The fate of the Germantown YWCA hung in the balance on Thursday as community members, city officials, and legal teams presented their final arguments in a case that has become a symbol of long-standing community struggles and hopes for renewal.
After three and a half months’ wait since the last hearing, the battle for the Germantown YWCA continued at 1:30 p.m. at City Hall in courtroom 453, with Judge Ann Butchart determining outcomes.
The first hearing centered on petitioner Ken Weinstein’s team making a case that the Germantown YWCA (The Y) was abandoned and blighted when he filed his petition for conservatorship of The Y.
These last two, including this hopeful finale, hearings centered on the respondents, the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority (PRA), and why they believe the building is not abandoned and should remain under PRA ownership.
Filled (again) with community members, primarily from Center in the Park, Maple Village, and the Friends for the Restoration of the Germantown YWCA, the courtroom rose for Judge Butchart at 1:38 p.m., and the finale began.
Joseph Ziccardi Jr., the Philadelphia Housing Development Corporation (PHDC) maintenance supervisor, was first called to the witness stand. The PRA’s representing attorney, Henry Noye, first questioned him about his role in overseeing the property’s upkeep.
Ziccardi was clear that his duties included overseeing maintenance, regular visits, and security checks, though he may only physically be there “monthly or bimonthly.” He also does not perform physical labor; he sends a team of people to do that.
Many of the questions directed at Ziccardi centered on changes made to The Y after the first hearing in March. He says whatever modifications made after the hearing were made from their routine checks. One of those modifications was the fencing around the floor grates in front of the building.
During cross-examination, Weinstein’s attorney, Richard Vanderslice, questioned Ziccardi about the property’s “structural integrity,” particularly a retaining wall and stairwell. While he says he did notice these things, the maintenance supervisor noted that those areas did not pose an immediate safety concern and reemphasized his and his team’s top priorities — “safety and security.”
After Ziccardi left the witness stand, Angel Rodriguez was summoned to it. Rodriguez is the Senior Vice President of the PHDC, the PRA’s Deputy Executive Director, and the Philadelphia Land Bank (PLB) Executive Director. His responsibilities include the acquisition and disposition of assets/properties and the oversight of design and construction.
Much of Rodriguez’s questioning centered around the disposal of city-owned properties, ultimately leading to questions about whether developer Keith B. Key’s (KBK) eight-year mission to rehabilitate the property for mixed-income housing use was valid.
He started with two disposition processes that the PRA follows to offload any properties: competitive sale and non-competitive sale.
The first is their default process when they request proposals. KBK was initially awarded this, but the contract was terminated after failing to get the project off the ground. KBK then went for the second disposition process, a non-competitive sale under which he is currently operating.
Between November 14, 2022, and January 8, 2024, Rodriguez signed off on four reservation letters — one initial letter and three extensions. Reservation letters grant developers “site control” over the PRA’s properties, giving them the legal authority to pursue their development plans, such as applying for financing, tax credits, and any other necessary approvals.
Rodriguez explained that the reservation letter extensions were introduced to give the KBK additional time to meet specific milestones and secure the necessary funding, particularly tax credits for affordable housing.
Each extension was contingent upon the developer’s progress, ensuring the project continued toward successful redevelopment.
Rodriguez disclosed that though the most recent letter gave KBK until December 31, 2024, to obtain tax credits from the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Authority (PHFA), the developer was unsuccessful in securing them.
Rodriguez said that over 50% of this project is contingent on those funds, leading Vanderslice to ask about its validity, given its status. While he says that though it’s challenging, it isn’t entirely “impossible.” He shared that he asked KBK for a revised plan on September 3 and will review it in “due diligence” soon to determine how they’ll proceed with the building — that’s if Judge Butchart rules in the PRA’s favor.
Before getting off the stand, Rodriguez was asked if he’d ever attended any community meetings around this project, to which he answered no. He did note that the Y has consistently come up in the monthly PRA meetings where properties are discussed.
Reneé Cunningham, executive director of Center in the Park (CIP), which stands next to the Germantown Y, was then called as a rebuttal witness. Cunningham followed up on the safety concern topics earlier in the hearing and provided photographic evidence to Weinstein’s team.
Cunningham’s time on the stand underscored the real impacts and frustrations that the Germantown community has felt, having to wait year after year for the historically and culturally significant building to receive new life. And each year the redevelopment fails to happen.
During her time, she was asked to recite highlighted sections of the minutes of different PRA meetings (which Cunningham downloaded from the PRA’s website) that referenced the Germantown Y, which led her to reveal that the Y had been mentioned in 20 out of 35 meetings she’d looked through.
And not only had they been mentioned, but also by some of the folks in the room — including Ann Doley, who is part of the Friends for the Restoration of the Germantown YWCA Building organizing group, which has been organizing for a future for the Y for years.
In cross-examination, Noye asked why Cunningham took these photos. She emphasized she only did these things to ensure all issues were documented and brought to the court’s attention. When questioned about her involvement and actions taken to make the PRA aware of the problems, the CIP director made it clear that she has correspondence dating back to 2016 with the then-president of the PRA.
After Cunningham, Weinstein took the stand for the final questioning.
Before the hearing continued, Judge Butchart took the time to honor the community members who attended but had to leave before the closing because of the bus schedule. She said it’s no wonder the community loves this entity as they’ve filled the courtroom for all three hearings. She thanked them for their time and moved forward.
Weinstein presented an updated preliminary plan for the Y if conservatorship is granted. It previously listed 15 things that needed to be done on the property but no longer lists cleaning up the trash since that has been completed while these hearings have continued.
Vanderslice asked his client about a potential 20% markup if Weinstein is appointed conservatorship and what he planned to do with that money. Weinstein stated he would donate that amount to Germantown nonprofits, as he is only trying to do what’s best for the community, not to profit from the conservatorship.
He noted that he would also use both in-house and external contractors to make any renovations to the building, as cited in his plans, like cutting down vegetation, fixing the trim on windows, fixing collapsed sidewalks, putting up security lighting, repainting the mural on the side of the Y, which he says is much deserving, and more.
He replied yes when asked if he had the funds to do so.
Before exiting the stand, Noye made it a point to bring up Weinstein’s affiliation with the PHDC as chair of their board. PRA and PHDC merged into one back in 2020. However, Weinstein made the limitations of his position clear, stating that he has no authorization over any of the employees or day-to-day operations of the organization.
While Weinstein needed to be excused to go teach a class, his team and the PRA gave their final closing arguments.
Vanderslice restated that the property should be considered blighted and added that it’s been over a decade since the PRA failed to maintain it.
Noye didn’t argue against some of the claims made but rather suggested that the PRA is an entity that statutes under Pennsylvania conservatorship law don’t necessarily apply to and that it can only follow specific disposition procedures and that it has done those. He persistently asked Judge Butchart to carefully review those statutes before making a decision.
At the end of an over three-hour hearing, Judge Butchart concluded simply: “I’ll review the transcript and issue a response in 30 days.”
While the courtroom cleared out, the Germantown Info Hub (GIH) had a chance to catch up with some of the neighbors who attended this final battle.
GIH asked Cunningham what her hopes for the future would be, and she said that after 18 years, “enough is enough” and that she is hopeful Weinstein will ascend as conservator.
She added: “He has the means and ability to secure the building and see to it that is sold to a responsible local developer who is willing to work with Center in the Park to share use of the Y’s parking lot, which is critical to the 180-200 older adults who come to CIP every day for meals, socialization, and support.”
She appreciated Judge Butchart, saying she recognized the importance of the building to the Germantown community.
CIP member Willie Mae Johnson overall “hopes they have more community meetings so that [neighbors] can speak out.” She says the Y in its current condition is “an eyesore” and “dangerous.”
Ann Doley, who also rode the bus with the other seniors but opted to stay and Uber home, hopes that their presence is seen and that Judge Butchart “recognizes [their] silent presence at three City Hall hearings—plus a fourth on Zoom—was to send a message, to say the community loves this building and want it to have a future.”
Right now, she doesn’t feel the city or the PRA can actually deliver on that, pointing back to an almost two-decade struggle.
She feels confident after yesterday’s hearing, though, and thinks it will be hard not to classify the building as blighted. However, in the future, she hopes to see the mural repaired, as cited in Weinstein’s plan. She says it’s a “symbol of the YWCA’s progressive past and powerful influence on the lives of so many women and girls from Germantown.”
She also echoes Cunningham’s sentiments, stating she’d like to see either permanent use of the parking lot for CIP or for them to have their own parking lot. “They deserve it after caring for it all these years,” she said.
Germantown neighbor Don Mädche, who has also attended past hearings, says this particular hearing seemed favorable to Weinstein. Following those sentiments, he said, “I’m very optimistic that Ken will be successful in receiving the conservatorship of the building.”
He gave a scope of what he’d like to see: “I would like to see the building developed into affordable senior housing with a mixture of retail and rentable public space. Also, we could be inventive and try to seek a similar mixture that Comcast is seeking to do with the Fashion District. The building could be a hub for many different forward-thinking start-up industries.”
Neighbors should expect a decision about the fate of the Germantown YWCA by Saturday, October 12 at the latest.
You May Also Like
