What Can Be Done to Save Scranton? (taxes, manufacturing)

[scrantonluna]

While education is important, I do not think we should just give them a blank
check to expand. Right now we have a plethora of non-taxable entities to
contend with, the University of Scranton, Lackawanna College, the
Commonwealth Medical College, and Allied, plus all of the k-12 schools
AND the churches. While most cities have upwards of 90% of their properties
taxable, Scranton is in the 70s, and losing ground.

I think it is important to guide development of these schools, especially the U,
which has property like you wouldn't believe, and not just in Scranton. Come
up with a long range plan, and curtail illogical expansion through the use of
'creative zoning.'

[to570717]

Originally Posted by scrantonluna

While education is important, I do not think we should just give them a blank
check to expand. Right now we have a plethora of non-taxable entities to
contend with, the University of Scranton, Lackawanna College, the
Commonwealth Medical College, and Allied, plus all of the k-12 schools
AND the churches. While most cities have upwards of 90% of their properties
taxable, Scranton is in the 70s, and losing ground.

I think it is important to guide development of these schools, especially the U,
which has property like you wouldn't believe, and not just in Scranton. Come
up with a long range plan, and curtail illogical expansion through the use of
'creative zoning.'

I disagree completely. The tax base in the City is shrinking despite the Schools or churches. The Schools are the only way to attract a viable demographic to the area in the short term. Once they are here, Scranton and Pennsylvania need to work to create an environment conducive to corporate productivity. Thus, graduates will have a place to work after graduation. The North East is slowly becoming to expensive to live in, IE> NYC, BOSTON ect..areas like NEPA offer an opportunity to live relatively inexpensively.

There is a belief amongst residents who simply do not know any better that the fact these institutions are not taxed makes them some sort of liability to the city. Scranton is in a position right now where they have to recognize what is available, what will work and jump on it. Creating a small town built on higher education is the way to go.

[scrantonluna]

Well as stated it is hoped that the Johnstown Flood Tax will be shifted to
municipalities to fill in some gaps in the local tax structure and make up for
these entities. Even still, unrestrained development, even good development,
can be a bad thing.

[to570717]

Originally Posted by scrantonluna

Well as stated it is hoped that the Johnstown Flood Tax will be shifted to
municipalities to fill in some gaps in the local tax structure and make up for
these entities. Even still, unrestrained development, even good development,
can be a bad thing.

Perhaps in an area undeveloped. But not in a city with crumbling infrastructure.

[scrantonluna]

Originally Posted by to570717

Perhaps in an area undeveloped. But not in a city with crumbling infrastructure.

How can you justify that? So what happens, the city
grows, the edges of the map are filled in, and then it's
a whole mess? That doesn't help anybody. Planning,
especially long range, is one of the most important
aspects of any city yet it's often overlooked, minimized,
or thrown out the window in favor of development.

Once you put a building in place, chances are it's staying
there for a good long time. And with churches and schools,
they might as well plant a flag in the ground, because once
they secure land, forget it, it's gone.

This is not the time to be penny wise and dollar foolish.
If they need milk, they'll buy the cow.

[ScranBarre]

I elaborated a bit more upon some of the elements of my "pay-for-stay" program with the universities in another thread about Wilkes-Barre, so I'll post more details here as well.

Copy-and-pasted from "A Message About Wilkes-Barre" thread:

Another idea I have is for the city to work collaboratively with the county and state to work with city colleges to develop a "pay-for-stay" program. In this program the city, county, state, and colleges would each contribute 25% towards offering half-price tuition to students who sign a contract agreeing to earn their degrees and STAY in the city for "X" number of years after graduation. For example, let's assume that a typical King's education is $30,000, including books, meals, and room and board. A student could go to school for $15,000 per year if he or she agreed to stay in the city for four years after graduation, with the understanding that for each year in which the contract was reneged upon if the graduate relocated, he or she would be liable for that pro-rated balance (i.e. owing $15,000 if relocating after three years or $45,000 if relocating after just one year). Of that $15,000 figure, each of those four entities I listed would pick up $3,750 of the tab. Assuming this would be offered to 100 students (50 at each King's and Wilkes), then each entity would be financing $375,000 in exchange for having 100 college graduates per year agreeing to stay in the city. Over the course of the next four years the city's proportion of college graduates will increase and serve as a great tool for the Chamber to use to market an increasingly skilled workforce to prospective high-paying employers. As of right now the Chamber continues to pat itself on the back for projects like CenterPointe in Pittston Twp., where most people probably earn wages at warehouses of $10/hr.-$12.hr.---nothing to be high-fiving one another over to help retain our youth. The colleges would benefit from having a larger and more extensive alumni network in the immediate city, and alumni are more likely to give back to their schools when they drive by them everyday.

[ScranBarre]

I also forgot to talk about urban growth boundaries, but one need only to look at Portland, OR as a shining success story of how government was able to create legislation to redirect new investment into existing urbanized areas while preserving open space and environmental resources on the city's periphery. This has its drawbacks in terms of driving up the price of housing within the boundary and potentially creating "leap-frog" sprawl that creeps up far beyond the boundary's influence, but overall there is NO good argument against urban growth boundaries in Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, an area that has seen untold square miles of open space plowed over for housing developments, parking lots, business parks, strip malls, big-box stores, etc. since the 1980s while also shedding a lot of its population, meaning ALL of this sprawl was a waste of land. Why has traffic steadily and progressively WORSENED on I-81, Route 309, Routes 6 & 11, Route 315, and other arteries at the same time as the population in the metro area was declining? More and more people were moving further and further away from established areas, putting stress on our infrastructure.

[ScranBarre]

Originally Posted by scrantonluna

How can you justify that? So what happens, the city
grows, the edges of the map are filled in, and then it's
a whole mess? That doesn't help anybody. Planning,
especially long range, is one of the most important
aspects of any city yet it's often overlooked, minimized,
or thrown out the window in favor of development.

Once you put a building in place, chances are it's staying
there for a good long time. And with churches and schools,
they might as well plant a flag in the ground, because once
they secure land, forget it, it's gone.

This is not the time to be penny wise and dollar foolish.
If they need milk, they'll buy the cow.

This is why I found the whole situation with Clarks Summit residents all being out millions of dollars due to controversy surrounding a proposed massive low-density housing development just over the border in South Abington Township (where else? ) to be so ironic. Instead of working cohesively in terms of long-range urban planning each little "fiefdom" or "kingdom" in this area tries to operate 100% independently of one another instead of striving to be interdependent. Clarks Summit tried to be this way, and now borough taxpayers will each be out thousands of dollars due to their "Rambo"-like elected officials who thought decisions THEY made would have no effect on neighboring municipalities. To be fair South Abington's officials are no angels either for not keeping officials in The Summit abreast of THEIR plans. Is there really a need for literally hundreds of independent municipalities in a relatively small three-county metro area?

[RebelPhotog]

Offer tax breaks to large companies. It's something I see missing in NEPA. It's working well in Alabama to attract large vehicle manufacturing plants that, in turn, supply lots well-paying jobs with excellent benefits. Those plants give a LOT back to their communities and the state as a whole. If a plant sees a tax break in one area and large taxes in another, where will they build? Another thing is that unions are holding back the potential of NEPA industry.

Get rid of the projects. Lots of cities are doing this because public housing only offers the inhabitation of drugs and crime. Clean up the city. All of it - literally. No overgrown lots - neighbor helping neighbor. Rennovation projects for older homes. Make the city look nice.

That's all the time I have.....deadlines at work are calling.

[blip]

Originally Posted by ScranBarre

Instead of working cohesively in terms of long-range urban planning each little "fiefdom" or "kingdom" in this area tries to operate 100% independently of one another instead of striving to be interdependent.

Seems there are some recent attempts at forming a regional plan. Have you seen this? SCRANTON-ABINGTONS PLANNING ASSOCIATION -Comprehensive Plan