Legislation enabling the sale of publicly owned land to a local Boy Scouts of America council isn’t expected to be introduced until early next year, if at all, a spokesperson for City Council said this week.
“It’s extremely unlikely that any bill would be introduced into City Council this year,” said Anthony R. Radwanski, director of communications for Philadelphia City Council.
He said City Councilman Darrell L. Clarke, whose district encompasses the property in question, is still gathering information on the matter.
“Councilman Clarke is still gauging the feeling of the community,” Radwanski said. “Since Dec. 16 is our last City Council session this year, I don’t see how anything could be introduced until next year, if at all.”
City Council will reconvene on Jan. 27.
Clarke couldn’t be reached for comment.
Officials Mayor Nutter’s administration want to sell the property at 231-251 N. 22nd St. to the BSA Cradle of Liberty Council to settle a federal lawsuit filed by the Scouts.
But the sale requires approval from City Council.
In June 2008, city attorneys filed suit in state court to evict the Scouts because they won’t pay fair-market rent or, in the alternative, permit openly gay participants.
But 10 days earlier, the Scouts filed suit in federal court, alleging that their eviction would be unconstitutional.
The Scouts refuse to comply with local anti-bias rules, but if the building and land become private property, the Scouts would be free to discriminate without objections from the city.
Robert A. Stuart, board member of the Logan Square Neighborhood Association, said the group is eager to meet with Clarke to discuss the proposed deal.
He said the association’s main focus is to ensure that the property isn’t developed into something out of scale with the residential character of the neighborhood.
But Stuart also said the association strongly supports diversity and has many LGBT members — some of whom live on Spring Street across from the building.
“We don’t want to be living anywhere near discrimination,” Stuart told PGN.
In June, a federal jury ruled that the city’s eviction policy was reasonable and viewpoint-neutral, but that the policy was unfairly applied to the Scouts because the U.S. Supreme Court said the Scouts can discriminate against gays.
The Scouts called the jury verdict a victory, and they want the city to pay almost $1 million in legal bills incurred by Drinker Biddle & Reath, the Scouts’ pro-bono law firm.
The judge has not yet ruled on their request.
In September, after private negotiations between the city and Scouts, a tentative settlement was reached, allowing the Scouts to purchase the land and building for $500,000.
In return, the Scouts would relinquish their right to seek almost $1 million in legal fees from the city.
Members of the LGBT Working Group, which has been trying to resolve the dispute for years, want city officials to explore other settlement options.
They’re also gearing up for the possibility of public hearings on the proposal.
“We’re monitoring the situation and preparing for the possibility of City Council hearings,” said Andrew A. Chirls. “We’re hoping to get the word out to the community about it, and we’re exploring whether there’s something better that we can propose.”
He said the Working Group is open to all suggestions. “I’m always scratching my head about it, we all are,” Chirls added.
If Clarke introduces legislation, it would be referred to a City Council committee, where it would receive at least one public hearing.
Then, if the bill receives a favorable vote in committee, it would receive at least two public hearings before the full City Council.
Additionally, the City Planning Commission must be given 30 days to decide whether it wishes to make a recommendation about the proposed sale.
When announcing the proposed settlement, both sides said the city would avoid the possibility of paying the Scouts’ $1-million legal bill.
But Working Group members said the Scouts have little or no chance of prevailing on appeal, so there would be no need for the city to pay the Scouts’ legal fees.
They said faulty jury instructions misled jurors into believing the city had no right to evict the Scouts if the city cited the Scouts’ antigay policy as a reason for the eviction.
Thomas W. Ude Jr., senior staff attorney for Lambda Legal, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the city, expressed optimism that the city would prevail if it chooses to appeal.
“The jury found for the city on two of the three claims,” Ude told PGN. “The city didn’t discriminate based on the Scouts’ viewpoint, and the city didn’t deny equal protection of the law to the Scouts. The jury found against the city only on one claim: unconstitutional conditions. The city’s attorneys — correctly in my view — have explained why that part of the verdict should be set aside. Mainly for two reasons: First, problems with the questions submitted to the jury and, second, because the substantive law entitles the city to judgment in its favor. The city’s arguments bode well for the city’s chances of a successful appeal.”
Mary Catherine Roper, senior staff attorney for the ACLU of Pennsylvania, said the organization stands by its position that the city didn’t place an unconstitutional condition on the Scouts.
“It wasn’t an unconstitutional condition because that’s a legal question and, under the law, the city gets to spend its money the way it wants to spend its money as long as it treats everyone the same,” Roper told PGN.
Tim Cwiek can be reached at (215) 625-8501 ext. 208.