New UofS Dorm/Fitness Center (Scranton, Taylor: neighborhood, theater, schools)

[to570717]

Originally Posted by theatergypsy

The bolded statement is germane to the argument. Why? Because the cost of operating the city does not decrease just because the dilapidated properties are no longer on the tax roles. The result? In order to make up the difference in the loss of revenue from those properties, the remaining properties will see increased taxes, sometimes more than the owners are able to afford. There will soon be some more dilapidated properties out there and the U will buy them and build yet another tax-free structure, thereby increasing the load on the existing properties and around and around it goes. I wasn't a math major but it seems simple enough to me.
(And I didn't invoke the name of the Jesuits once in that statement).

That is a totally valid argument and I do not deny the slippery slope you are speaking of.

However, for arguments sake, what if the University was not there. Would that part of the city have 100% occupancy of upstanding owners who contribute to the tax roles each year?

Could it be argued that without the University, that section of Scranton due to the size and age of the homes would have fallen into greater economic depression and thus create a unlivable or at best disgusting areas where taxes are routinely unpaid.

The city spends money unwisely on many things. They need to begin to tighten their belts and uncover ways to operate as the city shrinks.

Listen, if you live in the city limits you can see what the city is turning into. It is not positive. The Universities are one clear and distinct ray of hope for the City to keep some semblance to the way things were. the other option is to allow the exodus of young and intelligent people to other areas and let Scranton be run by the very people who either financially take advantage of it(majority of current elected officials), or simply can not make it better.

[johnqpublic]

ahhhh a blend of concrete facts and what- if's... fact is as gypsy pointed out.. and that is why the university should make a substantial PILOT. it overlooks/ denys its impact to the residents by rolling out its time weary mantra of jobs, student spending, etc.

[johnqpublic]

What if the space occupied by the University was utilized by a for profit assortment of blue/ white collar businesses....HEY, we are talking "for the sake of argument"

[to570717]

Yes for the sake of argument....


Concrete facts are that the U can buy what ever it wants with its money and does not have to give a penny to the City. If i were the Pres of the School i would write a 1 dollar check to the City Council and tell the residents to thank the Councils President for the 2011 contribution. But i am just a mean person.

[jimazee]

Originally Posted by johnqpublic

What if the space occupied by the University was utilized by a for profit assortment of blue/ white collar businesses....HEY, we are talking "for the sake of argument"

This would be nice but isn't realistic. There is plenty of available space in Scranton and NEPA.

[theatergypsy]

Well, we're playing the game of suppose. Suppose the dilapidated houses were still there. And suppose the owners were unable/unwilling to pay the property taxes. And suppose they were put up for sheriff sale and sold to buyers who were willing to repair/replace those houses and be tax-paying residents. And suppose the whole city became revitalized. (It's a game, okay?)
Would, after all the supposes were accomplished, the U. or any other educational entity suddenly go out of business? What's that you say? No? Of course, no.

[to570717]

Right, there are two sides. So you can either be on the side in support of the School growing and buying the real life crumbling homes or you can be on the side of the people who call the school thieves and land grabbers.

I choose the School. To each their own!

[theatergypsy]

Originally Posted by jimazee

This would be nice but isn't realistic. There is plenty of available space in Scranton and NEPA.

The fallacy of that statement is no blue/white collar business wants to locate in the city because of the prohibitive taxes. Prohibitive taxes due in part to the many properties owned by the non-tax-paying U.
Which is precisely why there is so much commerce in Dickson City and Montage Mountain, Pittston Twp., and now Taylor.

[to570717]

Originally Posted by theatergypsy

The fallacy of that statement is no blue/white collar business wants to locate in the city because of the prohibitive taxes. Prohibitive taxes due in part to the many properties owned by the non-tax-paying U.
Which is precisely why there is so much commerce in Dickson City and Montage Mountain, Pittston Twp., and now Taylor.

I am sorry but the cities taxes are not where they are at because of non profit's.

the taxes in Scranton are there because of out of control spending, law suits, misappropriation and a budget that does not sync with a city of its size......

[theatergypsy]

Originally Posted by to570717

Right, there are two sides. So you can either be on the side in support of the School growing and buying the real life crumbling homes or you can be on the side of the people who call the school thieves and land grabbers.

I choose the School. To each their own!

It is wrong to make such a sweeping generalization.

There are people who support higher education but still insist the school must become a good neighbor and pay a share of the cost of operating the city. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Because you can be exempt from taxes doesn't mean you must refrain from contributing substantially to the city for the services you receive.