The Daily Campus

The original agreement was made in 1928 where the city of Philadelphia allowed the then Philadelphia Council of the BSA to construct at their own expense a building on city owned land. In exchange for a lease "in perpetuity" the Boy Scouts would give ownership of the building to the city. One of the statements that Solicitor Diaz makes is that the taxpayers should not fund an organization that does not meet the city's anti-discrimination policy. One problem - there is no funding from the taxpayers as the Boy Scout Council is responsible for maintaining the building including $2.4 million in renovations it made in the 90's. The taxpayers pay nothing - unless you consider the loss of the $200,000 yearly rent Solicitor Diaz now wants to charge for the building the Boy Scouts built with their money. If the city wants to renege on an 80-year old deal that benefits their youth then they should reimburse the Scouts for the present day cost of the building along with the 80 years of maintaining it in good faith for the city.

This attack on an organization that promotes values in youth is occuring in a city that has a soaring murder rate. Solicitor Diaz's priorities along with the 16 members of the City Council that voted to evict the Scouts are way out of line.

http://www.keystonepolitics.com/story/regional-news/philadelphia/city-death-philadelphia-murder-rate-highest-nearly-20-years

Are you kidding me? I support Diaz fully in his decision. As you said it yourself, the have the right to discriminate against anybody because they are a private group. Well if they're a "private" group they don't have claim to any money (or free rent in this case) from the state. If they were a public group, in which case they would have to comply with Philadelphia and let gays and atheists in, then they could receive money and benefits from the state. As soon as you admitted to the group being private you agreed with the state, and Diaz, that they have no obligation to financially help out the organization.
If you want some interesting facts on this issue I recommend you watch the first episode of the 4th season of the eye-opening show Penn and Teller's B.S. (I'm not sure I can swear on here so I abbreviated the show name.)

The Philadelphia city council is not breaching the contract, as the misleading headline suggests. The lease has always had a cancellation clause that permits the lease to be ended after one year's notice. The council gave that notice some months ago, and the Cradle of Liberty council can remain in the building until (I believe) May of 2008. The city is FOLLOWING the contract, as written.