Wilkes-Barre is definatly becoming a "college town"

[marchawg]

Originally Posted by ScranBarre

See my above reply. You're going off on a COMPLETELY errant tangent from what I had originally meant. American families today are fatter, lazier, and generally have acquired much more "stuff" than the families of the 1910s-1930s, when many of the homes in The Heights were constructed. I'd have to estimate the average dwelling size in The Heights is a 3 BR, 1 BA, 1,400 square foot two-story home on a narrow 40' x 100' lot or so (enough on-street parking in front for one SUV or two small cars). While that would be fine for me personally, as well as a prospective partner and a child, the general American standard of living has changed over the years, making these homes "outdated" to most with children. Back in 1920 there might have been a couple with four children in a home like that---a master bedroom with two boys sharing one room and two girls sharing another. Nowadays it's a "cardinal sin" of sorts to suggest children share a bedroom. Try juggling a family of six in ONE bathroom. It wasn't easy growing up for our household to have one bathroom for FOUR of us, let alone more. Everyone "has" to have everything as we're now a much more consumption-oriented society. I hate to sound blunt, but quite frankly most of the small older homes in The Heights just aren't going to cut it for a growing family to spend $75,000 on the home and then $50,000 to upgrade it ($125,000 total investment), especially when they can have a 4 BR, 2 BA bi-level on 1/2-acre lot in the Back Mountain for $200,000. I value city living and convenience over elbow room, but most families do not. It's just unrealistic to ever expect a dense, crowded neighborhood like The Heights to ever be overrun by hordes of young middle-class families again.

I have to disagree with a lot of this. I think you can look at most of the houses in towns like Tunkhannock or Montrose where the houses are HUGE even by today's standards. These are all old Victorian houses, late 1800s. Even housing in Scranton is different than that of Wilkes-Barre.

I think that city housing in general is always more condensed than that of more rural or suburban towns. The fact is that most people actually prefer cities (check the city populations vs otherwise), or at least live in them, versus those who don't. Personally, I think the convenience and density of cities bring with them as many problems as bonuses. I am more misanthropic than most and I freely admit it, so living away from people is a huge bonus for me.

While I agree that Americans are fatter and lazier than ever, I don't think larger houses and suburban sprawl are due to how people are now. I think if people had the chance to drive 40 miles to work in 1920, making city pay in the country, there would be just as many doing it as there are now.

Your post sounds naively nostalgic, and you weren't even around at the time!

[ScranBarre]

Originally Posted by marchawg

I have to disagree with a lot of this. I think you can look at most of the houses in towns like Tunkhannock or Montrose where the houses are HUGE even by today's standards. These are all old Victorian houses, late 1800s. Even housing in Scranton is different than that of Wilkes-Barre.

I think that city housing in general is always more condensed than that of more rural or suburban towns. The fact is that most people actually prefer cities (check the city populations vs otherwise), or at least live in them, versus those who don't. Personally, I think the convenience and density of cities bring with them as many problems as bonuses. I am more misanthropic than most and I freely admit it, so living away from people is a huge bonus for me.

While I agree that Americans are fatter and lazier than ever, I don't think larger houses and suburban sprawl are due to how people are now. I think if people had the chance to drive 40 miles to work in 1920, making city pay in the country, there would be just as many doing it as there are now.

Your post sounds naively nostalgic, and you weren't even around at the time!

If Scranton and Wilkes-Barre are so desirable for middle-class and upper-middle-class families then why have their tax bases been eroding for numerous decades while their adjacent suburbs have EXPLODED in residential growth? The fact of the matter is that most families in NEPA would prefer to not live in the city for some odd reason that I have yet to understand. If we picked up everyone from Glenmaura and South Abington Township and plopped them down into Scranton, the tax base would skyrocket overnight, the city could make vast improvements on reducing its debt load and reinvest in itself simultaneously, etc. If the 50,000 or so people living in the Back Mountain and Mountain Top combined flooded into Wilkes-Barre, more than doubling its population, then that city, too, would be a shining gem again.

[Chefkey]

Originally Posted by ScranBarre

If Scranton and Wilkes-Barre are so desirable for middle-class and upper-middle-class families then why have their tax bases been eroding for numerous decades while their adjacent suburbs have EXPLODED in residential growth? The fact of the matter is that most families in NEPA would prefer to not live in the city for some odd reason that I have yet to understand. If we picked up everyone from Glenmaura and South Abington Township and plopped them down into Scranton, the tax base would skyrocket overnight, the city could make vast improvements on reducing its debt load and reinvest in itself simultaneously, etc. If the 50,000 or so people living in the Back Mountain and Mountain Top combined flooded into Wilkes-Barre, more than doubling its population, then that city, too, would be a shining gem again.

It's the draw of nature at least for me. I love my house in the Heights but if something became available in Bear Creek or Laurel Run for a good price I would consider it. As a knock to the mountain side homes though, my wife always points out the sewer and the water. I really do enjoy knowing when I flush that it's not going to come back. The public water, while risky in itself is at least regulated better than some old tap drawing from a source very near many old mines.

[Magritte25]

Suburban sprawl came to be when trolleys came into use - in the 1900s. Wilkes Barre and Scranton has it's fair share of middle and upper class families. Check out the homes on the side streets of both cities. I don't know what the trend is here, but nationally more people are living in cities than in the country. It just makes sense to do so. Just in Wilkes-Barre area we have three high schools (four if you count Holy Redeemer) and eight elementary schools (nine if you count WB Academy). That isn't exactly show me that there aren't plenty of families who willingly live in the city.

I think you are either a city person or you are not. Either is fine. It's an individual preference. I also would say that the tax base is eroding due to lack of jobs in the area vs. people running for the hills as it were.

I still think it's a bit .... odd .... to believe that those without children can make a city more progressive. Show me a successful city and I will show you a family friendly city.

[go phillies]

Originally Posted by ScranBarre

If Scranton and Wilkes-Barre are so desirable for middle-class and upper-middle-class families then why have their tax bases been eroding for numerous decades while their adjacent suburbs have EXPLODED in residential growth? The fact of the matter is that most families in NEPA would prefer to not live in the city for some odd reason that I have yet to understand. If we picked up everyone from Glenmaura and South Abington Township and plopped them down into Scranton, the tax base would skyrocket overnight, the city could make vast improvements on reducing its debt load and reinvest in itself simultaneously, etc. If the 50,000 or so people living in the Back Mountain and Mountain Top combined flooded into Wilkes-Barre, more than doubling its population, then that city, too, would be a shining gem again.

I think its the high wage tax that initially drove people out. The property taxes aren't bad in Scranton, but when people realize they'll get a 2.4% raise just for moving out of the city, they'll do it. Wilkes-Barre has a high wage tax AND also the flooding problem, especially after Agnes, probably drove a lot of people out. I can't see any other reason why people would have started moving out of Scranton and into, say, Throop, Dickson City, Taylor, etc. Most Scranton neighborhoods look about the same as neighborhoods in those towns, with some Scranton neighborhoods having some impressive older houses that you'll never find in those towns, not even Clarks Summit. BUT now, due to so many people moving out, there's other reasons people are fleeing the city....CRIME....people moving out left a lot of empty properties for slumlords to buy up and divide into apartment and rent to inner-city ghetto types....

[NYRangers 2008]

Originally Posted by go phillies

I think its the high wage tax that initially drove people out. The property taxes aren't bad in Scranton, but when people realize they'll get a 2.4% raise just for moving out of the city, they'll do it. Wilkes-Barre has a high wage tax AND also the flooding problem, especially after Agnes, probably drove a lot of people out. I can't see any other reason why people would have started moving out of Scranton and into, say, Throop, Dickson City, Taylor, etc. Most Scranton neighborhoods look about the same as neighborhoods in those towns, with some Scranton neighborhoods having some impressive older houses that you'll never find in those towns, not even Clarks Summit. BUT now, due to so many people moving out, there's other reasons people are fleeing the city....CRIME....people moving out left a lot of empty properties for slumlords to buy up and divide into apartment and rent to inner-city ghetto types....

This is correct. Most of Scranton doesn't look or feel any better than any other place in the Mid-Valley. The whole valley from Carbondale to Moosic all looks the same, except for the some nice developments mixed in between. For the most part, it all looks like pre-WWII houses, some falling apart, some in decent shape. I can't really see a difference between Scranton and Mayfield or Archbald or Dickson City for that matter.

[marchawg]

Originally Posted by ScranBarre

If Scranton and Wilkes-Barre are so desirable for middle-class and upper-middle-class families then why have their tax bases been eroding for numerous decades while their adjacent suburbs have EXPLODED in residential growth? The fact of the matter is that most families in NEPA would prefer to not live in the city for some odd reason that I have yet to understand. If we picked up everyone from Glenmaura and South Abington Township and plopped them down into Scranton, the tax base would skyrocket overnight, the city could make vast improvements on reducing its debt load and reinvest in itself simultaneously, etc. If the 50,000 or so people living in the Back Mountain and Mountain Top combined flooded into Wilkes-Barre, more than doubling its population, then that city, too, would be a shining gem again.

Sorry, I should've been more specific. I meant that the general US population lives in cities more than suburbs/rural areas. I think that NEPA is definitely a different case; the reasons for that are varied.

Personally, WB and Scranton don't feel much like cities. I've been to towns larger than WB with more things to do. WB just feels very residential to me, much like the other towns like Kingston, Forty Fort, etc. What is the benefit to living within the city limits of Wilkes-Barre vs living across the river? The same goes for Scranton, you can get a house 1 mile up the road where you don't pay a huge wage tax, there is little to no crime, and you still have the same access to whatever Scranton has to offer. I actually don't see the appeal of living in WB or Scranton vs the suburbs. There are a ton of cities I would love to live in, but WB/Scranton are not even close to being on that list.

This might be the case in a lot of industrial cities, though. There is a certain feeling of doom in them, and why would anyone willingly move into that?

[W-B proud]

Well, the cities may wack you on wage taxes, but living in Kingston, Forty-Fort ect will wack you with higher property taxes for the most part. Either way they are gonna get you. In W-b I have to pay a large wage tax, but if I had an identical house as i do now, but it was in Kingston or Forty-Fort, my property taxes would be much higher.

[ScranBarre]

Originally Posted by W-B proud

Well, the cities may wack you on wage taxes, but living in Kingston, Forty-Fort ect will wack you with higher property taxes for the most part. Either way they are gonna get you. In W-b I have to pay a large wage tax, but if I had an identical house as i do now, but it was in Kingston or Forty-Fort, my property taxes would be much higher.

It really depends upon which school district you reside in. My parents live in Pittston Township, which doesn't have a municipal tax for residential properties. However, their tax bill is around $4,000 annually for an average home because the Pittston Area School District has some of the highest property taxes in the region. This is why when people in Scranton or Wilkes-Barre whine about their "high property taxes" folks in the suburbs just laugh. I really don't wish to single anyone out, but one member who has been absent as of late pays taxes on two homes in the city of Scranton, and I believe his tax bill for BOTH is about equal to my parents' ONE home! It all balances out in the end. My parents make about $75,000 combined. If they lived in Scranton they might pay $2,000 instead of $4,000 in property taxes on their home. They'd pay about $2,550 to the city of Scranton via the 3.4% city wage tax for a grand total of $4,550 annually in Scranton vs. the $4,000 they pay now in Pittston Township. $550/year isn't a lot of money for the better municipal services you get in the city (i.e. police patrols, paid fire department, paid EMTs, street cleaning, curbside recycling, excellent parks, etc., etc.) Anyone who moves out of Scranton just to save $100-$500/year on their overall tax bills is stupid, in my opinion, but judging by the U.S. Census Bureau and the property transfers in the Times-Tribune many are.