Philly says Boy Scouts have to accept gays

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, if I rent land from you and build a permanent improvement, say a house, on that land, to whom does that house belong?

The land belongs to you. The house belongs to me.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you were raped by a priest, would you prefer he sodomize you with a splintery broomstick, the priest's penis, or a scalding hot rod?

The rod.

Now, stop evading. Answer the damn question, Asher.

[Solomwi]

The land belongs to you. The house belongs to me.

Not only did you get the parties backward, you got the question dead ****ing wrong.

[Ben Kenobi]

What would be the difference in the quality of your repeated cut-and-paste posts compared to original posts you make?

It's not exactly a difficult question. Asher for whatever reason refuses to answer.

Why you defend him, I don't know.

[Ben Kenobi]

Not only did you get the parties backward, you got the question dead ****ing wrong.

Now, Asher can answer his damn question. I answered yours.

[Solomwi]

Precedents?

Now, Asher can answer his damn question.

Yes. Tons. It's black letter law that a fixture goes with the land. Now you can give up the silly "pay them for the building" notion (which was wrong, by the way, even under your misconception of the law, since you'd need to offset the value of the building by what was already paid, i.e., 80 years of rent).

[Solomwi]

Now, Asher can answer his damn question. I answered yours.

And bully for you. Has it dawned on you yet what my question does to the relevance of yours?

[Ben Kenobi]

Yes. Tons. It's black letter law that a fixture goes with the land. Now you can give up the silly "pay them for the building" notion (which was wrong, by the way, even under your misconception of the law, since you'd need to offset the value of the building by what was already paid, i.e., 80 years of rent).

Why is rent relevant?

The boy scouts also gave up the right to rent out the building for profit. This offsets the 1 dollar rent.

Had they owned the building they could have collected rent on the property.

The only relevant offsetting expenses would be property taxes from 1928 onwards on the building. That's it. And/or building maintenance. These are countered by the building and construction expenses.

[Ben Kenobi]

Has it dawned on you yet what my question does to the relevance of yours?

Yes. In fact I already addressed your point yesterday. Now, had you asked this question yesterday, you would have realised I've already moved quite beyond your point.

Now, Asher can answer the damn question.

[Solomwi]

No, you didn't, and no, you haven't. In fact, it still appears you have no clue about what I'm saying or why it's important, even after I spelled it out above. The building was never the Scouts' to give up. The moment they built it, it belonged, by law, not agreement, to the city. They can dress it up however they like, but no legal right seems to have been traded away for the lease, all of which has the dual effect of (a) making the city not liable to the Scouts for the cost of the city's building, and (b) making the perpetual lease a gratuitous gift, rather than an enforceable contract.

And what rent has to do with it is, in your world, it would be consideration already paid for the building by the city. The Scouts themselves occupied the building, dumbass. Even if they didn't, the imputed income from renting it out offsets nothing, especially considering the city also lost the opportunity to rent its land out, which offsets the Scouts' lost opportunity (and, as a bonus, is actually attributable to the Scouts, unlike the offset you propose). And no, construction costs wouldn't offset anything, either. They're completely irrelevant to a subsequent sales contract. It's amazing how much you're willing to twist reality to justify the Scouts being paid a windfall for a building they never owned.

[Ben Kenobi]

No, you didn't, and no, you haven't. In fact, it still appears you have no clue about what I'm saying or why it's important, even after I spelled it out above.

So if you build on city-owned land, the city can come and destroy your building at any time without compensation?

The building was never the Scouts' to give up.

It was their building when they erected it, city land or not.

The moment they built it, it belonged, by law, not agreement, to the city.

In 1928? Doesn't seem to be the case. Why then did the city make the deal with the scouts?

They can dress it up however they like, but no legal right seems to have been traded away for the lease, all of which has the dual effect of (a) making the city not liable to the Scouts for the cost of the city's building, and (b) making the perpetual lease a gratuitous gift, rather than an enforceable contract.

It's still an enforceable contract. All this deals with is the compensation accorded to breach of contract. Which may or may not have been stated in the contract. I don't have the contract in front of me which isn't publicly available which would deal with most of these questiosn.

And what rent has to do with it is, in your world, it would be consideration already paid for the building by the city. The Scouts themselves occupied the building, dumbass.

Yes, and the point that the scouts could have rented the building out themselves, until they made the deal with the city is part of what they gave up. This is why the rental value is irrelevant to the question. Had the scouts still owned the building they could have collected market value rent.

Even if they didn't, the imputed income from renting it out offsets nothing, especially considering the city also lost the opportunity to rent its land out

They chose to rent out to the scouts and their building during the initial construction. This would be relevant if the scouts breached their contract.

And no, construction costs wouldn't offset anything, either. They're completely irrelevant to a subsequent sales contract. It's amazing how much you're willing to twist reality to justify the Scouts being paid a windfall for a building they never owned.

They did own the building, that's the point here. They built the building at no cost to the city. They maintained the building for years, before they made an offsetting deal with Philly, to sell the building outright.

Now, how can you sell a building you did not own? The scouts did in fact own the building when they sold back in '28. They then leased the building back from the state at the perpetual rent of a dollar a year in lieu of financial compensation.

Personally, I don't think the scouts should get anything. Status quo would be my preference, but the city doesn't want them there. That's breach of contract on the part of the city. If the city didn't like the perpetual rent, then they should have renegotiated with the scouts. That didn't happen.

[Solomwi]

I'm not going to point-by-point that because everything you said is wrong. The Scouts never owned the building. They built it on rented land, which made it the property of the landowner, the city. That was the law in 1928, in 1828 and will still be the law in 2028. Similarly, this isn't, even in your fantasy world, a situation where the law allows lost income as a breach of K damage. Of course, that's completely irrelevant, since the Scouts (a) occupied the building themselves (meaning even by your tortured logic they were spared the cost of renting somewhere else, which itself would offset any lost rental income), and (b) THEY NEVER OWNED THE ****ING BUILDING. That means they never sold the building to the city. Until you can get your head around that concept, it's impossible to take you seriously on this topic. Of course, since you want the Scouts to either be able to force the city to subsidize their homophobic ways or collect a windfall and be able to play the victim card, it's kind of hard to take you seriously on it to begin with.

[Ben Kenobi]

Of course, that's completely irrelevant, since the Scouts (a) occupied the building themselves (meaning even by your tortured logic they were spared the cost of renting somewhere else, which itself would offset any lost rental income)

Is it true that they could have rented out the building at market rates? That's my point. The rent is offset. They could have rented out part of the building and kept some of it for their own use, which in fact is what the city did.

This is a substantial income stream and benefit that the city has received since 1928, that the scouts have had no part. This income would have been the scouts' if they had not sold the building.

That means they never sold the building to the city.

The building was sold to Philly in 1928. The scouts then leased it back from the city in 1928 for 1 dollar a year, in lieu of compensation. These are all facts, Solomwi.

You also, again, have failed to answer my question. If according to you, the city owns the buildings built on rented land, then the city ought to be able to destroy the building without compensation to the tenant who built the building. Yes or no?

[Solomwi]

You can't even get your basic facts straight, Ben. First, the Scouts occupied the whole building. There was no income stream to the city from renting out the building. Second, for the millionth time, a fixture built on rented land belongs to the owner of the land, no matter who pays for the construction. They did not sell the building to the city. They may have made a show of "dedicating" the building or somesuch, but the underlying legal reality is that the city already owned the building.

Once they properly evict the tenant, yes.

[Ben Kenobi]

Thank you. Was that so hard?

What about compensation for materials and improved value to the property?

Is the city required to compensate the builder for the asset acquired?

You can't even get your basic facts straight, Ben. First, the Scouts occupied the whole building. There was no income stream to the city from renting out the building.

Now, that brings me to my question. Did the Scouts derive any income from renting out the building or parts thereof? No. Could they have if they had chosen to occupy only part of the building by the terms of their lease? No. And this is the point.