What Does Scranton Need to Undergo a Renaissance? (Philadelphia, Wilkes-Barre: home sales, neighborhoods)

[ScranBarre]

If there has been one thing in particular I agree wholeheartedly with Mayor Doherty on, it must be his initiative to bring 1,000 new trees to new tree lawns in South Side neighborhoods starting this year. I know CHS89 feuded with me on this topic in the past saying that South Side didn't need any more greenery, but I must still respectfully disagree.

Here are some "E" benefits I have devised that new tree lawns can provide to a neighborhood:

-Enhance Esthetics
-Encourage Walkability
-Entice Redevelopment of Blighted Homes
-Elevate Property Values
-Establish Habitats for Small Animals/Birds
-Expunge Speeding Traffic (More Tree Lawns Reduce Speed)
-Embellish Civic Pride
-Excite Residents
-Expend Oxygen (Through Conversion of Airborne Pollutants)
-Extend Summer Cooling (Shade Keeps Homes Cooler in Summer)

Every dollar that the city spends on new tree lawns should more than pay for itself as higher property values and larger numbers of vacant homes being occupied equates to increased tax revenues. There's a reason why Green Ridge and the Upper Hill are two of the city's most sought-after neighborhoods. West Pittston, Kingston, and Forty Fort can lay similar claims. Why? They all have streets lined with beautiful large shade trees. Furthermore if and when Scranton ever "goes green" enough to classify it as a "Tree City USA," that will give it a competitive edge in luring in new residents seeking in-town living with some greenery. Every Scranton neighborhood should be as "leafy" as Green Ridge or parts of "The Hill."

[weluvpa]

I don't read the posts just skim thru. Second how is a city supposed to pull itself up by the boot straps when the boots are nailed to the floor under a mountain of debt? Gov't plays a huge roll in that they are the ones that give out all of that federal funding for redevelopment. The problem is that the only ones that are getting it are the mayors friends and contributors and we have nothing to show for it. Either the city is going to have to set financial goals that they can attain or we are going to continue to sink. Its not hard to see that the current gov't has buried the city under so much debt that in order to save itself or at least get out of debt it will have to cut spending and I'm sure lots of other things as well. Will the next one be better? I don't know but, it certainly can't be any worse and what does DD have to do with this conversation? Your biggest mistake is that assume that people want to invest in Scranton and they don't but people like Jerry Joyce will because they can make millions on deals that involve funding that is not theirs. Look at the 500blk of Lackawanna the funding is so important to that project actually happening that they started the sidewalks in front of the buildings that they are going to tear down just so they wouldn't lose the money. Gov't plays a huge roll in this process, bigger then I think you realize.

[weluvpa]

Originally Posted by SWB

If there has been one thing in particular I agree wholeheartedly with Mayor Doherty on, it must be his initiative to bring 1,000 new trees to new tree lawns in South Side neighborhoods starting this year. I know CHS89 feuded with me on this topic in the past saying that South Side didn't need any more greenery, but I must still respectfully disagree.

Here are some "E" benefits I have devised that new tree lawns can provide to a neighborhood:

-Enhance Esthetics
-Encourage Walkability
-Entice Redevelopment of Blighted Homes
-Elevate Property Values
-Establish Habitats for Small Animals/Birds
-Expunge Speeding Traffic (More Tree Lawns Reduce Speed)
-Embellish Civic Pride
-Excite Residents
-Expend Oxygen (Through Conversion of Airborne Pollutants)
-Extend Summer Cooling (Shade Keeps Homes Cooler in Summer)

Every dollar that the city spends on new tree lawns should more than pay for itself as higher property values and larger numbers of vacant homes being occupied equates to increased tax revenues. There's a reason why Green Ridge and the Upper Hill are two of the city's most sought-after neighborhoods. West Pittston, Kingston, and Forty Fort can lay similar claims. Why? They all have streets lined with beautiful large shade trees. Furthermore if and when Scranton ever "goes green" enough to classify it as a "Tree City USA," that will give it a competitive edge in luring in new residents seeking in-town living with some greenery. Every Scranton neighborhood should be as "leafy" as Green Ridge or parts of "The Hill."

The list of things that need to get done in this city is long and expensive and there is no way and I mean no way that they can justify planting trees in Southside. The city is under $650,000,000 of long term debt and in a Distressed status and fiancially in a blackhole and you think that planting trees is the answer to the recovery of Scranton. Paul this thread was going good but that is just a insane idea right now. You want trees then get them from the Arbor Day foundation and have the boy scouts plant them.

[ScranBarre]

Originally Posted by weluvpa

You want trees then get them from the Arbor Day foundation and have the boy scouts plant them.

I never said the city had to be the source of funding. Scranton Tomorrow, The Greater Scranton Jaycees, Scranton POWER, Rediscover Scranton, the Boy Scouts of America, or any other civic organization with a presence in the city is more than capable of pulling together to ask businesses or the Arbor Day Foundation to donate trees to plant in the city after receiving appropriate approval from the planning commission and city council. Contrary to popular belief I don't think the "Doherty Three" would turn down boy scouts who wanted to plant trees in the city, assuming that they wouldn't disrupt utility lines or cause hardship for those who park on the streets.

Better yet we could have someone volunteer as a grant writer to request state and Federal funding for urban forestry. You'd be amazed how much a lawn of shade trees can "dress up" even an otherwise bland looking city block.

[kettlepot]

My apologies for such a long post, long-windedness is generally out of character for me, but I've seen center city redevelopment work, and have a few things to say on this point:

Trees Trees planted in the public parkways, (the green strip between the sidewalk and the street) are a well-known, and relatively inexpensive way of improving a neighborhood. Trees could be donated or purchased wholesale, the labor could be volunteer, and the cost would be low.

San Diego has had an aggressive tree-planting program in recent years to replace all the trees that were removed during the 60s and 70s for being too "rooty" and breaking up the sidewalks. Any decent urban forester could develop a list of climate compatible, non-rooty trees that would be suitable for shade and would grow well in the confined spaces of a parkway. Also trees as they become larger and begin to arch over the street, create a "tunneling" effect that slows down traffic. Definitely, PLANT TREES!

Senior Living The idea of senior living adjacent to the medical center is a sound one. More and more, housing for the elderly is being built with the progression of life in mind. Senior citizen housing, next to an assisted-living facility, next to a convalescent home, next to the hospital, next to the mortuary, next to the Soylent Green factory!

This won't solve Scranton's issues, but it is a sound idea that will be a benefit. When they choose to step out for a bit, the healthiest old folks will be a built in, though low-spending, customer base for some of the neighboring businesses, and the entire complex will employ workers who may want to live nearby, and will patronize businesses during their lunch hours, or before or after work.

Entertainment District Create a concentrated entertainment district in some part of downtown. The area would have looser noise restrictions for DJs and live music, looser liquor laws to allow the consumption of beverages on sidewalk patios when the weather was nice, and removal of the laws that probably restrict the numbers of such establishments that can be concentrated in a single area. The benefits of this would be:

1) by concentrating the action would give Scranton a feeling of street life. It would only be in that particular area, but it would definitely alter Scranton's reputation as a dead or dying city.

2) It would create an attraction that would bring people downtown, even from the suburbs. People would know that this 4-8 block area was THE place to go for food and entertainment. You wouldn't have to commit yourself to a particular establishment, merely travel to the area and then choose what suited you when you arrived. There is a well known economic law that shows that like businesses actually benefit by locating in proximity to their competitors, as they develop a larger combined customer base, and a larger pool of appropriately skilled workers.

3) The entertainment district would attract residents to the nearby vicinity. People probably wouldn't want to live directly in it because of the noise and traffic, but still many people, particularly the younger set, like to be near where the action is. Plus, food and drink establishments tend to be rather labor intensive, and many of their usually younger employees would probably like to live nearby for a short commute after the 2 a.m. closing time.

Yes, these kinds of areas have issues with public drunkenness, noise, and general riotousness, but costs required for the extra police protection would be outweighed by all the extra sales and amusement tax revenue sucked into the city from the suburbs. Those suburbanites will eventually tire of constantly alternating between Applebees and the Olive Garden.

Historical Districts I haven't been to Scranton, but from the descriptions I've read there appear to be many beautiful older neighborhoods with turn of the century architecture with housing and street scapes built with the pedestrian in mind. These neighborhoods should be designated as historical districts to protect them from encroachments from incompatible and damaging uses like apartments, office towers, and housing that is out of character for the neighborhood. Believe me, these neighborhoods, once they are known to be relatively crime free will be highly sought after.

Riverfront I'm not sure what the riverfront looks like in Scranton, or how much actual riverfront the city has, but particular care should be given to it. Perhaps it should be lined with parks and biking trails, which I guess might be along the levees that are along many of the riverbanks in NEPA, and then in some areas these parks would be overlooked by higher density, taller, apartments and condominiums. People who want greenery and water views, but no yard work, will find these appealing. It's difficult to get greenery and views in the suburbs without also having to do the yard work. Singles and childless couples who both work tend to find these extra chores to be a burden.

NYC Rail Link Much discussion has already been expended on this topic, so I won't elaborate more than to say that cities in Connecticut that are along the rail link are thriving. And Metro North is being extended beyond New Haven to New London with the building of the Shorelink. These cities along the shore aren't within daily commuting distance to NYC, but clearly someone is seeing value in connecting them to NYC and also to employment in Stamford, Norwalk, Bridgeport, and New Haven. The Scranton rail link may not create much NYC commuter traffic but it may promote commuting to other employment centers in northern New Jersey. And with the property taxes of New Jersey as an impetus, the people will come.

On some other points,

Sales Tax Increase A 1% sales tax increase may not have too much impact on smaller purchases, but it will DEFINITELY impact the purchases of items like furniture, larger appliances, and most of all, automobiles, where 1% could easily cost someone an extra $200 to $300 even $400.

However, that wage tax that is so much higher than the surrounding areas has GOT TO GO. It's a city killer.

Municipal Spending If Pennsylvania is anything like California, there is probably plenty of fat in the city's pension system. The traditional defined-benefit pension system that most government workers continue to receive has got to go. It's far too generous and costly when compared to the private sector. And public sector wages no longer lag private sector wages, so that old saw no longer holds water.

Other than park expansion along the riverfront, if Scranton even has riverfront, most of the ideas I've suggested are low or no cost for the city. The Rail link would have to be paid for by the state and federal government. There is no other way to fund something that big. And the other projects aren't dependent on the rail link going in and could be started very soon.

[scrantonluna]

There are a lot of good ideas here, but I think the best would be zoning parts of the city as 'historical districts,' as kettlepot described. This would enable much stricter code enforcement and restrictive zoning, and literally drive out absentee landlords and people who tend to live a bit less civilized.

[Retired Law 08]

Originally Posted by kettlepot

My apologies for such a long post, long-windedness is generally out of character for me, but I've seen center city redevelopment work, and have a few things to say on this point:

Trees Trees planted in the public parkways, (the green strip between the sidewalk and the street) are a well-known, and relatively inexpensive way of improving a neighborhood. Trees could be donated or purchased wholesale, the labor could be volunteer, and the cost would be low.

San Diego has had an aggressive tree-planting program in recent years to replace all the trees that were removed during the 60s and 70s for being too "rooty" and breaking up the sidewalks. Any decent urban forester could develop a list of climate compatible, non-rooty trees that would be suitable for shade and would grow well in the confined spaces of a parkway. Also trees as they become larger and begin to arch over the street, create a "tunneling" effect that slows down traffic. Definitely, PLANT TREES!

Senior Living The idea of senior living adjacent to the medical center is a sound one. More and more, housing for the elderly is being built with the progression of life in mind. Senior citizen housing, next to an assisted-living facility, next to a convalescent home, next to the hospital, next to the mortuary, next to the Soylent Green factory!

This won't solve Scranton's issues, but it is a sound idea that will be a benefit. When they choose to step out for a bit, the healthiest old folks will be a built in, though low-spending, customer base for some of the neighboring businesses, and the entire complex will employ workers who may want to live nearby, and will patronize businesses during their lunch hours, or before or after work.

Entertainment District Create a concentrated entertainment district in some part of downtown. The area would have looser noise restrictions for DJs and live music, looser liquor laws to allow the consumption of beverages on sidewalk patios when the weather was nice, and removal of the laws that probably restrict the numbers of such establishments that can be concentrated in a single area. The benefits of this would be:

1) by concentrating the action would give Scranton a feeling of street life. It would only be in that particular area, but it would definitely alter Scranton's reputation as a dead or dying city.

2) It would create an attraction that would bring people downtown, even from the suburbs. People would know that this 4-8 block area was THE place to go for food and entertainment. You wouldn't have to commit yourself to a particular establishment, merely travel to the area and then choose what suited you when you arrived. There is a well known economic law that shows that like businesses actually benefit by locating in proximity to their competitors, as they develop a larger combined customer base, and a larger pool of appropriately skilled workers.

3) The entertainment district would attract residents to the nearby vicinity. People probably wouldn't want to live directly in it because of the noise and traffic, but still many people, particularly the younger set, like to be near where the action is. Plus, food and drink establishments tend to be rather labor intensive, and many of their usually younger employees would probably like to live nearby for a short commute after the 2 a.m. closing time.

Yes, these kinds of areas have issues with public drunkenness, noise, and general riotousness, but costs required for the extra police protection would be outweighed by all the extra sales and amusement tax revenue sucked into the city from the suburbs. Those suburbanites will eventually tire of constantly alternating between Applebees and the Olive Garden.

Historical Districts I haven't been to Scranton, but from the descriptions I've read there appear to be many beautiful older neighborhoods with turn of the century architecture with housing and street scapes built with the pedestrian in mind. These neighborhoods should be designated as historical districts to protect them from encroachments from incompatible and damaging uses like apartments, office towers, and housing that is out of character for the neighborhood. Believe me, these neighborhoods, once they are known to be relatively crime free will be highly sought after.

Riverfront I'm not sure what the riverfront looks like in Scranton, or how much actual riverfront the city has, but particular care should be given to it. Perhaps it should be lined with parks and biking trails, which I guess might be along the levees that are along many of the riverbanks in NEPA, and then in some areas these parks would be overlooked by higher density, taller, apartments and condominiums. People who want greenery and water views, but no yard work, will find these appealing. It's difficult to get greenery and views in the suburbs without also having to do the yard work. Singles and childless couples who both work tend to find these extra chores to be a burden.

NYC Rail Link Much discussion has already been expended on this topic, so I won't elaborate more than to say that cities in Connecticut that are along the rail link are thriving. And Metro North is being extended beyond New Haven to New London with the building of the Shorelink. These cities along the shore aren't within daily commuting distance to NYC, but clearly someone is seeing value in connecting them to NYC and also to employment in Stamford, Norwalk, Bridgeport, and New Haven. The Scranton rail link may not create much NYC commuter traffic but it may promote commuting to other employment centers in northern New Jersey. And with the property taxes of New Jersey as an impetus, the people will come.

On some other points,

Sales Tax Increase A 1% sales tax increase may not have too much impact on smaller purchases, but it will DEFINITELY impact the purchases of items like furniture, larger appliances, and most of all, automobiles, where 1% could easily cost someone an extra $200 to $300 even $400.

However, that wage tax that is so much higher than the surrounding areas has GOT TO GO. It's a city killer.

Municipal Spending If Pennsylvania is anything like California, there is probably plenty of fat in the city's pension system. The traditional defined-benefit pension system that most government workers continue to receive has got to go. It's far too generous and costly when compared to the private sector. And public sector wages no longer lag private sector wages, so that old saw no longer holds water.

Other than park expansion along the riverfront, if Scranton even has riverfront, most of the ideas I've suggested are low or no cost for the city. The Rail link would have to be paid for by the state and federal government. There is no other way to fund something that big. And the other projects aren't dependent on the rail link going in and could be started very soon.

Excellent! now thats what I'M talking about. Very good Ideas "soylent green is people"

[weluvpa]

Originally Posted by kettlepot

NYC Rail Link Much discussion has already been expended on this topic, so I won't elaborate more than to say that cities in Connecticut that are along the rail link are thriving. And Metro North is being extended beyond New Haven to New London with the building of the Shorelink. These cities along the shore aren't within daily commuting distance to NYC, but clearly someone is seeing value in connecting them to NYC and also to employment in Stamford, Norwalk, Bridgeport, and New Haven. The Scranton rail link may not create much NYC commuter traffic but it may promote commuting to other employment centers in northern New Jersey. And with the property taxes of New Jersey as an impetus, the people will come..

What makes you think that the people in this area want to be linked to NYC? This is not CT which has been a arm of the NYC area forever. If we wanted Stamford we would move there, we don't have the waterfront or anything close to these cities so should we be forced to grow into them? What is wrong with this area that everyone seems to think that a train to NJ or NYC will solve the problems? Ask the life long residents how they feel about the trains in CT. Its funny when everyone moves to commute they seem to only interview those that have moved and no one wants to take into consideration the residents that live in the area already. I don't care what anyone says the train will be a bad idea for Scranton. Its not a feasable commute from here by a "local" train and I'm pretty sure that we are not going to get a express.
Scrantonluna I agree with the historic district and that is something that I have been saying ever since they blew up Lackawanna ave. The only street that would fit into that would be 300 Penn. They have pretty much bulldozed everything else. The corner of Franklin and Lackawanna where Quints used to be is slated to taken down for parking for Penn furniture so there goes more then one of our historic buildings that are left in the downtown. We have no historic districts so to say left in the city that they haven't ruined. Why fix the old when you can get the city to tear it down for free and build new.

[CHS89]

Originally Posted by weluvpa

I don't care what anyone says the train will be a bad idea for Scranton.

I will fight the next person who calls you a stubborn jackass. No one talks about my next mayor like that and gets away with it.

[weluvpa]

If I get elected I will repay you for that support. I think maybe you should be the next Director of Public safety. It wouldn't be patronage or crony job because you are qualified and able to effectively handle the duties. But on the lighter side why would I change my opinion of the train? I think its a bad idea. I also don't think that we really need it, there is no supply or demand for a train in Scranton and if we build it they will come and I don't mean baseball players or yuppies.