Legislation enabling the sale of publicly owned property to a local Boy Scouts of America council was introduced in City Council last week, but several council members are speaking out against the proposal.
Meanwhile, LGBT leaders are mobilizing to block the sale, urging city officials to consider other ways to resolve a legal dispute with the Scouts.
Officials within the Nutter administration want to sell 231-251 N. 22nd St. to the Cradle of Liberty Council for $500,000 to end a federal lawsuit filed by the Scouts in 2008.
Once it becomes private property, the Scouts would be free to discriminate without objections from the city. In return, the Scouts would stop seeking about $960,000 in legal fees from the city.
On Dec. 16, City Councilman Darrell L. Clarke introduced legislation to facilitate the settlement deal, but he added two conditions: The Scouts must remain in the building for at least 10 years, and they must grant access to community groups.
A public hearing has not yet been scheduled.
So far, Clarke is the only City Council member who has indicated support for the deal — and only tentatively as a jumping-off point for more discussion.
Still, several council members have voiced strong disapproval of the bill.
“I don’t think the way to end this dispute is with a backroom deal without input from important stakeholder groups, including those in the LGBT community,” said Councilman Bill Green. “If the administration has decided that the best way to resolve this matter is to sell the property, I think we should engage in an open and transparent request-for-proposal process and allow the property to be sold to the highest bidder. Furthermore, this is not just a legal dispute involving city property. There are important civil-rights issues at stake here, and any final legal settlement must be respectful of those issues.”
Councilman William K. Greenlee also spoke out.
“As I’ve said before, I thought the Scouts should have been thrown out [of the building] a long time ago,” Greenlee told PGN.
But he also noted the reality of the jury verdict. (A link to the verdict is on PGN’s website.)
“If we could sell the building legally to someone who won’t discriminate — and not get tied up forever in litigation — I would favor selling the property to someone else,” Greenlee added.
Council members Frank DiCicco, W. Wilson Goode Jr. and Blondell Reynolds-Brown added their voices to the opposition.
“I support the sale of the building, but not to the Scouts because they discriminate,” DiCicco told PGN.
David Forde, chief of staff for Reynolds-Brown, echoed those sentiments.
“The councilwoman is opposed to the deal,” Forde told PGN. “She does not want taxpayer money subsidizing discrimination. She also doesn’t believe the LGBT community has had a seat at the negotiating table, and that needs to happen.”
Councilwoman Maria D. Quinones Sanchez said she opposes Clarke’s bill in its current form.
“The bill, in its present form, does not address the concerns brought up by the LGBT community,” Sanchez told PGN. “I have my concerns. I’m hopeful — and Councilman Clarke has told us — that there will be amendments more acceptable to members of the LGBT community. I look forward to the amendments to address the outstanding concerns.”
Other council members couldn’t be reached for comment, or said they have no position at this time.
Outside buyers
Meanwhile, Mel Heifetz, a gay real-estate investor, has entered the fray by placing a $1.5-million bid for the property.
Heifetz placed a bid on the building Dec. 20, noting his legal team has assured him that his offer is entitled to fair consideration by the city Department of Public Property.
“With any luck, we’ll have a rainbow flag flying atop that building by the time we get to spring,” Heifetz told PGN.
After purchasing the property, Heifetz said he plans to donate it to a nonprofit organization. Several community members have suggested that it become a national LGBT museum, but Heifetz said it would be premature to discuss specifics.
“I can tell you that everyone will be welcome inside — there will be no discrimination,” Heifetz added. “And since we don’t intend to change the height or the footprint of the building, the neighbors don’t need to worry.”
Public Property Commissioner Joan Schlotterbeck confirmed she received Heifetz’ bid, and said it was referred to the city Law Department for additional review.
Members of the community group Philadelphians Against Subsidized Discrimination (PASD) want Nutter to give careful consideration to Heifetz’ proposal.
They said they realize that Nutter wants to end a lengthy public dispute with fiscal restraint, and pointed to the Heifetz bid as the best option for the city.
“Mel’s is the best financial deal for the city and, obviously, he’s committed to giving the building to an organization that doesn’t discriminate,” said R. Duane Perry, a PASD member. “So that’s a win-win for the city, and for the people of Philadelphia.”
Another PASD member said he was disappointed that Nutter officials would propose the initial Scouts deal.
“I didn’t think I lived in a city that would even consider subsidizing discrimination,” said Brian K. Sims. “The Scouts would be getting the building for less than I paid for my South Philly rowhome. I always felt Philadelphia was more committed to civil rights and equality.”
Though neither Nutter nor City Solicitor Shelley R. Smith could be reached for comment, Smith told the Inquirer this week that, “In light of the proposed settlement, the property is under agreement and is not available to buy.”
The Scouts won’t permit openly gay participants, nor will they pay fair-market rent, so the city tried to evict them in 2008.
But 10 days before the city filed suit in state court, the Scouts filed suit in federal court, claiming constitutional violations.
In June 2010, a federal jury rejected the Scouts’ claims of viewpoint-discrimination and equal-protection violations, but the jury said the city imposed an “unconstitutional condition” on the Scouts when trying to evict them.
Sims, an attorney, called the Scouts’ $960,000 legal bill a “trumped-up scare tactic that has no relationship to the reality of these types of cases.”
Thomas W. Ude Jr., Lambda Legal senior staff attorney, stressed the city lost only one of the three claims brought by the Scouts.
“And the one claim they lost on involves a complicated area of constitutional law known as ‘unconstitutional conditions,”’ Ude said. “I think it’s important to bear in mind that five days after the verdict, a Supreme Court decision was handed down that provides guidance that is particularly helpful to the city’s position.”
Gary J. Jastrzab, executive director of the City Planning Commission, said the commission has been officially notified of Clarke’s bill, and has 45 days to consider making a recommendation.
“We could request an additional 45 days — for a total of 90 days — if we need more time,” Jastrzab told PGN.
If the issue is placed on the agenda of the commission’s Jan. 18 meeting, members of the public would be welcome to offer comments, Jastrzab said.
If Clarke’s bill is voted out of committee, it would need at least one additional public hearing before the full City Council before a final vote.
Tim Cwiek can be reached at (215) 625-8501 ext. 208.