New Upscale Housing Coming to Downtown Scranton (Pittsburgh, Wilkes-Barre: neighborhood, buying)

[blip]

Originally Posted by weluvpa

How does saying that you have no comaprison to judge Doherty against since you have only lived here for a year violate anything?

Uh, I was talking about your deranging yet another thread into a venue for your one-note political tirade.

Originally Posted by weluvpa

Who is whinning now.

You have no idea what I have had to go thru because of this admin and its lack of compassion for an entire neighborhood.

YOU HAVE NO BASIS TO EVEN TO BEGIN TO TELL ME WHERE AND HOW TO SPEAK OR TYPE FOR THAT MATTER.

Winning or whining? I'm winning; you're whining.

[The Commish]

Originally Posted by weluvpa

There actually needs to be a local economy to drive these ventures and there is not, so they will sit empty as many leave to look for sustainable incomes else where...Right Paul.

Couple of issues:

(1) It's like a chicken-and-the-egg type thing. I don't know the sales figures for the 500 Lackawanna Block, Connell Building, and the Linden St. projects. But it's safe to say that this type of housing hasn't been available downtown before. If people move into them, then the increased downtown population and foot traffic should spur other sorts of commercial activity to support that population.

(2) Also, I don't think a developer spending all sorts of private money to improve the downtown is a bad thing at all. I guess what upsets many of you is that the city is footing some of the bill (anyone know the precise figures?). And the argument goes that the money would be better spent on improving the city's financial situation, taking care of basic services, improving the neighborhoods instead of the downtown, and so on.

I don't think there's a "right" answer here. City spending is essentially zero-sum, and the city can't do everything at once. It essentially comes down to where your personal interests lie. If you live in the neighborhoods, then spending money there is most important. If you're from a suburb, then improving the downtown is most important. I'm firmly in the latter camp.

(3) I think the most interesting debate is about the appropriateness of state funding. These projects seem to have most of their funding from the state. I think it's interesting that citizens from Pittsburgh, Philly, and other prosperous areas have to foot the bill to prop up dying cities like Scranton instead of improving their own areas.

[ScranBarre]

Originally Posted by The Commish

I think it's interesting that citizens from Pittsburgh, Philly, and other prosperous areas have to foot the bill to prop up dying cities like Scranton instead of improving their own areas.

With all due respect you are aware that we, as Scranton/Wilkes-Barre metro area tax payers, are paying part of the bill to help prop up SEPTA, which only benefits those residing in and around Philadelphia, and for a multi-million dollar new arena for the Penguins, which only benefits those residing in and around Pittsburgh. Scranton is by no means alone in garnering state funding.

[PITTSTON2SARASOTA]

Originally Posted by ScranBarre

With all due respect you are aware that we, as Scranton/Wilkes-Barre metro area tax payers, are paying part of the bill to help prop up SEPTA, which only benefits those residing in and around Philadelphia, and for a multi-million dollar new arena for the Penguins, which only benefits those residing in and around Pittsburgh. Scranton is by no means alone in garnering state funding.

I wish people would realize that if they consolidated the area; at least somewhat....say Scranton, the Wyoming Valley....maybe Hazleton.....into bigger cities, than their classification by state city size would increase their state funding, and federal funding too....grab the pie...Louisville Kentucky did. Also model the new cities after Portland Oregon...before it is too late. ScranBarre, ever study Portland's zoning laws or long range development plans....just what our area needs to stop the sprawl and rejuevanate the core cities.

[ScranBarre]

Originally Posted by PITTSTON2SARASOTA

I wish people would realize that if they consolidated the area; at least somewhat....say Scranton, the Wyoming Valley....maybe Hazleton.....into bigger cities, than their classification by state city size would increase their state funding, and federal funding too....grab the pie...Louisville Kentucky did. Also model the new cities after Portland Oregon...before it is too late. ScranBarre, ever study Portland's zoning laws or long range development plans....just what our area needs to stop the sprawl and rejuevanate the core cities.

Oh I've studied both Lexington, Kentucky and Portland, Oregon very extensively in their successful employment of urban growth boundaries so that they could help preserve their beautiful surrounding landscape for future generations, but the resulting moderate rise in housing costs that accompanied the reduction in developable land available might ruffle too many feathers here when salaries are already pitifully low. Perhaps someday when better employers move to the region besides Wal-Mart and Buger King we will be able to "experiment" with similar land preservation policies aimed at redirecting newcomers to improve upon what already exists INSTEAD of tearing down trees for more homes, but until that time I'd hate to see natives squeezed out of their homes, even if the end long-term result---more revitalization in the valley cities and preservation of natural beauty in the mountains---would be worth its weight in gold in my opinion.

[PITTSTON2SARASOTA]

Originally Posted by ScranBarre

Oh I've studied both Lexington, Kentucky and Portland, Oregon very extensively in their successful employment of urban growth boundaries so that they could help preserve their beautiful surrounding landscape for future generations, but the resulting moderate rise in housing costs that accompanied the reduction in developable land available might ruffle too many feathers here when salaries are already pitifully low. Perhaps someday when better employers move to the region besides Wal-Mart and Buger King we will be able to "experiment" with similar land preservation policies aimed at redirecting newcomers to improve upon what already exists INSTEAD of tearing down trees for more homes, but until that time I'd hate to see natives squeezed out of their homes, even if the end long-term result---more revitalization in the valley cities and preservation of natural beauty in the mountains---would be worth its weight in gold in my opinion.

I knew you could explain the concept well; however I think wages would rise(though lag) as better infrastructure etc. is built and the wealth is concentrated in the cores again. I agree about the housing prices really rising but it would be a slow process;and lag behind rezoning.Also new equity would be created as housing and land valuations increased; this could be reinvested into the city. I know wishful thinking. P.S. Didn't Scranton try to vote to make Lackawanna county (the city of Scranton) 2 times and fail??? Maybe third time is a charm. lol..

[PITTSTON2SARASOTA]

ScranBarre: Do you know the total square footage of the Southern Union Project? Thanks

[ScranBarre]

Originally Posted by PITTSTON2SARASOTA

I knew you could explain the concept well; however I think wages would rise(though lag) as better infrastructure etc. is built and the wealth is concentrated in the cores again. I agree about the housing prices really rising but it would be a slow process;and lag behind rezoning.Also new equity would be created as housing and land valuations increased; this could be reinvested into the city. I know wishful thinking. P.S. Didn't Scranton try to vote to make Lackawanna county (the city of Scranton) 2 times and fail??? Maybe third time is a charm. lol..

Municipal consolidation is the best strategy to help our area to thrive, but thanks to the "fiefdom" mentality that many elected officials around here have that would never happen, lest they relinquish their individual powers to yield over a fraction of the county's population. If it were up to me Wilkes-Barre and Wilkes-Barre Township (along with perhaps Plains Township and Laurel Run) would all consolidate into Wilkes-Barre City. Wilkes-Barre Township enjoys oodles of tax revenues from the dozens of big-box stores, strip malls, chain restaurants, etc. within its jurisdictions while Wilkes-Barre City, just spitting distance away, doesn't see a dime from that, even though most of those businesses falsely advertise themselves with a "Wilkes-Barre" address to gain more recognition. Imagine what all of those revenues being shared with the city proper of Wilkes-Barre could to to help urban revitalization efforts that would, in turn, benefit the whole REGION as the city became more livable. Wilkes-Barre has so much promise, and yet its downtown is consistently threatened by the "success" of Wilkes-Barre Township. That sort of competition between adjacent municipalities for tax revenues NEEDS to stop. If I had my way here would be the county's new communities:

Bear Creek borough (Absorption of Bear Creek Township and Buck Township)

Dallas borough (Absorption of Parts of Dallas Township and Part of Lehman Township)

Fairmount borough (New Municipality Formed Through Consolidation of Fairmount Township and Ross Township)

Freeland borough (Absorption of Foster Township, Jeddo, White Haven)

Hanover Heights borough (New Municipality Formed Through Consolidation of Hanover Township, Ashley, Sugar Notch, and Warrior Run; Not Named Simply "Hanover" to Distinguish From Existing Hanover Municipality Near Gettysburg).

Harvey's Lake borough (Absorption of Lake Township, Parts of Lehman Township)

Hazleton city (Absorption of West Hazleton, Hazle Township, Black Creek Township, Butler Township, Sugarloaf Township, and Conyngham)

Kingston city (Absorption of Edwardsville and Forty Fort)

Luzerne borough (Absorption of Courtdale, Pringle, and Swoyersville)

Mountain Top borough (New Municipality Formed Through Consolidation of Wright Township, Rice Township, Fairview Township, Dorrance Township, Dennison Township, Slocum Township, Penn Lake Park, and Nuangola)

Nanticoke city (Absorption of Newport Township)

Nescopeck/Nescopeck Township (ceded to Berwick, Columbia County)

Pittston city (Absorption of Pittston Township, Jenkins Township, Yatesville, Hughestown, Laflin, Duryea, Avoca, and Dupont)

Plymouth borough (Absorption of Larksville, Plymouth Township)

Shavertown borough (New Municipality Formed Through Consolidation of Kingston Township, Jackson Township, Remainder of Dallas Township not Absorbed by Larger Dallas Borough, Franklin Township, Parts of Lehman Township)

Shickshinny borough (Absorption of Conyngham Township, Union Township, Hollenback Township, Hunlock Township, Huntington Township, New Columbus Borough, Salem Township)

West Pittston borough (Absorption of Exeter and Exeter Township)

Wilkes-Barre city (Absorption of Wilkes-Barre Township, Plains Township, and Laurel Run)

Wyoming borough (Absorption of West Wyoming)

Originally Posted by PITTSTON2SARASOTA

ScranBarre: Do you know the total square footage of the Southern Union Project? Thanks

Sorry. I do not. Weluvpa is the expert on that project though, so he should be able to answer this for you.

[blip]

Originally Posted by The Commish

City spending is essentially zero-sum, and the city can't do everything at once. It essentially comes down to where your personal interests lie. If you live in the neighborhoods, then spending money there is most important. If you're from a suburb, then improving the downtown is most important. I'm firmly in the latter camp.

It's mostly zero-sum, but doesn't all have to be-- there can be wise investments made by a city that lead to long-term economic benefit (and hence more long-term tax revenues.) But, it's often hard for them to pick those projects wisely. And it is easier for larger cities, states, feds to pull it off such investments, as they're less likely to get the flight over the border as a short-term effect of the taxing and spending.

On the other point, I live "in a neighborhood" and generally agree with the strategy of improving downtown. Obviously it's not all one or the other, though, and the implementation of the strategy is more important than the strategy itself.. Plus, I think the notion of downtown should extend to corridors that connect the bigger central neighborhoods with the downtown (e.g. Cedar Ave. Mulberry St., Lackawanna+Main).

[PITTSTON2SARASOTA]

Thanks....I loved the fiefdom comment... your proposal is more politically viable than a larger consolidation...however are the boundaries pretty much the same as the school districts currently are???It's been a long time since I lived in Pittston, so there are many new subdivisions/enclaves/ hopefully no gated communities....that concept is so contrary to a viable city.