In early March the local circuit reported that all six members of Reading’s 9-seat Historic Architectural Review Board (HARB) resigned en masse. This is particularly troubling because only when things are very bad internally do organizations vacate themselves in such a manner. While the local medias reported on the mass resignations, they did not expose why. I have spent the last few weeks gathering details from HARB members as well as attended a public meeting in which an official from the City addressed resident’s concerns, and I am ready to explain my findings to the public.

According to one HARB member’s resignation letter, “the [City’s] Preservation Office has failed to provide required resolutions, failed to maintain official meeting minutes for an extended period of time, and failed to follow through on the violation and enforcement process“.

Before we dive too deeply into what that means, you need to understand what HARB is, how it formed, and how it functions. In the late 1970s and early 80s citizens from certain areas of the city worked to gather signatures – a majority of their neighborhood – to let the City petition the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. The process is an arduous one, in which the City appointed architects and historians that had to prove to the State Museum Commission that the area in which they want to turn into a historic district is worthy of the designation. Four distinct districts were formed from this process; Callowhill District is the 5th Street corridor (including Penn Square) between Buttonwood to Laurel. Prince Historic District encompasses the area around 6th Street south of Penn to southern edge of the city. Centre Park Historic District is the area known as Centre Park, between 5th street and Centre Avenue just after they split. Penn’s Common is the area immediately around City Park.

If homeowners in these districts wish to make exterior changes to their properties, they must adhere to the Secretary of Interior’s standards, and propose the changes to the HARB. HARB then makes a ruling, and can either approve, deny, or request changes to the owners proposed plans at their meetings on the third Tuesday of each month. The HARB itself is a volunteer organization, comprised of residents representing each district, a trades professional, an architect, and a real estate broker.

The volunteers in HARB work closely with the City of Reading’s Historic Preservation Office, which includes two full-time paid city employees; a Historic Preservation Specialist and assistant. Circling back to the complaint stated above; HARB unanimously resigned due to what they felt was failure by these City employees to do their jobs. When HARB reaches a decision, a resolution in writing from the City must be mailed to the applicant within 30 days of that decision. If it is not received in that timeframe, the HARB’s decision is legally null and void. For years, the City’s Preservation Specialist hasn’t been meeting those time requirements. Why would HARB continue spending their time making decisions that are not legally able to be enforced?

Another issue cited by HARB members is the lack of meeting minutes. At a HARB meeting it is the City’s Preservation Specialists job to take minutes and post them on the city’s website for the public to see. Looking at City’s website there are no formal written minutes available. The only visible record is a video recording of each meeting. According to Pennsylvania’s State website outlining the Sunshine Act, videos provide transparency, but are not a legal substitute for written minutes. This puts the HARB in legal jeopardy, dating back to at least 2021, which is all that is available on the City’s website – but in reality the lapse likely spans closer to a decade.

In the resignation letter that was shared with me, the former HARB member felt the only way for meaningful reform was a formal audit of the City’s Historic Preservation Office. Allegedly many attempts to reconcile the ongoing issues were made, which was met with hostility from the Preservation Specialist. It is unclear why accountability and meaningful change was never facilitated by the current City Administration, but it may be coming from the State.

I attended a public meeting at Centre Park’s Artifacts Bank on the evening of April 7th in which Reading’s Community Development Director David Barr addressed citizen concerns over the uncertainty of HARB’s disbandment. Citizens of Centre Park, being the most prominent historic district and the only with an accompanying non-profit organization, asked many questions about the future of the oversight of these protected areas, as well as wondering what the process of making exterior changes to properties looks like in the meantime.

At the time of that meeting the City’s Historic Preservation Specialist had just began a 6-week medical leave, and unilateral power in decisions regarding HARB tasks was going to be left to the City’s Zoning Administrator. Since that meeting, the Zoning Admin was let go from their position, so now it is unclear who is making those decisions. When the Preservation Specialist returns after leave, they will be given that power. Also around the same time they return the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission will be coming in to assess the situation and make recommendations on moving forward. After all, they are the ones who initiated the HARB, and only they can ultimately determine its future. Recommendations have already been made to Barr by former City Planner Fritz Rothermel to completely disband the Prince Historic District due to a decline in its historic significance since the district’s inception. The overarching energy of the citizens at the public meeting was frustration at the lack of accountability for the Preservation Office’s, and ultimately the current City Administration’s failures in management of duties and enforcement.

Barr admitted when he entered his position last summer he was met with shortage of resources, a tight budget and an overworked staff. Previous to him the position had been a revolving door, with something like 23 Community Development Directors in the past 28 years. Given the choice Barr stated he preferred to direct the resources he did have toward fighting Reading’s blight. Blight is another very valid problem in the city; there are currently over 300 properties on the City’s blighted list. However, by removing HARB or limiting their oversight, it effectively lowers the standard in some of Reading’s most prominent areas, which in my opinion, opens the door for even more blight in the places the City can afford it least. Removing the historic district designation removes opportunities that developers can seek in the form of historic preservation grants. Coincidentally Centre Park, which has the most active historic district in the city, also has the highest home values.

Barr also cited the change in demographics of these neighborhoods from the time that the historic districts were formed, and that the newer residents do not necessarily have the financial means to upkeep the properties to HARB’s standards. Apparently Reading’s Mayor Moran is tired of fielding the complaints that angry residents have over HARBs rulings. It is worth noting that there is a appeal process. Residents don’t have to just accept HARB’s decisions, and an appeal takes the matter to Reading’s City Council, which by its current make-up would very likely be more sympathetic to potential hardships. Ideally residents would be made aware prior to their purchase that their properties are included in these districts, but it does not seem like that has been the case.

Regardless, Reading’s architecture is second to none in any other small city in the country. While much of it has come to pass, there is still so much that can be salvaged. Considering Reading’s CRIZ designation, the recent announcement of significant redevelopment projects downtown, and potential rail service reemerging in the coming decade; it seems like now would be the time to lean into making sure these districts are well guarded, preserved and ready for the revitalization that we all hope is around the corner. I eagerly await to see what the State Museum Commission uncovers in the City’s Historic Preservation office.