Joint Zoning

[Sal]

On August 9, 2005, I attended a meeting for community members to discuss joint zoning. The meeting was at the Newton Township Municipal Building.  The building was filled with people representing various communities including the City of Scranton.

Since that meeting, I have received emails with updates on the progress.  The problem is that it is difficult to follow or carry on discussions with emails going back and forth from different people.

I replied to everyone on the list and invited him or her to use this board to communicate.  Using this board is far more efficient than emails, It would give everyone a better understanding of the process and help individual communities to determine whether Joint Zoning is good for them or not.  

Equally important, it would provide information to the public and provide for their input.  While this process is ongoing, the people that will be affected the most are the public.  Up until now, the people living in the various communities have little or no knowledge that this is happening.

The purpose of this discussion is to put all the cards on the table.  Present the facts so the community leaders can make informed decision.  Make information available to the people that they serve and do what is in their best interest.

I would encourage everyone to get involved for the betterment of your community.

Joint Zoning appears to be working in some communities.  However, it is too early to determine the long-term effects.  At the same time, many communities have looked at Joint Zoning and determined that it was not in their best interest.  

Below is a partial list of the pros and cons of Joint Zoning.  However, each community needs to look at their own individual needs.  


 Advantages:

• Municipalities do not need to provide for every type of use individually but may provide for them collectively.
• Zoning regulations are uniform; that is, each municipality regulates land uses in the same manner.
• The economic base in the downtowns and villages may be preserved by reserving specific commercial uses for these areas and reducing the ability of competing activities to locate in other areas.
• Boroughs may be preserved by eliminating the need to allow incompatible land uses to locate within borough limits.
• Rural areas may be preserved by eliminating the need to provide higher density or intensity land uses that would be more suited for boroughs, villages and urban centers.
• The cost of infrastructure may be reduced by concentrating high intensity and dense use in fewer areas.
• Municipal and administrative and enforcement activities and costs may be reduced if one entity is chosen to provide this service for several municipalities.
• Barriers to communication will be reduced for the development community by having fewer sets of regulations within the region.

 Disadvantages:

• Perception of giving up individual identity and losing municipal boundaries.
• Reaching consensus on regulatory language.
• Organizing a fair and equitable review, administration, and enforcement system.
• Limited history of use in Pennsylvania.
• Sharing tax revenues and establishing a legal framework.

[Ed]

Thanks for the infomation Sal. It seems as time goes on government regulations will totally control and decide everything! You will only think you own your own property. It is time for less government, not more.

[cass]

I think we will all pay more taxes if this zoning proposal goes through. I have talked with lots of other people about this, we need to have a few business here to help with the tax base. If this is strickly a residensial community we will all end up paying more. I think we would be better served if we regulate what kind of business comes to Newton.

[davidk]

I'm trying to figure out why the City of Scranton wants in on this?
They only get involved with such things if there is somthing important to them.
So, what's the advantage for them/detriment to us here in the Abingtons?

[Sal]

Carl, you are right.  I spoke with many people and they feel the same way.  Giving away our assets is not in our best interest.

Dave, you raised a good question.  The reason other communities are looking to get involved is because Newton supervisors are looking to give away our assets and other communities are ready to take them.  

It is not just Scranton.  South Abington has their comprehensive plan and new zoning done.  However, they put a hold on it since Newton is looking to give away income generating land uses and they are eager to take it.

A Newton supervisor told Scranton officials that he would like to ship industry to Scranton.  

The Newton supervisor told the audience filled with representatives of other communities that Scranton Materials is suing Newton Township and that there is nothing that Newton can do.  He went on to say that Scranton Materials wants to build a blacktop plant and that they are going to destroy the entire mountain in the process.

There was no truth to want the supervisor said.  Scranton Materials have no intention and no space available to put in a blacktop plant.  In addition, they do not own any additional land on the mountain, so it is not possible nor do that want to destroy the mountain.

Scare tactics and outright lies coming for a supervisor is contemptible.  Nevertheless, those of you that follow what goes on know that it happens all the time.

Come January 1st the Newton Board of Supervisors will be reduced to three.  We need Bill Whitman for supervisor and we can take care of the rest from there.

[davidk]

As far as I'm concerned the current supervisors should not be making ANY long term decisions since at least two, possibly three, of them have only two months left in office.

I know Scranton Materials was in to the Planning Commission a couple of years ago huffing and puffing about expanding into the township across the Ransom line near their facility.
They were saying our zoning and planning ordinances were not proper and were going to sue us if necessary to get what they wanted.
As far as I know nothing ever came of it.

Why would we need to ship industry to Scranton when South Ab as well as other Abington munis have industrial parks and are looking to join the plan? We do not need nor should we even think about getting in bed with Scranton.
It is unlikely any industry would want to even look at Newton anyway since we lack infrastructure.

As for a comprehensive plan. We just updated ours several years ago. It cost a fortune and was years behind schedule. Why do we need to go through any more expense now?

[Sal]

We received notice that the Scranton City Council voted 5-0 to opt in to the multi-municipal land-use plan.

I am not totally against Joint Zoning but it has to make sense for each municipality.  I attended the meeting and did research and I cannot find any viable reason why Newton Township should be involved.  While at the same time there are risks to our Township if we get involved.

The people that are pushing Joint Zoning were invited here.  They communicate amongst themselves and try to convince each other that it is the best think that came down the pike.  

Under the scrutiny of this open discussion board, it would be clear that Joint Zoning is not in Newton Township’s best interest and apparently that is the reason that they do not post information on this here.

[davidk]

I understand that Dunmoe is interested in possibly joining the already misnamed Scarnton-Abington zoning area.
If Dunmore does come on board will that then make the name the Scranton-Dunmore-Abington Joint Zoning whatever, in keeping with the reverse alphabetical rule?
I seem to remember tis was originally an Abington are idea. How did Scranton, a late comer, get top billing?
Answer, we are obviously second tier to them.
This will be proven further when it comes time to start sending whatever the urban areas do not want out here to the "country" to be handled by the "hicks".
Remember the airport, poor home, tb asylum, etc.?