Recent comments in /f/Pennsylvania

zorionek0 t1_j7qvhrm wrote

Eminent domain is costly and people fight it in court all the time. Also, do we really want the precedent of the state seizing the property of a private individual and selling it to another because the state doesn’t like how you’re using it?

I think vacancy taxes are a better solution, for housing and retail.

3

Girthero t1_j7qsh5d wrote

> I am on the side of cutting out the Charter schools all together, the continued tax hike to accommodate the fraud of paying the Charter schools over sending kids to the public school is choking the real estate potential for the area.

Yeah I'm in that camp. Charter schools always sounded like a band-aid type solution anyway. Instead of fixing the problems we're just choking the already failing school of funds and exporting them to another school where nothing stops them from eventually having the same problems of poor management, corruption, poor teachers over time.

Also I always felt like charter kind of robbed that sense of community public schools give.

Again never blamed anyone for wanting to send their kids there, but as a society I feel like this is not the most efficient use of our tax dollars.

3

melisma48 t1_j7qo07x wrote

Since you asked (and ONLY since you did), I feel resentful toward those who complain about "change". Building Amazon warehouses (or the like) are ways to offer jobs to myriad people in our communities. In addition, the tax revenues are huge! How can people complain legitimately about keeping our communities financially solvent??

3

geriatric_tatertot t1_j7qn4tj wrote

More farmland could be put in preservation, but that requires us to pay more taxes. A lot of times that funding is a match between the state and county. My county has very little in the way of local jobs, and we're getting a warehouse built here in the next year or so. If 600 people from here can work there and not travel to neighboring counties for work that's a good thing. I do think in rural counties we need to support housing development density. Folks are in horror at what is happening in a neighboring county with sprawling housing developments on former farms, but fight multi-family developments every chance they get. I don't think they realize that most zoned ag districts allow single family housing by right, usually with 3-5 acres per parcel. Developers have the cash to buy that land, and the houses they are building are way out of most people's price ranges, but being built regardless. 100 acres divided into 20 mcmansions with sweeping lawns is no less of a problem than 100 acres with 2 warehouses on it.

18

Allemaengel t1_j7qm87v wrote

Already been looking around up in McKean-Potter-Tioga for several years now and it's not nearly as easy as I thought.

Gas pads and pipeline easements everywhere, big acreage is kind of scarce, expensive and typically doesn't have its OGMs with it. Also a lot of land has been subdivided into weird narrow strips with stream wetland challenges or steep slopes. Plus usually neighbors with shit holes next door.

9

madidiot66 t1_j7qm2mh wrote

I wholeheartedly support the development of land along highways (and elsewhere) in whatever ways the market deems is their best use - as long as they comply with appropriate environmental and other laws.

Our economy runs on logistics - warehouses, trucks, trains, delivery gobs of products all over the world and to our doors. Places near intersections of major highways in relatively close proximity to huge population centers are exactly the types of places warehouses make sense.

I don't think farm land should be considered a better use than the warehouse. The warehouse creates a lot more jobs. It is often less polluting. There are downsides of course, truck traffic and eyesores (I guess - not to me personally - I see economic development).

I don't see historic value in farmland. Yes, protect any gravesites or historic structures (they're required to do this by law).

1