It looks like to me that a gentlemen's contract was formed between the city and the boy scouts of america (bsa) in wich bsa agreed to give the city the structure so long as the city allowed the bsa rent-free access to the structure. At the time i'm assuming there was no underlying statement that the bsa could continue to do so as long as they fell in line with city policy. Meaning that the bsa would retain the right to use the structure rent-free forever.

Nnow that the bsa, a private organization, has an internal rule about anti-homosexual scoutmasters, but nothing about homosexual members, that was supported by the U.S Supreme Court there is a problem with the city's own rules. Now I'm not a legal mind (graduated with a business degree and i was 9 credits, 3 classes, shy of the law degree) but I did learn about unusual applications of ex ipso facto, spelling might be alittle of but i basical means as if before the law. It means you can not be brought to trial if something you did before was perfectly legal at the time, you stopped doing it and then the government made it illegal.

The unusual application we learned of was using ex ipso facto in non-criminal trials. We were told that it is possible to use this against the government (local state or federal) when an agreement was formed and the government changed the law to put an 'undue burden' or violate your rights. The bsa has the right to discriminate on its membership and on who runs the groups also. They are a private organization after all.

Considering the above to be true, the city has violated a previously made agreement in which the city gained a building and the bsa gained a rent-free meeting space, they wish to charge $200,000 per year now. If this is true the city should return the property back to the bsa.

Here's my reasoning on this. you get a car for free and get to use it for whatever you want and however you want, but you have to fill it up with higher octane racing fuel any time it needs gas. The agreement and understanding is that you own the car but the refueling is the requirement of you getting the car. If some years down the road you decide to use premiem unleaded instead of racing fuel, you have violated the contract. And as such you must return the car to the party who gave it to you.

As a note; the property in this manner can not be a gift because gifts can not 'come with strings or requirements attached'