Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Dan, Scranton is a mid-sized regional "hub" city. It has all of the bare bones needed to become a true cultural epicenter. There are hospitals, universities, the Scranton Cultural Center, a major library, parks, the county courthouse, the Federal courthouse, art galleries, community theaters, etc. (yes, coffee houses and espresso bars too!) The suburbs have none of these.
Member Katiana pitched an idea on the Pittsburgh sub-forum last night that resonated with me, and it is one that I, too, will pitch to our local elected officials at some point in the near-future. Out in Denver, where she lives near, residents throughout the entire metropolitan area pay a very small tax annually in order to help offset the burden faced by Denver having a large proportion of tax-exempt properties and amenities within its city limits. Instead of having a situation like you see here in Scranton, where I believe roughly 1/5 of the city's taxable properties are actually tax-exempt (universities, synagogues, churches, courthouses, hospitals, etc.) yet 70,000 people are paying the full burden of having these amenities in their jurisdiction while 500,000+ people from around the region depend upon them, you can have a situation in which Scranton can reap some sort of financial easement from the very same suburbanites who currently utilize all of these venues without paying a penny for them. If it can work in Metro Denver, then why not Metro Scranton?
Using those new revenues, Scranton could potentially reap enough money to slash its wage tax, hence making it more attractive to middle-class families. I've actually spoken to people, Dan, who said that they would have liked to have purchased a nice older home in the city but instead bought in the suburbs SOLELY because of the 3.4% whammy of a wage tax. I wonder how many others like those people are out there? If that proposal is well-received by local officials as well (perhaps I'll call it the "Metropolitan Tax-Exempt Property Relief Fee"), then Scranton could realistically eliminate its 2.4% portion of that 3.4% wage tax. Living in Pittston I'm in Scranton quite a bit to enjoy the benefits of its amenities while paying not a penny for them. I wouldn't mind paying perhaps $25 per year to the city of Scranton in order to help finance the very same cultural assets I've come to love and appreciate. Multiply that $25 per year figure across the board to the hundreds of thousands of households in the counties surrounding Scranton, and the city can reap several million dollars to help offset the burden of being the dumping ground for most of the area's tax-exempt cultural venues.
Let Scranton become a cultural epicenter. I can see it now. The area is beautiful, there is a lot of potential. We aren't far from NYC and Philly... It's a gonna happen.~
Let Scranton become a cultural epicenter. I can see it now. The area is beautiful, there is a lot of potential. We aren't far from NYC and Philly... It's a gonna happen.~
If the Yankees demand a new stadium in the coming years I'd also like to propose that the stadium be built on blighted land somewhere near downtown. People who currently hit up Johnny Rocket's, Ruby Tuesday, Kildare's, and other chain restaurants up on Montage Mountain before the games could hit up Alfredo's, Brixx, The Banshee, Molly Brannigan's, Coney Island, Vidas Tapas Bar, Faccia Luna, and other mom-and-pop downtown area venues instead, helping to boost their bottom lines. Downtown merchants could stay open a few hours later on game nights to entice people strolling between the stadium and restaurants/pubs to drop in and possibly buy some of their wares.
It's not that far-fetched of an idea. A recent article in the newspaper pointed to a large vacant tract of land somewhere roughly behind Steamtown, which would put the stadium in walking distance to baseball fans in West Side as well. I'm certain there is enough blighted land in Pinebrook as well to accommodate a stadium. Instead of a massive paved parking lot surrounding it though it would be better to have a garage attached to it to minimize the structure's footprint.
I think Scrantonluna supports it, and I'm sure if the Iron Pigs ever played at that downtown stadium, Go Phillies would stroll on over from his home on West Side to cheer on his believed Phils. Scranton could benefit from that foot traffic more than the base of Montage Mountain could. I never understood why the Wachovia Arena could not have been built at the base of Coal Street in Downtown Wilkes-Barre either. Both cities would be a bit more vibrant now if they both had these very popular venues in their cores instead of on the far outskirts.
I am without question really unhappy with the state of the city and yes I'm sure that your getting the Bah Humbug from my posts but guess what the city is getting worse. This is and will always be about the current state of the city and the reality of what and where we live.
Phillies your from the area, you tell me do you really think that what Paul sees as a future for the downtown of the city is a reality? Is that supposed reality worth the millions and millions of taxpayer dollars that are being funneled into it? or could that money be used in a more productive manner other then condos and lofts when there is an obvious housing surplus in the city and the county?
We have NEVER HAD A CRIME PROBLEM in our neighborhood but yesterday we had the gang task force down here......My neighbor just brought his families large camper down to winterize it and it was tagged in blue by a gang....He just picked it up this summer, nice. My other neighbors house was robbed in the middle of the day, my other neighbor had to call the police to get some guy out of her carport because he refused to leave.
I have been on this block for 15 years and NEVER have we had to worry about this, but its ok right. Its ok because we are building lofts in the downtown, its ok because we have a dog park that costs more then most of the homes in the city.
The current state of this city is a DIRECT REFLECTION of the political state of the city. The police and fire depts are being hammered and the admin gets raises, non-stop borrowing to plug budget gaps..
Sooner or later you have to stop robbing peter to pay paul....Pretty soon Peter is going to be broke and file chapter 11.
I'm all for progress but at a rate and in a manner that the taxpayers and region can sustain.
NONE OF THIS matters to Paul because he doesn't even live in the city, so while we pay for his dreams he has yet to leave home and come here to help shoulder some of the burden of his dreams for our city.
What is it going to take to get people to see the reality of the direction that this city is heading?
........
Dan I agree with you, but I don't think all hope is lost and I do still think this is a good place to live. It doesn't seem any worse than when I lived outside of the city. If we can get Doherty out of there next year, and hopefully the next mayor will not be corrupt (wishful thinking in Scranton), I think the ship can be righted. Scranton is not exactly Camden.
I do also agree that Paul lives in sort of a fantasy world (no offense Paul) in that he thinks Scranton is all of a sudden going to become some hip happening artsy place full of yuppies and "culture" because some political cronies might build some tax-free KOZ loft apartments downtown. Scranton will never be Soho or San Francisco. I prefer that Scranton is just Scranton. If I wanted New York City, I would have moved there. I don't think we need a ton of money into putting in downtown apartments, since there is no need to live in a loft apartment downtown, when you can live spitting distance from downtown in one of the city's neighborhoods with a house and a yard. The key to getting Scranton on the right track is to stop dumping money into useless downtown building projects and putting that money towards neighborhoods/taxpayers. If they would just lower the wage tax, do structural improvements like roads, sidewalks, etc, and beef up public safety to keep crime out, downtown and the entire city would become prosperous as a result.
My opinion here is that you may be a little TOO negative, and Paul is positive to the point of being slightly delusional. I guess I'm somewhere in between the two of you.
I understand that some want the area to remain the same as when they were growing up. But things keep changing. Hopefully for the better.
I DID NOT GROW UP IN THE CITY.....I would love to see change but at what cost? Who is supposed to pay for the facade of change? NO ONE IS MOVING INTO THE DOWNTOWN and there is no reason to. Now why should we have to foot the bill for the construction of lofts and condos when we are experiencing a exodus from the city? Why are we spending millions and millions on housing whe we have a surplus.
Paul you will never see this for what it is. You have NO life experience and have not spent any significant time outside of Pittston nevermind the region. You want this place to be something that it is not and you so desperately want it that you have been blinded from seeing the costs.
People with knock off purses and over financed SUV's and homes are not trendy. Most people have this screwed up perception of what the real world is. Its not Paris Hilton or MTV and America's next top model. The misperception of the reality of the country and society and its "trendyness" is exactly why the country is in the state it is in.....Huge houses, huge trucks, knock-offs and $250+ shoes is not reality. I guess its trendy to be buried in debt and bordering on chap 11 as long as you seem to be trendy and hide behind that facade of what is perceived by society as "cool".
Paul have you ever been to Denver? Its a pretty big city at the base of the rocky mountains and its an area that can boast a population increase almost every year. Its surrounded by burbs and small towns that are growing daily. Superior, Boulder all support healthy business's in their out lying areas.
Basically its a DESIRABLE PLACE TO LIVE.
They have the Rocky mountains, world class skiing, climbing ,rafting, a solid plains climate. A population of over 500,000 in the city and over 2,000,000 in the region so please explain to me how we can compare the two in anyway shape or form. Do you think that gthe less then 70,000 people here are going to be willing to pay more taxes to offset places like Da U milking us for all that we are worth. When was the last time you actually paid a tax on property?
A stadium in the downtown is not the answer. Bulldozing a neighborhood for it is not the answer........There is no large vacant tract behind Steamtown Paul. They are refering to the area around the Southside Complex.......
So let me get this straight...You think that hundreds of millions of dollars should be spend bulldozing part of a city,that you don't live in, to build a stadium to house a team that no one really goes to see because its going to be good for the city? Really? Who is going to pay that tax to offset the stadium?
You do realize that Manadalay has a company called Riverfront Area Redevelopment Enterprises Inc. that they use to buy land.
This company purchased land in Dayton Ohio and in turn sold back to the city for a profit. Then the city leased it to Mandalay for the new stadium that they built. Thus mandalay does not have to pay the property tax on the facility due to the fact that they lease the land from the city, nice right!!!!!!!
Basically DA U with a bigger price tag for the taxpayers.
I'm done arguing with someone that doesn't live in the city and changes his mind about where he wants to live as often as he changes his socks.
The reason I'm so gung-ho for urban renewal projects downtown is that I've seen other medium-sized Rust Belt cities being able to successfully revitalize themselves from their cores outwards. These cities created formerly 9-5 downtown business districts that emptied out like donut holes after the end of the workday into mixed-use neighborhoods with 18-hour foot traffic. As people perceived downtown to be expanding and revitalizing itself, adjacent neighborhoods saw gentrification as people purchased older (sometimes even blighted) homes and renovated them to their liking. In this same sense the densest neighborhoods in Scranton---the Hill Section, Upper South Side, and Hyde Park---are generally speaking all within a half-mile's walk of downtown. If you can make downtown a place where people would want to not only WORK, but also enjoy, then naturally they'll want to live in close proximity. Cultural events like First Fridays, Cocktails in the City, the Jazz Festival, etc. are all steps in the right direction.
..and I'm done arguing with someone who has been so brainwashed by Joseph Pilchesky/Lech Walesa into thinking that Scranton is inevitably sinking into the deep abyss like the Lusitania.
The reason I'm so gung-ho for urban renewal projects downtown is that I've seen other medium-sized Rust Belt cities being able to successfully revitalize themselves from their cores outwards. These cities created formerly 9-5 downtown business districts that emptied out like donut holes after the end of the workday into mixed-use neighborhoods with 18-hour foot traffic.
Where? When? What have you seen in your whole 21 years? Which rust-belt city revived itself while you watched?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. When a city is in distress the only people you can truly blame are her residents. Everyone seems to have the attitude that 'someone else will do it,' or, 'if only we had a different Mayor/Council.' What you need is people who take responsibility. You never saw tax dollars pumped into civic projects in years past because average people made it happen; they donated their time or their money and made their city a better place to live. They cared enough to keep their yard neat, to pot a few plants, or hang an American flag off their porch. Some will say these small things mean nothing, but without a sense of pride in ownership and in community, all you get is a hollowed out shell of a region.
You have increasing crime not due to police cuts, but due to the crumbling infrastructure of the neighborhoods. This is due to sprawl, as Scran suggests, but also the ever-increasing age of residents (weak family units and therefore weak neighbor relations) and the generally poor and accusatory attitude rampant in the region. When you make yourself a victim, then who's the sheep? People with criminal intentions do not move into neighborhoods with strong ties and community pride.
The sprawl, by the way, is no doubt being fueled by inadequate (low) taxation on new construction. How about an 'inconvenience tax' for these new remote areas that require service?
While some may not welcome change or the influx of culture, there is no reason to think that Scranton does not have room for everyone's tastes. Only by showing that the door is open will we ever see any kind of renewed financial prosperity. Blue collar people work blue collar jobs, a field that is more and more NOT available in this country. They also usually make less money than their white collar counterparts, and in turn, pay less in taxes. If you want more revenue, you need to attract the people, and the jobs, that produce it. I also find it funny that those who resist change are the first to complain that 'there's nothing to do around here.'
I think the wage tax is pretty high for an area that is still struggling to be reborn, but I believe only 70% of the city is taxable, with a whopping 30% taken up by churches, schools, etc. This is a large departure from most other cities, where taxable property approaches 90%. Can the city legally bill these institutions for services? Fire/Police/EMS calls? We have a new medical school on the way which will only add to this particular aspect of the problem. Of course you have to consider what is given in return, in most cases jobs and revenue-by-association, but how long can you live on credit?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
