Germantown neighbors (from left to right) Lorraine Givnish, Julie Carroll Stapleton, Ann Doley, Barbara Dowdall, Renee Cunningham, and Patricia Burk, at the PHDC headquarters at 1234 Market Street, 16th floor. (GIH | Rasheed Ajamu)

Germantowners greeted the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority (PRA) during the second public portion of their board of directors meeting, which took place at 4 p.m. Wednesday on the dot.

While no Germantown property or matter was on the agenda, neighbors carried in their love for the YWCA, pleading, once again, to secure its future. Their stance was clear – no more KBK.

“[KBK] has not shown any evidence of competence,” said Patricia Burks, a city planner by trade, ahead of the meeting. “And we’ve been locked out of this process.”

This sentiment is shared by countless others, including many neighbors, at meetings and hearings associated with the Germantown YWCA over the past few years.

Keith B. Key Enterprises (KBK) has been trying to develop the former YWCA since 2016. His most recent attempt to secure 9% tax credits to complete the project failed this past July and his claim to develop the property expired at the end of 2024.

Neighbors attending the meeting were encouraged there will be a fresh start seeking new proposals for the landmark property, that process will take several months.

Four items sat on the PRA’s formal agenda of the meeting. Each item passed quickly, moving the meeting to the “new and old business” section, where the public could present their own items.

David S. Thomas, the PRA Board Chair, acknowledged that the first item that should be addressed was the room’s inhabitants themselves, along with the letter those seated within sent via email.

Having faces familiar with each other, both the Germantowners and members of the PRA joked about being on trial together for a good portion of 2024.

The PRA read the letter sent on behalf of the Friends for the Restoration of the Germantown YWCA.

The letter opened by thanking the PRA for allowing KBK’s limited reservation letter to expire at the tail end of 2024. They also thanked them for showing that they’ve required the developer to show a feasible plan.

It provided more documented background on KBK’s relationship with the Y, noting that he’d repeatedly failed to secure funding since taking on this project more than eight years ago.

The Friends’ note, which included receipts, revealed that KBK was now considering applying for a different tax credit under the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency (PHFA), going from 9% to 4%. They also noted his track record of missed deadlines, incomplete applications, and inconsistency.

They revealed that through the Right-to-Know process, they received sections of KBK’s proposal for 9% tax credit. It was marked late and received a score of 0 for completeness — leaving no room to be considered for funding. They also stated that since he missed the new deadline, continued consideration of the developer by the PRA would be a year-long wait, further delaying the hopes of neighbors to see restoration.

The receipts also reveal that the new plans did not show any evidence of accommodating Center in the Park (CIP), the senior center that shares a lot with the Y, as they formerly claimed they would.

The group writing the letter is primarily older women, so they asked the PRA to provide a hybrid-style meeting accommodation for those who can’t attend in person due to health, mobility, and other factors. Currently, the PRA only holds public meetings in person, abiding by the Sunshine Act, which does not require making meetings available online.

Thomas began by acknowledging that KBK’s opportunity to develop the property had sunsetted. He stated that he was unaware of any plans for KBK to seek a 4% tax credit since the letter had sunsetted; however, he had heard of it before.

“But there’s no way that we’re probably going to be able to support a four percent allocation at this stage right now,” Thomas disclosed, revealing the PRA’s position on the information.

“I don’t think that’s going to happen,” he stated.

Suzanne Ponsen, a friend of the Y, asked if the PRA intended to issue an RFP (Request For Proposal), asking if other developers wanted to renovate the building. Thomas replied that he would have to consult the Eighth District Councilperson Cindy Bass to do so.

This spiraled into a conversation about councilmanic prerogative, to which Ponsen believed is a significant reason why this project has dragged on so long. She’s also one of many who feel the same way.

“I will not touch that because that is not my world,” Thomas responded. “We have an obligation to work with our elected officials to help revitalize the city of Philadelphia — not just the eighth district.”

He states that any RFP issued in any district has been done with the “support and knowledge” of that district’s councilperson. He stood firm in his position that the PRA handles administration while city officials handle legislation.

Another PRA member, Susan Varghese, reminded people of Pennsylvania’s Urban Development Law. This law states that big decisions require oversight and approval, particularly when it comes to selling and acquiring land. This allows the alignment of city planning goals and community needs.

Thomas underscores that while the public may perceive that the councilperson gets to choose the developer when it comes to their attention, what really happens is a consultation about what would best serve the area, which the PRA then drafts into what the public knows RFP.

“It’s like different qualifications,” Angel Rodriguez, PRA”s deputy executive director, clarified.

He also emphasized that, per the disposition policy, direct sales are no longer allowed after January 1, 2020, prioritizing competitive processes. This policy also allows properties to be sold at a below-market value if they serve a public purpose or community benefit.

Ann Doley, a friend of the Y  well-known by neighbors and the PRA, also came to speak, asking if the PRA would consider a lousy track record when scoring new proposals.

PRA members responded yes, saying the scoring is “prescriptive” and “legislated.”

Germantown neighbors were satisfied with the PRA’s information about any possible plans for the Y, aside from the timeline. However, the friends didn’t forget their second, possibly more immediate, request of the PRA.

“I’m concerned about the fact that these meetings are basically closed,” said Pat Burks, speaking to the in-person meeting type. “Closing off the meetings from Zoom participation locks out people.”

While Thomas reminded folks that written meeting minutes were being taken and would be available to the public, Burks refuted the sentiment, making them aware of the difficulty of getting places in person at specific times at her age.

“I, frankly, will not take the bus when school kids are around,” she exclaimed. “I got seriously injured on the street, so I just won’t do that. But, I hope you will consider Zoom.”

Renee Cunningham of Center in the Park echoed her sentiments, letting the PRA know about neighbors who couldn’t attend in person due to age, mobility, and safety restrictions.

The PRA did not give a direct response to any of the sentiments expressed except an acknowledgment of it being shared. 

The future of the Y is still unclear. Thomas says that while he must contact the councilwoman to discuss plans for a new RFP, there is no clear indication of when that will happen.

Before closing, Doley gave a final and teary-eyed testimony recounting the historical and social value of the Germantown Y, even introducing Bryn Mawr students in attendance who are working with the Friends group on an archival project.

“We want you to be urgent, and we want you to care about what we feel,” she roared fiercely. 

She points out that time is of the essence for many concerned neighbors.

“Two people in our group died this past year,” she shared, mourning the loss of late neighbors Robert Seely and Deborah Gary, who supported the Friends efforts.

“It’s [been] way too long, and we lose all the time, and we’re tired of it,” Doley ended, thanking the PRA for their time.

The meeting adjourned, and neighbors gathered to discuss the outcome. 

Tessa Lippmann, one of the Bryn Mawr students working to help preserve the Y’s history, gave GIH sentiments about the overall saga.

“Today was very moving for me to see how important this building was for so many in this community,” Lippmann said. “I feel grateful to be in this class and get to see the power of memory and community and how it is tied to just one building.”

While there were still questions and criticisms about the councilmanic prerogative, people seemed reasonably optimistic about the Y’s future based on the meeting.

“I feel positive,” said CIP’s Executive Director, Cunningham. 

She says the PRA was clear about current standings with KBK and any future diligence plans when selecting a developer.

“I appreciated how they recognize how important the building is to the community, evidenced by our great attendance,” she said. “Which was no easy feat given we have several folks with physical limitations.”

Ann Doley echoes these sentiments. She particularly appreciated the PRA bringing up the letter on the record, as she feels it strengthens the case for disallowing KBK to proceed and for hybrid meetings.

She says this feels like a win for everyone and a possible fresh start, allowing all parties – the PRA, the councilwoman, and the neighbors – to work collaboratively.