Nobody asked me, but.... I'll accept your comments (please remain civil!)
Hmm, how helpful would the Boy Scouts need to be if they excluded blacks and Jews instead of gays and atheists, in order for cities to ignore their own nondiscrimination policies on their behalf?
Brian,
You make it sound as if Boy Scouts never did a good turn in Philadelphia before the City changed their lease! You keep trying to make this a hate-crime related issue, when its never been anything of the sort.
It may surprise you to know: if you advocated that the Phil. BSA Council was no longer entitled to their $1/year lease beginning in 2028, on the grounds that it violates the City ordinance, I wouldn't argue with you (beyond what the legal definition of in perpetuity).
The fact is, the City is going to have to account for all of the improvements made to the property in the last 80 years. As I've said in an earlier post, the law of unintended consequences could actually work out in the BSA's favor, with the City actually paying the Scouts to stay there another 20 years.
Or the City could realize they really can't get $200K/yr for a building that has been tailored to the BSA specs.
In the end, I predict, Mayor Nutter will find a way to delay the eviction, possibly in perpetuity.
I'm very familiar with the Philadelphia situation, and there IS no 100-year-lease. It was a regular "in perpetuity" lease, which in lease language, means the lease never lapses and doesn't have to be renewed every year/month/decade. The lease has always had a clause that allows either the city or the BSA to terminate the lease by giving one year's notice, which the city gave some months ago. In my years of following this situation, I've only seen references to a 100-year-lease in the last few weeks, which appears to be a case of misreporting. It isn't called that in the NYT article you link to.
The city does not have any obligation to pay the BSA anything for the building, or for maintenance or renovations. I've only seen one city councilmember suggest that the BSA be paid anything. I would be against it, because if the city isn't obligated to pay, it's simply a gift of tax money to a discriminatory organization.
Thanks for your comment. 
Perhaps you can point to an authoritative, public copy of this lease, you being so familiar with it. Forgive me if I don't take your word on this matter.
I have read from various published sources of this 100 year lease, and only now learn from you that it (allegedly) doesn't exist. So I'll rely on the media reports over your position until such a time there is valid proof otherwise.
In the meantime, I'll still support the right of the Scouts to maintain their dedication to the Scout Oath and Law.
I've never been able to find a copy of the lease, but here is the city's resolution ending the arrangement, which refers to it, and says nothing about any 100-year-lease:
http://webapps.phila.gov/council...hments/
3811.pdf
Here's the part that authorizes ending the agreement:
WHEREAS, Pursuant to the terms of the permission granted to the Boy Scouts, the building and property is to be surrendered to the City within one year after notice of a desire to terminate given by the Commissioners of Fairmount Park, with the approval of the Mayor and City Council;
The only references I can find that refer to a supposed 100-year-lease are from late in 2007; earlier articles dating back to 2003 don't contain references to a 100-year-lease.
Commenting by HaloScan
