only constitutional claims, which haven't yet passed summary judgment. There may be a case for the equal protection claim. Like the court, I'd have to see more facts before determining that. The First Amendment claim, however, is likely doomed. The kind of tortured reading of the Constitution needed to support that is the kind that generally comes from the left side of the bench, which isn't likely to be sympathetic to the Scouts at all.

The contract is the problem. The city is in breach of contract, so there will be some compensation.

They can't rewrite inconvenient contracts at will.

The K you think the city is in breach of wasn't even made the basis of a single claim the suit. Hence, it's not a problem for the city at all. Even if it were, the city would be looking at maintenance costs, not the value of the building today. Think about that first sentence for a second. In a suit where the plaintiffs included multiple state law and constitutional claims, they chose not to sue for the contract breach you're so certain of. Why might that be? They forgot? Or just forgot to consult you first?

[Ben Kenobi]

You keep forgetting the most likely scenario: the Scouts leave, the city retains title, and doesn't have to pay the Scouts the value of the building. The Scouts can't retain what they never possessed and currently don't possess.

They possess a contract which states that the title of the property is contingent with their rental. They built the property, a property which would not exist if the contract were not there.

The city is actually sitting pretty well here. The state law claims have been dismissed, leaving only constitutional claims, which haven't yet passed summary judgment. There may be a case for the equal protection claim. Like the court, I'd have to see more facts before determining that. The First Amendment claim, however, is likely doomed. The kind of tortured reading of the Constitution needed to support that is the kind that generally comes from the left side of the bench, which isn't likely to be sympathetic to the Scouts at all.

I don't think the supremes are sympathetic to the city of Philadelphia, which is where this will end up unless there is some kind of settlement.

The K you think the city is in breach of wasn't even made the basis of a single claim the suit. Hence, it's not a problem for the city at all. Even if it were, the city would be looking at maintenance costs, not the value of the building today. Think about that first sentence for a second. In a suit where the plaintiffs included multiple state law and constitutional claims, they chose not to sue for the contract breach you're so certain of. Why might that be? They forgot? Or just forgot to consult you first?

Don't know, I'm not on the legal team. Just from what I can see of the contract it seems pretty clear to me that the city has breached their initial contract. I'm guessing that the scouts would prefer the status quo, hence the constitutional arguments and the argument via equal protection. Their whole strategy shouts supreme court to me. Also suggests that the scouts are looking to knock down the City's laws rather then arguing over the building and the costs. The law gets taken down, this whole deal goes away and the status quo resumes.

Their overall strategy from the start has been haphazard and disorganised. You have to admit that they haven't been very sharp in their conduct towards the city.

[Solomwi]

You don't think Sotomayor, Ginsburg, et al. will be more sympathetic to a city government than to an organization fighting to exclude gays and atheists and still keep a government subsidy? They're the ones most likely to twist freedom of association into a right to receive subsidies. Scalia and the rest may be sympathetic to the Scouts, but are less likely to go through all the gyrations required to rule for them on First Amendment grounds. None of them are likely to strike down a local anti-discrimination law on its face.

They have filed suit, without doing so on the initial K, which you keep telling us what was in even though you've never seen it. Ergo, the initial K is not an issue, even if it says what you so desperately want it to say. Their strategy, by the way, obviously included seeking state law relief, evidenced by the claims dismissed. Yet they still didn't sue on the initial K.