use of the property as terminus for the march, prior to the city council vote. The fact that the property owner refused the request to use the property might have played a role in the refusal to issue a permit for a march onto the property

If the City tries to prevent the march, arrest anyone, etc., they will ultimately pay a great deal of money in damages to the SCV and the group will still be allowed to march.

See National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie

and courts have no tolerance when towns and cities deny permits and then attempt to cite technicalities as a pretext for discrimination based on content. In this instance, the City did not even appear to offer any reasons for the refusal.

Although no private landowners need participate in any march, and certain matters like march routes and times can be negotiated, outright denials based even in part because of the content of a group's speech are wholly unlawful.

If the Nazis can march in Skokie the Sons of Confederate Veterans can march in Martinsburg. The First Amendment protects unpopular speech no matter the objections of the City Council.

The city council had better come up with something better than "no comment" unless they want to pay damages.

and the implications of the article and quoted comments at the hearing were quite clear, particularly since the council was dealing with other non-discrimination ordinances at the same time. More importantly, in any legal action, the city would bear the burden of proving their actions were not based at all on the content and viewpoint of the marchers, and any denial of the permit would be reviewed under a strict scrutiny standard.

These types of cases appear with disturbing frequency, and the various towns and cities almost never win, nor should they.

then make a turn and march down another street about a block to congregate on a private property, the use of which had already been denied to them, and they wanted both streets closed for this. Maybe they need to come up with a new plan

but equally visible and accessible, route. That's most certainly not what happened.

As I indicated, it is the city who bears the legal burden of proving its denial was proper and the standards are very high. The issue of congregating on private property (if it is indeed private) as part of the planned march is a red herring and has no bearing on the right to march on the public streets. Groups and municipalities often argue about routines, times, etc., but permits are not actually denied, no less without a clear stated reason.

The city better immediately proffer a totally non-content based reason for the denial, unequivocally demonstrate that viewpoint never entered into any consideration and all other groups are treated identically, and then make clear their understanding that the SCV indeed has the right to march on public streets. If not, a court will quite properly order the permit to be issued and the city will be forced to make a very large and involuntary donation to the SCV.

It's obvious to most anyone what the city is doing and why (and any ambiguities are legally resolved against the city). It's equally obvious that it's unlawful.

The same constitutional protections allow unpopular liberal groups to march, and there's no exception for groups we don't like.

but could not consent to the use of private (if it is indeed private) property, we would not be having this discussion, nor would the article be particularly newsworthy.

Let me make this perfectly clear. If the reasons for the city's denial of the permit are held to "unclear," the city will lose any legal challenge. The pertinent law in not complicated at all, and its the reason why municipalities virtually never prevail in their permit denials when challenged.

Any consideration of a permit to march cannot even remotely consider the content and viewpoints of the marchers, no matter how vile or disturbing, and use of pretext is not only easily discernible, but strongly punished by the courts (although in this instance, the city didn't even bother to offer any reason for the permit denial).

they do this all the time as a money making endeavor.

All the various city councils need to do is follow the Constitution.

The law has been clear for many decades. It's simply inexcusable for them to waste taxpayer money due to ignorance or political grandstanding.