Re: How about the Neighborhoods -- Wilkes-Barre Now! II

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 18:59:37 05/11/05 Wed
Author: Harry McCarthy
Subject: Re: How about the Neighborhoods
In reply to: Harry McCarthy 's message, "Re: How about the Neighborhoods" on 18:48:49 05/11/05 Wed

>To some extent I might agree with you. While City
>government has largely ignored the neighborhoods for a
>very long time I remember the last administration
>attempting to rehab dilapidated homes which proved to
>be a terrible disaster. As I remeber it, most of those
>blighted homes were in blighted neighborhoods. No
>amount of paint, dry wall and vinyl siding was going
>to make those areas attractive to potential buyers.
>For example, the City spent over $70,000 dollars (
>according to McG.) rehabing a home at the lower end of
>Lehigh St.. Right in the heart of "Crack Central".
>It's still for sale today. And there's another one on
>Hazle St., and still others.
>
>The problem with rehabing these older homes is
>twofold. First you have to figure out where the money
>comes from. Typically, Federal grants are issued but
>come with restrictions as to who the buyer can be.
>Usually they are designed to put lower income people
>into their own homes. Often it's difficult to find
>people who meet the criteria.
>
>And then there's the location. You know what they say:
>"Location, location, location." If you can sidestep
>the purchasing restrictions or finance the
>reconstruction another way, you'll find that most
>folks with money don't want to live in the worst
>neighborhoods. They'll save a little longer and buy a
>house in the burbs with a nice yard and some distance
>between them and their neighbors. Or simply look in
>better neighborhoods if they really are set on living
>in the City.
>
>Here's what I proposed to several of our City
>politicians (who all looked at me as if I were on
>drugs) years ago. Instead of trying to fix up a crappy
>house in a crappy neighborhood, why not try to improve
>the neighborhood as a whole? Why not tear the house
>down and offer the lot (in half or whole)to the home
>owners on either side? Give people a little elbow
>room! That's what the folks who move to Dallas or Bear
>Creek are seeking. Take a look at any new developement
>and you'll see what I mean.
>
>Most people today don't want to be able to reach out
>of their window and touch the neighbor's house. That
>wasn't the case when a lot of this town's houses were
>built. If you study the history of the valley you'll
>find that many areas were developed by the coal
>companys and other industries to house their workers.
>They were referred to as "patch towns" or "company
>houses". Good examples can be found on Empire street,
>or North Sherman. As my Councilman father has stated
>in the past you can't walk between some of these
>homes. They're that close together. And that keeps
>poroperty values down. Really, where else in this
>country can you buy a decent house for $40,000 or
>less? Or any house for that matter?
>
>Now I didn't think up any of that. Honestly, I'm not
>that smart. But folks who are smart gave a gazillion
>dollars to our own Redevelopemnet Authority back in
>the seventies to do what I just proposed. And they
>were doing it until they ran out of money.
>
>I know what you're thinking. The City needs those
>properties for the tax revenue. One of our Councilmen
>was quick to point that out to me. But my research at
>the time revealed that all of the properties the City
>planned to rehab were in arrears of taxes. Some owed
>qiute a hefty bit of cash. So the City wasn't getting
>any money from them, nor was the County or the School
>District. And as I said before, a number of those
>houses that were rehabbed under the last
>administration are vacant to this day. So where is the
>"win"?
>
>I say: "Give people a chance to improve their property
>and the neighborhood will improve along with it."
>
>Anyway, that's my two cents.
>
>Harry
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>I'm very excited about the downtown being revitalized,
>>but I think the neighborhoods other than central city
>>need to be improved. Maybe if council and the mayor
>>use some of this grant money to buy more homes to fix
>>up, plant trees in residential neighborhoods, and pave
>>the streets, the city would be better off.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]