Hearing on Disposition of Polish American Cultural Center Highlights Decades‑long Ownership Dispute

The Committee on Commerce and Economic Development held a public hearing on resolution 250881 about the disposition policy for the Polish American Cultural Center (PACC) property at 308–10 Walnut Street. The Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority (PRA) submitted written testimony, read into the record, that it has been adjudicated by Philadelphia courts to own the property and that the PRA seeks authority to address structural and safety issues. PRA testimony summarized decades of installment‑contract and bond history, cited a January 2021 Hill International inspection estimating approximately $1,800,000 to bring the property into code‑compliant, safe condition, and said PRA efforts to negotiate with PACC leadership were unsuccessful.

Jesse Lawrence, director of planning and development for the City of Philadelphia, read the administration’s written testimony and stated that the city supports the PRA’s statutory obligations and legal process. Lawrence noted the PRA is a Pennsylvania redevelopment authority and is legally independent of the city under the Urban Redevelopment Law (35 P.S.), and he said the city does not own the property and therefore cannot itself transfer it.

Michael Blijas, who has represented Polish American Social Services / the Polish American Cultural Center, testified at length and disputed aspects of the PRA account. Blijas recounted the organization’s involvement beginning in the 1980s, said the group moved into 308 Walnut after the 1987 ordinance, described fundraising and rehabilitation work paid for by the Polish American community (he said the organization paid for building repairs and utilities), and recounted multiple attempts to secure federal HUD or other grant assistance referenced in archival correspondence. He said PACC never received a formal deed or lease from the PRA, disputed PRA’s factual presentation about negotiations, and described efforts to seek alternatives to eviction. Blijas also said the organization vacated the building about six months earlier by choice and urged the committee to consider alternatives that would allow continued community use of the site, including transfer of the property to a public‑properties model like the Black History Museum or Mummers Museum.

Committee members questioned Blijas about legal remedies, offers that the PRA reportedly made in prior negotiations, and the possibility of adverse‑possession claims; Blijas said the community preferred negotiation over litigation but was open to considered offers that would secure continued museum/service use. The administration and PRA representatives stressed that PRA followed legal procedures, that historic bond records indicate bonds were redeemed in 1995 and that records show a remaining payment history, and that PRA has statutory authority over disposition of its assets.

The committee received and accepted the PRA and administration written testimony for the record and did not take a final action during the session; the chair closed oral testimony for the day but left the hearing open to the call of the chair for further meetings. Committee members asked staff to file the submitted documents and indicated follow‑up would be necessary to reconcile archival records, court filings and offers made during past negotiations.

Key factual items discussed in testimony (as cited by witnesses or submitted documents): the 1987 City Council ordinance authorizing PRA bond financing for up to $3,000,000 to finance transfer of the property; an installment contract dated 08/21/1987; PRA records indicating bonds were redeemed in 1995 with $155,000 paid by PACC toward an aggregate debt service of approximately $4,687,750; a Hill International report (January 2021) estimating roughly $1,800,000 to bring the property into safe condition; and alleged unpaid annual PRA administration fees of $1,500 from 1988–1995 totaling $12,000. Witnesses disagreed about whether records exist showing the city agreed to pay any remaining balance on PACC’s behalf.

The hearing was left open for additional review and the committee requested that documentary records the PRA and PACC provided be included in the committee record for further consideration.