Philly says Boy Scouts have to accept gays

[MrFun]

BK is the kind of person who will lower his head down, and charge head first into a brick wall over and over, clueless that he's hurting himself.

[Ben Kenobi]

When I said "or their lawyers suck", I mean it to be a ridiculous option. They are the Boy Scouts, they have tons of money, of course their lawyers don't suck.

Interesting argument.

I think high-priced lawyers can suck, is there a non-sucking threshold that a lawyer must cross before he stops sucking?

[Solomwi]

So did I. The disagreement between Imran and me, and you, is over what that significance is, not whether this is significant.

No. See Imran's post above. We both have a very good idea of the significance. You don't.

The question as to whether or not this is a subsidy goes back to the contract. Fact is, Philly signed a contract with the scouts to construct the building, and agreed, in lieu of compensation, to charge a nominal rent. This isn't a subsidy. If Philly argues that it is a subsidy, then the whole contract comes back in again.

You are right, that the Scouts can't legally bring the contract up. They don't have to. The Philly city council has already brought the contract up. It is entirely permissible for the Philly city council to make the contract an issue, but what this means is that breach is back in the game again.

No, again. Your (ridiculous) reading of the contract you've never seen is not enough to bring a foregone claim back to life. Even if the city introduces the K as evidence on the subsidy issue, that doesn't allow the Scouts to revive the claim. Of course, looking at it practically leads to the same place: you can build on my land, for your own use, as long as you maintain the building, and since I think what you're doing is a good thing, I'm not going to charge you rent. The rent waiver is obviously a gift, which doesn't support an enforceable K. The exchange of legal rights is my permission for you to build against your agreement to take over my maintenance obligations.

You think there will be nominal damages if they are proven to have passed an unconstitutional law? The scouts will get to stay, they will get paid and their contract will be upheld.

Reading comprehension is your friend. First, no, that's not what I said. I said that fit your description. Second, you're going to be sorely disappointed if you expect the local law to be struck down on its face. I doubt the Scouts are even mounting a facial challenge to the law. Third, relief in this case, in the unlikely event the Scouts get any, is more likely to be injunctive than compensatory, i.e., the court enjoining the city from evicting the Scouts or raising their rent. The Scouts have stayed in the building, rent free, during the litigation, so there are no damages from eviction to be had. I doubt Pennsylvania has gone to the British system, which means the Scouts will have to foot their own bill, since the city's defense has grounding in fact and law. With no compensatory damages or legal fee award, why would they get paid?

Just close your eyes, cross your fingers, and keep repeating that mantra. That's probably the Scouts best hope of not having to actually pay rent to the owner of the building they're using.

[Ben Kenobi]

The rent waiver is obviously a gift, which doesn't support an enforceable K.

It's compensation for the improvement to the property.

You think the Scouts are going to build a nice big building for the city and walk away?

Why do you persist in evading and avoiding one phrase. The nominal rent is in lieu of compensation. No more nominal rent, the scouts must receive compensation. Open and shut.

[Solomwi]

Because it's false. Why do you persist in claiming it's true? Never mind; I know why. Otherwise your whole fantasy of the Scouts winning and getting a windfall falls apart. The Scouts improved the property for their own use, but never had a right of ownership in the improvement. You can't validly exchange that which you don't own. The city graciously declined to charge them rent for using its building, because the city valued the Scouts' presence. If you have to find some compensation for the improvement, it was the Scouts' actual use of the building. However, that doesn't establish a perpetual right of use.

Let me put it another way. The city was never in a position where it had to compensate the Scouts for the building, through rent waiver or otherwise. The city owned the building the moment it went up, through operation of the law, not through contractual agreement. If they're evicted, the Scouts are not due compensation for the city's building. Open and shut.

[Ben Kenobi]

I want to hear a theory as to how it constitutes a gift.

The Scouts improved the property for their own use

The Scouts obtained permission to build on the lot that they had leased. The city said that they could do so, if they built the building out of their own pocket, and maintained the building out of their own pocket, and the city would own the building.

The city said that they would compensate them with a nominal rent in exchange. It's not a gift. It's called deferred compensation. The city got the building outright, instantly in 1928, this means that they received the property and the improvement to the land straight away, while the compensation was deferred to the scouts who were compensated on a year by year basis. This is what the city hoped to gain out of it, instant benefit to the city, for a deferred compensation. In 1928, they come out way ahead, and lose some every year.

Now, the city, rather then honouring their agreement has reneged. So, how do they retain title on the building they did not in fact build?

You can't validly exchange that which you don't own.

This is before the building was even built. This was a contract to build the building in the first place, that the ownership would be transferred to the city after the construction, in exchange for the nominal rent.

The city graciously declined to charge them rent for using its building, because the city valued the Scouts' presence.

Is that why the Scouts built the damn building out of their own pocket? It's an exchange. The scouts put the money and time into building the building, and the city puts up compensation in the form of nominal rent. It's not a gift, no matter how much you want to pretend.

If you have to find some compensation for the improvement, it was the Scouts' actual use of the building. However, that doesn't establish a perpetual right of use.

That's what their contract does. It's all in the contract. Ownership for a perpetual nominal lease. If the Scouts were to leave the building, the contract would be voided, and the city would own the building, and could have new tenents. The city agreed not to charge above the nominal rent in exchange for ownership of the building.

Let me put it another way. The city was never in a position where it had to compensate the Scouts for the building, through rent waiver or otherwise.

Let me put it another way. Would the improvement to the property been built had the city not agreed to compensate them with a nominal rent? No. This is why the rent is compensation, not a gift.

The city owned the building the moment it went up, through operation of the law, not through contractual agreement.

That's not what the contract says. The contract says that they would get ownership in exchange for the rent. No rent agreement, no building, no improvement to the property, and no asset for the government.

If they're evicted, the Scouts are not due compensation for the city's building. Open and shut.

How can the scouts be evicted from a building that would not be there if they did not build it in the first place? Ridiculous.

The scouts should take the building with them if they are evicted.

[Solomwi]

No, no and no. This all goes back to your legal illiteracy. A renter can't take a permanent fixture with him when he leaves the property. A permanent fixture becomes part of the property the moment it is attached to the property. The building is a permanent fixture. Your reliance on whether it would be there if not for the Scouts and who paid to build it is severely misplaced (which you would realize if you were remotely legally literate). The pertinent fact is that the building was built, for the benefit of the renter and on the city's land, thereby becoming the city's building automatically. No compensation required. Any compensation ostensibly given is a gift, since that would be what's known as an illusory K.

This was a contract to build the building in the first place, that the ownership would be transferred to the city after the construction, in exchange for the nominal rent.

The Scouts had no ownership to transfer. Get that through your thick head.

And again, you're missing the fact that the Scouts are suing to avoid being evicted or having to pay rent. If they win, they stay. If they lose, they're out or paying rent. In neither case are they owed anything for the building, even if the K said what you wish it did (since they failed to sue on it).

To be fair, this paragraph is mostly spot on:

The Scouts obtained permission to build on the lot that they had leased. The city said that they could do so, if they built the building out of their own pocket, and maintained the building out of their own pocket, and the city would own the building.

Except that the city owning the building couldn't be part of any contractual exchange, for reasons I've laid out over and over. The deal was, by all appearances, permission for maintenance. After that, we're back into products of your imagination.

You make up facts. You refute uncontroversial statements of black letter law with nothing more than calls of bull****. You draw ridiculous conclusions from the facts and law as you want them to be. You persist in your delusions even when called on them by people more knowledgeable than you. You cite as support for yourself posts which unequivocally disagree with you. You may have blacked out the Ben Kenobi Bingo card in this thread alone.

[giblets]

How could constructing a building be a benefit to the city if the city were obligated to let the scouts use it for free in perpetuity? Ben is advancing the contradictory notions of the city receiving the building as a gift but not being allowed to derive any benefit from it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Now, the city, rather then honouring their agreement has reneged. So, how do they retain title on the building they did not in fact build?

Because they own the freaking property! This isn't a hard concept to grasp.

Say a house renter adds an addition to the house you are renting ot them, does the renter get the money back for his addition when his lease runs out? If you say yes, then you really don't understand anything at all.

[Solomwi]

Ben, you really need to understand that fundamental point before holding forth on this issue. Doing otherwise is akin to arguing that you don't want to live in Canada because the heat and humidity of the sub-Saharan jungle are too much to bear.

Once you understand that, you can move on to why

Ownership for a perpetual nominal lease.

is not an enforceable contract.

[Ben Kenobi]

Once you understand that, you can move on to why

Your argument is that it was a gift. It's not a gift. It's compensation. You seem unable to grasp the concept.

[Ben Kenobi]

Say a house renter adds an addition to the house you are renting ot them, does the renter get the money back for his addition when his lease runs out?

Yes, he does.

If you say yes, then you really don't understand anything at all.

It's an improvement to the property. The owner pays taxes on the addition, doesn't he?

[Ben Kenobi]

How could constructing a building be a benefit to the city if the city were obligated to let the scouts use it for free in perpetuity?

It's an increase to the value of the property. The land that the building is on is worth more with the scouts building on top of it.

Ben is advancing the contradictory notions of the city receiving the building as a gift but not being allowed to derive any benefit from it.

Would the rent be 200k a year without the Scouts having built the building?

[Ben Kenobi]

No, no and no. This all goes back to your legal illiteracy. A renter can't take a permanent fixture with him when he leaves the property.

Then he's compensated for the building.

A permanent fixture becomes part of the property the moment it is attached to the property.

I'm not disputing this point.

The building is a permanent fixture. Your reliance on whether it would be there if not for the Scouts and who paid to build it is severely misplaced (which you would realize if you were remotely legally literate).

The fixture would not be there if the scouts hadn't contracted to build the house. The owner of the building can charge a much higher market rent for the property with the building. This is something the owner will have to pay taxes on.

This is an asset that the city accrues. Therefore the scouts should be compensated for building the building, which in fact they were compesated in the terms of the building construction, through the perpetual lease.

The pertinent fact is that the building was built, for the benefit of the renter and on the city's land, thereby becoming the city's building automatically. No compensation required.

Would the building have been built without the perpetual rent clause? Yes or no? If the city were to contract a private business to build for them an equivalent building, how much would it cost for them to do so? What is the imputed value of the property + the building?

The building would not have been built for the city without the perpetual rent clause. Why? Because people don't build buildings for the city at their own cost without some form of compensation.

Any compensation ostensibly given is a gift, since that would be what's known as an illusory K.

It's not ostensibly given. It's deferred compensation. The city is just *****ing because the deferment has worked against them against the asset accrued in 1928.

The Scouts had no ownership to transfer. Get that through your thick head.

There was no building when the contract was set out.

And again, you're missing the fact that the Scouts are suing to avoid being evicted or having to pay rent.

As per their contract with the city. Those were the terms.

If they win, they stay. If they lose, they're out or paying rent. In neither case are they owed anything for the building, even if the K said what you wish it did (since they failed to sue on it).

The contract does in fact say this. The ownership of the building is a clause just as the deferred compensation clause in the rent. You can't say that one part of the contract is valid, while the other is not. If the contract is null and void, then so is the city ownership of the building. The whole contract falls apart.

Except that the city owning the building couldn't be part of any contractual exchange, for reasons I've laid out over and over.

Could the city have said that the building was to be the property of the Scouts? Contracts > law. What the contract actually says is the important point here.

[Solomwi]

Your argument is that it was a gift. It's not a gift. It's compensation. You seem unable to grasp the concept.

Does repeating it over and over, and continuing not to support it with actual facts or law, make you feel better? I've tried to hold your hand and walk you through the legal principles that make the free rent a gift, rather than compensation. Come join the rest of us in the real world. Water's fine.