germantown ymca
A new thing I am trying is getting non-docketed documents from interesting litigation going on around the city.
A little background for any non-lawyers reading this blog: when you file a lawsuit, a lot of stuff becomes “public” in the sense that it’s on a docket that people can access online/by going in person to a courthouse, sometimes for free and sometimes with a per-page fee, depending on which court you are in. Pretty much anyone can view the pleadings, the court’s orders, and motions/briefing. However, this is a small fraction of the documents involved in a case. The overwhelming majority of discovery exchanged in case doesn’t make it to the docket unless someone attaches it as an exhibit to another pleading. Exhibits used in a trial/hearing aren’t publicly available on the Philly docket either. However, if a party to litigation is an agency subject to the Right-to-Know Law, written discovery and exhibits and other documents in their possession should be obtainable. I did a RTK request for exactly that, and it was!
There have been a bunch of articles about the Germantown YMCA over the past few years. One of Councilmember Cindy Bass’s major donors, KBK Enterprises, won a contract to restore the old and dilapidated Germantown YMCA back in 2016, but KBK never got their act together and actually did anything. (whyy article) So this building has just been sitting unused and in disrepair for close to a decade. In Fall 2023, a developer filed an Act 135 petition to try to become the conservator of the property and fix it up himself. (inquirer article) In October 2024, the Court entered an Order denying the petition. There was no opinion from the judge, just an order saying the petitioner didn’t establish the property was abandoned or blighted as of the petition date:
Before I get into the documents from my RTKL request, here is a rundown of the pleadings. The following PDF contains the Petition filed by Weinstein Properties seeking to become conservator, the exhibits thereto, and the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority’s response.
Weinstein is a party in interest because it owns adjacent properties within 2000 feet of the YMCA.
Weinstein alleges the property is blighted and meets the statutory requirements for the appointment of a conservator because as of the date the Petition was filed 1) it has not been occupied for at least 12 months, 2) has not been marketed for sale in the last 60 days, 3) no unsatisfied mortgage or foreclosure action, 4) it wasn’t acquired within the last 6 months, 5) it has a history of violations and failed L&I inspections, 6) its nature presents a public nuisance, 7) it has major building components that need to be replaced, 8) it’s open and unsecured, 9) it’s physically deteriorating, 10) its conditions put it at risk of a vermin infestation (!!!! ewww), 11) it is subject to vandalism and graffiti, 12) no rehab has taken place in the last year, 13) it has a history of fire activity, 14) the owner hasn’t secured it, 15) it’s appearance and condition affect nearby residents and businesses, and 16) the PRA isn’t taking reasonable steps to fix all this.
PRA’s response (beginning on page 108 of the below PDF) is: we deny everything, prove it at the hearing.
You can just log in to the Philly e-filing website, pay like $30, and download the pleadings. That was easy to get! But getting my hands on documents from the case that are not on the docket is a little tricker.
Here’s what I requested from the PRA in my Right-to-Know Law request:
Obermayer is the law firm PRA hired to represent it in the case. Sure, it’s kind of a crappy move for me to publish another firm’s invoices, but it’s fair game when you commit to a government contract and bill $50k. I like to see how my taxpayer dollars are being spent! Richard Vanderslice is the lawyer representing the petitioner.
In response, PRA produced more than 400 pages of documents.
One of the interesting exhibits was a 2015 WJE engineering report that had a ton of photos of this place looking run down, and while the whole thing “does not appear to be in imminent danger of a major collapse; however, there are localized areas of potential instability and other significant risks that need to be mitigated.”
Later in 2015, PRA hired Domus, Inc. to do select demolition, shoring, abatement, masonry repair, roof repair, and other structural repairs. Max price just shy of $2 million:
PRA also produced a bunch of timesheets from their employees doing things like dumping trash and securing the premises, and some recent photos, to argue it’s not abandoned. That is fine, but why are they spending $2 million to hold it for some developer who’s never gonna show, then spending another $50k to fight a lawsuit from someone who wants to put a property that’s been vacant for decades to productive use?
Here are the witness lists for both parties. I don’t have a transcript so I don’t know who actually testified or what they said!
PRA did not give me the petitioner’s document production directly, but one of the emails had a link to a dropbox folder through which Vanderslice transmitted his emails. His production is not one neat and tidy PDF, so I’m only including a couple screenshots. But feel free to rifle through these files yourself :)
minutes from a PRA board meeting where a neighbor summarized the problem with the YWCA - it’s been a blight on the neighborhood and the city is holding up any progress.
i too wonder this
After the Court entered its Order denying the petition, Weinstein’s lawyer offered to discuss alternative resolutions - have PRA put out another RFP to get someone to actually redevelop the property, in exchange for not appealing. I didn’t see a response in here.
Here is the full production PRA gave me:
After the Court denied the Petition, Weinstein filed the below Motion for Reconsideration, and PRA filed a response to that - both are in this next PDF:
There is a hearing on the post-trial motion on 3/11/25. I will definitely follow this to see how it shakes out!
