PHFA CZB

An Analysis of
Housing and Markets in

Northeastern Pennsylvania
A report prepared by czbLLC for

the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency
March 2006
An Analysis of Housing and Markets in Northeastern Pennsylvania
Acknowledgements
This report was produced by czbLLC (czb) for the Pennsylvania Housing Finance
Agency (PHFA).
The purpose of the report was to examine and summarize current conditions in
Region 2 (Northeastern Pennsylvania) as part of a broader agency effort to conduct
a statewide housing analysis.
czb is an Alexandria, Virginiabased urban planning and neighborhood development
consulting firm specializing in hot and soft market housing need and demand
analyses, neighborhood revitalization strategy development, and affordable housing
policy evaluation and analysis. Clients include the Federal Reserve Bank, the W. K.
Kellogg Foundation, the Metropolitan Planning Council of Chicago, Harvard
University, and others.
The czb research team on this project included David Boehlke, Chris Borick,
Charles Buki, Amy Christian, J. Michael Collins, Doug Dylla, Karen Beck Pooley, and
Maximillian Schmeiser.
The views and opinions expressed in this report represent those of czbLLC and do
not represent the opinions or views of the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency.
czbLLC 2006
czbLLC
Preface
The consulting firm czbLLC (czb) was retained by the Pennsylvania Housing Finance
Agency (PHFA) to examine and summarize current conditions in Region 2
(Northeastern Pennsylvania) as part of a broader agency effort to conduct a
statewide housing analysis.
The overall PHFA project focused on quantifying housing needs across the state. By
contrast, czb was retained mainly to focus on demand in a specific region. What
czbs approach contributes and what makes it unconventional is a thorough
analysis of housing demand in the context of the supply in and around Region 2.
This approach explains the extent of need in an area, what we refer to as the ability
to pay, in the context of demand an area experiences, what we refer to as the
willingness to pay.
Why is it valuable to describe both ability and willingness to pay? Because the ability
to pay reflects an individual households capacity to compete for housing on the
open market. In contrast, households willingness to pay reflects the market-wide
demand for housing, or the expression of the choices households make among two
or more housing and neighborhood options. Demand illustrates consumer
preferences and the resulting housing market impacts of those preferences.
For this report, czb examined housing investment patterns to show households
ability to purchase or rent housing, as well as their willingness to do so and/or to
make capital investments in their homes. For a large and complex area like Region 2
(not to mention the entire state of Pennsylvania), understanding different consumers ability and willingness to pay for housing in varied markets is critical if
housing policy is to be responsive to need and demand.
Due to the areas diversity, czb sought to reduce the region into discrete components.
Using primary and secondary data, czb grouped counties into subregions, and
created a typology for individual places, based on housing characteristics, investment
flows and household trends. This typology is an effective way to understand current
conditions in this large, dynamic part of the Commonwealth and the future
potential of Region 2 municipalities. It is also an effective way to determine how all
communities might leverage their own competitive advantages to be attractive to
forces outside the region while remaining affordable to current residents.
ii
czbLLC
czb then confirmed these breakdowns with feedback from key informants (area
Realtors and lenders) and residents, and conducted additional field work in six
representational markets to further understand the range of community types in
Region 2.
Low-income households face difficult choices. Finding affordable homes often
means that buyers are relegated to areas with stagnant or declining property values,
high crime rates, poor school quality, long commutes or limited access to employment, and potentially economic and/or social isolation. Far more effective is to
make quality housing affordable to low-income households in the markets where
they live and work, while simultaneously working to stimulate investment in distressed markets through a mixed-income approach. To do both begins with the
process of collecting and organizing data to inform each of these important goals.
Housing markets are always changing. Neighborhoods are only as strong as the last
household they attracted. For Region 2, a key determinant in future health is
whether municipalities and neighborhoods can successfully attract strong new
households. Policies aimed at addressing the housing needs of the current residents
are likely to be most effective over time if they are structured to anticipate and
even constructively shape future changes.
czbLLC
iii
Table of Contents
Preface .....................................................................................................................................ii
Executive Summary ...............................................................................................................1
Complexity and Diversity of Region 2...............................................................................................1
Challenges and Opportunities Everywhere ....................................................................................1
Power of External Markets .......................................................................................................................1
The Urban/Suburban Divide....................................................................................................................2
Immigration.........................................................................................................................................................2
Aging Householders......................................................................................................................................3
Leveraging Existing Conditions (Moving Markets) .......................................................................3
Section 1. Methodology ......................................................................................................5
Subregions, Typology of Places, and Archetype Communities...........................................5
Real Estate Sales Data Analysis ...........................................................................................................10
Real Estate Professionals Survey.........................................................................................................10
Interviews with Lending Professionals .............................................................................................11
Home Mortgage Lending Analysis.....................................................................................................11
Surveys of Residents ..................................................................................................................................12
Field Work.......................................................................................................................................................12
Section 2. Analysis............................................................................................................. 14
Complexity and Diversity of Region 2............................................................................................14
Region 2s Subregions and Typology of Places..........................................................................15
Power of External Markets...........................................................................................................16
High Growth/High Value Areas.................................................................................................28
The Urban/Suburban Divide........................................................................................................37
Immigration ............................................................................................................................................40
Low-growth Areas.............................................................................................................................44
Aging Householders .........................................................................................................................49
Low Demand Means Low Values ............................................................................................51
The Urban/Suburban Divide in Weaker Areas................................................................53
Typology of Places.............................................................................................................................59
Section 3. Imbalanced Housing Supply/Implications for Affordable Housing
(Meeting Needs)............................................................................................... 64
Section 4. Power of Existing Conditions (Moving Markets) .................................... 66
Section 5. Conclusion....................................................................................................... 69
iv
czbLLC
Appendices
Appendix A. Resident Survey Instrument.................................................................. A2
Appendix B. Resident Survey Summary Statistics and Crosstab Analysis.......... A9
Appendix C. Regression Results for Resident Surveys.........................................A18
Appendix D. Multiple Listing Service Regression Results.....................................A20
Appendix E. Preliminary Findings for PHFA Region 2..........................................A24
Appendix F. Key Informant Interviews Protocol ..................................................A28
Appendix G. Realtor Survey .......................................................................................A30
Appendix H. Narratives of Archetype Communities............................................A34
Archetype Community Narrative 1: Wilkes-Barre ........................................................A34
Archetype Community Narrative 2: Allentown ..............................................................A37
Archetype Community Narrative 3: Towanda ................................................................A40
Archetype Community Narrative 4: Stroudsburg ..........................................................A43
Archetype Community Narrative 5: Honesdale .............................................................A45
Archetype Community Narrative 6: Pottsville..................................................................A48
czbLLC
Executive Summary
COMPLEXITY AND DIVERSITY OF REGION 2
Pennsylvanias Region 2 is diverse and complex, consisting of 15 counties, 576
municipalities, over 9,000 square miles, and more than two million people. While
some communities are attracting residents from out of state, in others more than
90% of residents were born in Pennsylvania. While one in five residents in certain
municipalities is Hispanic, all residents in others are non-Hispanic white. While
nearly half of all owners are 65 years old or older in some places, married couples
with children make up one-third of households in others.
The areas housing stock is just as varied as its people. Population densities range
from fewer than 15 people per square mile to more than 7,500. The majority of
housing units in some communities was built before 1940, while the majority in
others was built after 1990. The majority of housing units in some communities are
single-family detached homes, while in others most are row houses or manufactured housing.
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES EVERYWHERE
This diversity creates opportunities ways to leverage assets and challenges
throughout the region. To some degree, assets such as historic architecture, natural
beauty (parks, green spaces, and recreational opportunities), or comparatively
inexpensive land and housing can be found in every county in Region 2. In the same
way, challenges like obsolete housing stocks, lack of access to strong job markets,
and overtaxed or underused infrastructure can also be found to varying degrees
everywhere in Region 2.
POWER OF EXTERNAL MARKETS
Communities throughout the region are also affected differently by housing market
conditions in nearby areas both within and outside of the state. Counties in the
Pocono Region are attracting a large portion of new residents with aboveaverage incomes who are mainly choosing homeownership from Northern New
Jersey and New York City (who continue to work in New Jersey or New York).
The Lehigh Valley and Berks County are also attracting new residents, although
these households are primarily coming from the Philadelphia suburbs; many inmigrants are renters who settle in these counties larger cities. Though these
czbLLC
Executive Summary / 1
migratory patterns differ, they are fueling population increases and strong market
values in both areas.
Values are significantly lower and population trends starkly different in other parts of
Region 2. The regions rural, northern counties are linked to the economy of New
Yorks Southern Tier, which is substantially weaker than the New York City and
Philadelphia metropolitan areas. Most housing in these counties is valued below
$100,000 and population continues to decline.
The regions internal, more urbanized counties feel little impact from any external
markets. The Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Corridor demonstrates how this translates into
housing markets in and surrounding larger cities; Coal Country demonstrates how
this translates into housing markets in and around smaller cities and older boroughs.
Both areas have experienced population losses with long-time owners not being
joined or replaced by new, younger families and the devaluation of older,
deteriorated housing units.
THE URBAN/SUBURBAN DIVIDE
An analysis of the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) data in the region reveal that
homes in urban areas sell for substantially less than comparable homes in suburban
areas, controlling for unit characteristics. This effect is most pronounced in Berks
and Lackawanna counties, where homes in the major urban centers (Reading and
Scranton) on average sell for 61 percent and 53 percent less, respectively, than
identical homes in the rest of the county. This suggests that homes within the city
boundary are a more affordable alternative than suburban areas, offering more
housing for the dollar. On the other hand, if homeownership is being pursued as a
wealth-building strategy, this effect may necessitate caution about overly optimistic
projections for home-equity growth for buyers in urban areas.
IMMIGRATION
Consistent with the history of Region 2, immigrants are crucial to the housing
market. In some communities, over 90% of residents were born in Pennsylvania. In
other areas, over one-fourth of the population moved from a different state
between 1995 and 2000. In others, one in ten is foreign born. In some places,
virtually all residents are non-Hispanic white; in others, more than 20% are Hispanic.
Region 2 has long been a place for immigrants to settle. That pattern is continuing,
particularly as first- and second-generation immigrants move to the relatively
2 / Executive Summary
czbLLC
affordable housing from nearby metropolitan areas. Todays immigrants tend to be

concentrated in a few communities, although over time their presence will expand
throughout the region.
Latinos are the largest of the immigrant groups, although several sources noted
Asian and Eastern European immigrants as small but growing markets (where one
did not exist even a few years ago). Importantly, these consumers seem attracted
to the quality, pricing and features of low-cost older homes in urban areas of Lehigh
Valley/Berks County (though in the Poconos, these immigrants mostly live in townships). These homes offer convenient locations, the potential for homes to be
shared with extended family, and proximity to community organizations (such as
faith-based institutions and cultural benchmarks) these families value. In addition,
these Region 2 homes are typically cheaper and in safer neighborhoods than
equivalent apartments in New York City or Philadelphia. Programs must be
designed to reach this growing customer base, taking into consideration that
immigrants are a growing component of demand in the region, especially in urban
areas and in the eastern counties.
AGING HOUSEHOLDERS
Region 2 is aging both its people and its housing. However, there is strong
demand among many households, especially families, to stay in their communities.
While some of these families opt to build new homes in undeveloped areas, others
want to stay in established neighborhoods. Our sense from surveys and interviews
is that this market segment is significant. This suggests that property owners may be
easily stimulated into investing in improvements for owner- and renter-occupied
housing, primarily by lowering the resource, time or capital costs of conducting such
work.
The other implication of aging is that many households are headed by seniors
most of whom, based on our surveys, wish to remain in their current homes.
However, many of these residents will need social services and home modifications
to maximize their ability to age in place.
LEVERAGING EXISTING CONDITIONS (MOVING MARKETS)
Communities with poor maintenance standards are less capable of attracting new
residents or encouraging existing residents to make home improvements. Residents
who feel that their neighbors are not keeping up their properties are much more
czbLLC
Executive Summary / 3
likely to want to relocate and less likely to invest in their own homes. Low maintenance standards perpetuate vicious cycles of decline.
CONCLUSION
One size fits all policies will not work. Our study confirmed that the conditions in
Region 2 are quite varied, so no one type of policy is likely to be effective across all
of Region 2. Policies and programs that are likely to work well in Susquehanna or
Bradford County to stimulate rural economic development, for example, are not
likely to work just over the county line in Scranton, where the challenges are
profoundly urban.
Region 2 holds lessons that can be adapted to other areas of the Commonwealth.
Conditions throughout Region 2, while varied, are not unique to Northeastern
Pennsylvania. For example, some of the challenges in Reading are quite similar to
those found in Norristown to the south. Carefully analyzing and understanding the
challenges in Region 2 will help define workable interventions, which can inform
efforts in comparable areas elsewhere in the state.
Demand for homes, and willingness among owners to invest in properties, presents
opposite challenges across the region. In some parts of the region, demand for homes
is high, putting pressure on prices and making it difficult for households with limited
incomes to afford quality housing. In these markets, consumers are rewarded for
accelerating investments in property. In other areas, demand is low, creating opportunities for affordability, but discouraging investment. These patterns cannot be
generalized at the metropolitan or even jurisdiction level. Even within a so-called
soft market, there are pockets of strong demand and investment. Likewise, even
in tight markets, there are examples of relatively weak investment. A key puzzle is
what explains demand and/or investment for any given home. Based on czb surveys, the type or age of a home turns out to be a poor predictor of a consumers
willingness to invest. Across the region, the key factor for private investment in
housing is neighborhood quality. Poor upkeep, low maintenance standards and
safety issues (either real or perceived) are consistent liabilities.
4 / Executive Summary
czbLLC
Section 1. Methodology
SUBREGIONS, TYPOLOGY OF PLACES, AND ARCHETYPE
COMMUNITIES
To make sense of Region 2, czb pursued detailed analyses of six distinct sets of
primary and secondary data. Data sources included:
1. U.S. Census from 1970, 1980, 1990, and 2000 for the counties,
municipalities, census tracts, and zip codes throughout Region 2;
2. Real estate sales information from 1999 to 2005 from select counties;
3. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data on mortgage applications and
originations;
4. The results of a resident phone survey, conducted region-wide and focused
in six representative markets;
5. Field observations in six representative markets; and
6. Polling of area Realtors and lenders.
To develop a snapshot of current conditions and understand recent trends for
places across Region 2, czb first reviewed a range of data from the U.S. Census. To
quantify housing needs and demand, czb collected data on variables that illustrate
people-based characteristics (residents income, education levels, age, etc.) and
place-based characteristics (housing units size, configuration, age, value, tenure,
etc.). czb then put individual places results in the context of the region by calculating z scores (which measure the variation above or below the average value for a
given statistic).
This method measuring relative people- and place-based conditions sheds
light on which places (with which types of housing stocks and in which areas of
Region 2) are performing better or worse than others; which parts of Region 2 are
attracting investment (where residents and in-migrants are highly willing to pay for
local housing); and which parts of Region 2 are overwhelmed by needs (where
residents are unable or unwilling to pay for local housing). This information is critical
to understanding consumer preferences.
czbLLC
Section 1: Methodology / 5
Aggregating or summarizing municipalities performances along these lines at the

county level, and collecting data for Region 2 counties, enabled czb to break the
area into five subregions based on external forces (the portion of residents inmigrating from nearby New York, New Jersey, or Philadelphia-area markets), recent
trends (population growth or decline in the 1990s, in-migrants incomes and tenure
choices, etc.), housing stock characteristics (year built, value, scale of disinvestment,
etc.), and socio-economic characteristics (households income, householders age,
individuals race/ethnicity, etc.).
This straightforward and replicable logic model for reducing the size of an area as
complex as Region 2 into subregions with their own distinct stocks and flows is as
follows:
6 / Section 1: Methodology
czbLLC
With this summary of conditions in Region 2 as a foundation, czb pursued two

strategies for bringing the analysis down to the municipal level. First, czb classified all
Region 2 municipalities into a typology based on a places housing stock (the age of
housing units and the breakdown of housing types) and market strength (a reflection of population trends in the 1990s and market values as reported by the 2000
Census). Real estate transaction records, feedback from real estate and lending
professionals, and resident surveys were used to confirm these designations.
A places housing stock designation reflects the local breakdown of housing types,
(single-family detached, single-family attached, multifamily housing, or manufactured
homes) and how this breakdown compares to the region as a whole. Places with
the greatest percentage of single-family detached housing were further split
depending on the age of housing relative to regional averages. czb found the typical
breakdown of units per structure the average percent of single-family detached,
single-family attached, and multifamily units and the typical age of housing the
median year that units were built. Using z scores for all places for each of these
indicators, czb first classified places based on whichever type of housing was present
to the greatest degree above the overall average for each type. (In other words,
based on whichever was greatest a places z score for percent single-family
czbLLC
detached, for percent single-family attached, for percent multifamily, or for percent
manufactured home). Those places classified as single-family detached communities were further split based on the median age of all housing units whether
above-average (Older) or below-average (Newer).
Each market strength classification reflects how far above or below the regional
average each municipality fared in attracting new residents in the 1990s, the income
levels and tenure choices of these new households, and property values relative to
regional averages.
Second, after sorting counties into subregions and municipalities into the typology,
we identified six representational markets Pottsville, Wilkes-Barre, Towanda,
Allentown, Stroudsburg and Honesdale for further study. These Archetype
Communities represent either the most common type of place within a given
subregion, or are the type of place that is home to the largest share of the
population in a given subregion.
czbLLC
Over half (56%) of all municipalities in the Pocono Region subregion

were classified in the Single-family Detached, Newer housing stock
group with above-average market strength. (Seventy percent of the
Poconos population lives in these communities.) Stroud township, next
to Stroudsburg and where some of our field visits were made, fits into
this category.
An additional 16.4% of Pocono municipalities were classified in the
Multifamily housing stock group 9.8% (home to 12% of area
residents) had above-average market strength (like Stroudsburg); 6.6%
(home to 4% of residents) had below-average market strength (like
Honesdale).
Over one-third (38%) of all municipalities in the Lehigh Valley/Berks
County subregion were classified in the Single-Family Detached,
Newer housing stock group with above-average market strength.
(These communities were home to 26.5% of the area population.) An
additional 17.3% were Single-Family Attached with below-average
market strength (home to 16% of area residents), and an additional
12.2% home to nearly one-third (30%) of all area residents were
Multifamily with below-average market strength (like Allentown).
Over half (56%) of all municipalities in rural counties (home to 51% of
the area population) were classified as Rural housing markets with
below average market strength. An additional 20% of municipalities,
home to one-fourth (25%) of the areas population, were classified as
Multifamily markets with below-average strength (like Towanda).
In the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Corridor, one-third (33%) of municipalities
were classified as Multifamily markets with below-average strength.
Wilkes-Barre is one example of this type of community which
collectively are home to over half (56%) of area residents. (Another
30.7% of municipalities, home to just 18% of area residents, were
classified as Single-Family Detached, Newer with above-average
market strength.)
In Coal Country, over half (51.1%) of all municipalities home to 55%
of the areas population are Single-Family Attached markets with
below-average strength, like Pottsville.
czbLLC
In each of these Archetype Communities, czb conducted additional resident surveys

and field work, including analyzing current housing unit, street and block conditions,
to supplement data from the census and other sources. Like czbs subregions and
typology of places, these six Archetype Communities can also provide insights into
other similar communities in Region 2, as well as elsewhere in Pennsylvania.
REAL ESTATE SALES DATA ANALYSIS
As a complement to czbs analysis of census data, Multiple Listing Service (MLS)
sales data was obtained for Berks, Lackawanna, Lehigh, and Northampton counties.
This data was intended to provide a bridge between the 2000 Census data and
2005, and make possible more detailed analysis of demand in counties for which
data was obtained. In total, czb obtained more than 45,000 sales records, including
sales from 1997 to 2005 in Berks County; 2001 to 2005 in Lackawanna; and 2003
to 2005 in Lehigh and Northampton counties.
All sales were first mapped and assigned to specific zip codes and municipalities.
These sales were then analyzed using regression techniques to identify the particular
housing and neighborhood factors shaping demand in Region 2. czb regressed the
real sale price of a home on factors which are expected to determine the
propertys value, including acreage, the number of bathrooms, the number of
bedrooms, square footage of the home, the quarter in which the home was sold,
the year in which the home was sold, the days on market, and a dummy variable
indicating whether or not the home was located in the countys major urban center.
Fixed effects were used for the zip code in which the property was located in order
to account for price differences between areas within the county. Sales prices were
normalized to 2005 dollars using the Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price
Index (CPI) for communities of 50,000 to 1,000,000 in the Northeastern states.
czb also analyzed basic statistics on changes in sales prices (adjusted for inflation),
the number of days for-sale housing spent on the market, and the list-to-sale price
ratio. Similarities and differences in these factors across counties and types of places
helped confirm our subregions and typologies.
REAL ESTATE PROFESSIONALS SURVEY
In October 2005, czb collaborated with the REALTORS Association of the Lehigh
Valley. Over the course of three days, 167 agents from the region completed a 20question online survey. The goal of this survey was to gauge the opinions of key
informants of one key housing market in Region 2. The Lehigh Valley was chosen
czbLLC
due to its strong housing market, active real estate professionals, and perspective as
being proximate to strong bordering markets.
INTERVIEWS WITH LENDING PROFESSIONALS
czb performed ten key-informant interviews with lending professionals across
Region 2, including in Allentown, Reading, Scranton, Wilkes-Barre and Towanda.
Interviews were conducted by phone and lasted approximately 30 minutes. The
interviews focused on issues of single-family mortgage lending, especially for home
purchase by low-income and minority first-time buyers.
The staff of lending institutions involved in taking loan applications and originating
loans have a unique perspective on the housing market. They analyze both the
financial situation of consumers (the demand side) and the homes serving as
underlying collateral for the loans (the supply side). This provides insights into the
current state of the market.
HOME MORTGAGE LENDING ANALYSIS
Each year the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (FFIEC) releases the
previous years Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data. The data for 2004,
released in September 2005, provides information on loan applications received by
regulated mortgage lenders. Although some smaller lenders or niche providers are
exempt from HMDA reporting, most mortgage applications in metropolitan areas
are entered into the system. Lenders are required to report the race, income and
other characteristics of the loan applicant, as well as the amount of the loan, its
purpose, and the lenders decision whether to originate the mortgage. HMDA provides annual data on the mortgage market, including over 30 million loan applications nationally. Because applications are recorded by census tract, the data also
allows data to be aggregated to many levels of geography. czb obtained raw loan
application record (LAR) data from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and
performed analysis on single-family mortgage records from Region 2. The HMDA
data allowed czb to look at the volume of loans approved and originated in the
region in 2004, with breakdowns for loans for manufactured housing, home
improvements and refinance, as well as denial rates for loans.
HMDA data included Annual Percentage Rate (APR) calculations for the first time
in 2004 for any loan with a mortgage interest rate greater than 3 percentage points
above a Treasury security of a similar length. For example, a loan with a 9% interest
rate when the prevailing comparable Treasury bond is quoted at 5.5% would be
czbLLC
3.5% above the Treasury rate. Since 3.5 percentage points is greater than the
trigger for HMDA reporting, this loan would include APR. This allows an analysis of
the provision of high-cost mortgage loans. These loans, also called subprime or
nonprime loans, were developed over the last decade to provide credit to borrowers with poor or limited access to credit or other issues that disqualify them
from the mainstream, conforming-mortgage market. Borrowers taking on these
high-cost loans are typically higher risk, although there is some evidence that some
borrowers may be placed inappropriately in a high-cost loan when they could
qualify for conventional financing.
HMDA also starting flagging manufactured housing for the first time in 2004. Manufactured homes are built in a factory and then installed on a site. These homes are
required to meet a national building code, known as HUD code, before shipping
from the factory, and each must display a shield validating that it has met this
standard. While often described as mobile homes or trailers, these homes have
improved significantly in quality and design in recent years so that they are often
difficult to distinguish from site-built homes.
SURVEYS OF RESIDENTS
In partnership with the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion, czb selected
a random sample of 900 people from across Region 2 for an 8- to 12-minute
phone survey meant to provide a detailed sense of how area residents view their
houses, neighborhoods and communities, and also what prompts (or hinders)
residents willingness to pay for housing and home improvements. In addition, czb
oversampled residents in the six archetype communities (Pottsville, Stroudsburg,
Towanda, Wilkes-Barre, Honesdale and Allentown).
The survey included basic demographic information as well as questions related to
how long each respondent had lived in their home, where they moved from, their
perception of the neighborhood, and decisions about mobility. Homeowners
answered additional questions regarding their intention to improve their homes,
while renters were asked about their interest in buying a home.
FIELD WORK
Also in partnership with the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion, czb
conducted field surveys in six archetype communities (Pottsville, Stroudsburg,
Towanda, Wilkes-Barre, Honesdale and Allentown). Team members surveyed 785
buildings on 76 blocks in these municipalities. Surveys captured housing character-
czbLLC
istics, overall quality, and the presence of marketable amenities (such as a garage,
porch or yard). Surveyors also noted the presence, prevalence and age of qualityof-life problems (including trash, graffiti and abandoned cars).
For purposes of analysis, buildings were given a Problem Score. Properties received one point for every existing problem. Buildings with some of these characteristics received an additional 0.5 points; buildings with a lot of these characteristics received an additional one point. If these issues were new, buildings received
an additional 0.5 points; if these issues were recent, buildings received an additional one point; if these issues were old, buildings received an additional 1.5
points.
All field surveys were mapped and assigned to a Census Block Group. Problem
ratios were calculated for all block groups; the problem ratio is equal to the sum
of all building problem scores in the block group divided by the number of buildings
surveyed in the block group.
czbLLC
Section 2. Analysis
COMPLEXITY AND DIVERSITY OF REGION 2
Region 2 consists of 15 counties, 576 municipalities, over 9,000 square miles, and
more than two million people. The communities of northeastern Pennsylvania vary
widely in terms of their mix of households and housing types:
Population densities range from fewer than 15 people per square mile
to more than 7,500;
In some communities, over 90% of residents were born in Pennsylvania;
in others, over one-fourth of the population moved from a different
state between 1995 and 2000; in still others, one in ten is foreign born.
In some communities, nearly half of all owners are 65 years old or older;
in others, over one-third of all households are married couples with
children.
In some places, virtually all residents are non-Hispanic white; in others,
more than 20% are Hispanic.
In some places, more than three-quarters of all units were built prior to
1939; in others, over half were built in the 1990s.
In some places, 99% of units are single-family detached homes; in others,
most are row houses; in still others, most are manufactured houses.
It is important to note that all communities in Region 2 are in a state of transition
and are struggling to compete for a share of households now living in or potentially
willing to relocate to this part of the Commonwealth. Municipalities throughout the
region possess marketable strengths assets that hold the keys to greater prosperity if identified, marketed and leveraged. To some degree, attributes such as
historic architecture, natural beauty, or comparatively inexpensive land and housing
can be found in every county in Region 2.
Challenges also exist in communities across the region, even in those housing
markets perceived as being the most vibrant. These liabilities include housingrelated challenges like a older, smaller housing stock; geographic obstacles like
distance from strong employment markets; and economic challenges like an overreliance on a single company or aging industry. Region 2 is also weakened by
14 / Section 2: Analysis
czbLLC
growth patterns that do not accommodate low-income families and typically isolate
poor households in the weakest markets far from jobs. And to a very real extent,
communities throughout Region 2 have a substantial aging population and therefore
more households with limited resources to invest in housing, as well as a smaller
workforce, making it challenging to retain and attract businesses.
However, the challenges facing some markets are starkly different from those in
others:
In some places, smaller housing units are an obstacle to neighborhood
development; in others, small units encourage development as attractive
and affordable starter homes.
In some places, proximity to strong job markets is reducing affordability;
in others, the lack of access to employment undermines demand.
In some places, in-migrating families with children are straining existing
infrastructure and services, particularly schools; in others, older householders are not being replaced by younger ones, leaving housing empty
and infrastructure unused.
Municipalities across Northeastern Pennsylvania are, predictably, either succeeding
or failing in capturing the imagination of households exercising choice in the market,
largely in response to the price, location, and condition of what the local real estate
market has to offer potential investors, owners, or renters.
REGION 2S SUBREGIONS AND TYPOLOGY OF PLACES
With an area as large and diverse as Region 2, it was necessary to summarize conditions first at the county level in order to isolate key impacts on the regions varied
housing markets. Our analysis showed that Region 2s 15 counties actually fall into
five subregions, which are distinguished by their accessibility to external markets (in
Northern New Jersey, New York, and the greater Philadelphia area) and the extent
to and ways in which those forces interact with existing housing stocks or development opportunities. czb also analyzed recent population trends and settlement
patterns among Region 2 municipalities, to create a typology of places. This typology
further illustrates the impact of external and internal market forces during the 1990s
and suggests how additional housing- and neighborhood-based investments might
influence population trends and settlement patterns in the future.
czbLLC
Section 2: Analysis / 15
Power of External Markets

Region 2 is affected not only by forces
internal to the area (based on the local
employment opportunities and local
demand for housing), but also on similar
forces originating outside specifically
in the booming suburbs of northern
New Jersey and around Philadelphia,
and the stable or shrinking communities
along New Yorks Southern Tier. Depending on proximity and accessibility to
these external markets, Region 2
counties and municipalities are attracting
(or not attracting) a range of investment
from these additional sources.
Throughout Region 2, housing values
remain relatively affordable when
compared to nearby northern New
Jersey suburbs and those surrounding
Philadelphia (in Bucks and Montgomery
counties).
Real estate values in New York, New Jersey

and Philadelphia (to a lesser extent) are
driven by strong labor markets and a limited
supply of the housing that strong household
growth demands. These external markets
generate strong, and growing, spillover
effects for Region 2. This is reflected in
population trends, where communities near
these external markets have grown more
than 20% since 2000, while others farther
from these markets lost more than 20% of
their population in the 1990s and losses
continue at even faster rates in the 2000s.
In communities proximate to stronger
external markets, the median value of
owner-occupied stock is over $200,000 and
still climbing (as of the end of 2005).
Elsewhere, more than three-quarters of the
owner-occupied stock is valued below
$50,000 and appreciation is tepid.
Average Value of Owner-Occupied Stock, 2000

$300,000
$242,281
Average Value
$250,000
$191,991
$200,000
$150,000
$115,218
$100,000
$50,000
$0
Northern New Jersey
Philadelphia Suburbs
Region 2
Area
czbLLC
This relative affordability is spurring significant demand for homeownership housing

in Region 2s eastern counties those closest to these strong external markets
and linked by major transportation arteries.
Source: U.S. Census.
czbLLC
Over the course of the 1990s, values rose throughout most of Northern New
Jersey and in the Philadelphia suburbs. These higher values crept into Lehigh and
Northampton counties (the Lehigh Valley). In these areas, the average sale price
exceeded $200,000 between 2000 and 2004.
Source: State Tax Equalization Board.
czbLLC
Sale prices were also typically high between 2000 and 2004 along Route 80 in
Monroe County and Route 84 in Pike County two corridors linking Region 2
with Northern New Jersey and the Hudson Valley region of New York, two New
York City commuting zones. This relative affordability and close proximity is also
prompting substantial population growth in these areas.
Like many of the communities near the New

Jersey border and near Philadelphia suburbs,
Stroudsburg is a clear example of a community
that is strongly affected by strong real estate
markets nearby. In Northeastern Pennsylvania,
cities located directly on interstate highways have
an enormous advantage in todays economy.
Those communities that also are located within
daily commuting distance of a major metropolitan
area are further benefited by the out-migration of
households from those major cities. Stroudsburg
is such a city and represents others like it.
czbLLC
Monroe and Pike counties (linked

to New Jersey and New York City
by Interstates 80 and 84) both saw
substantial population growth and
the largest rates of growth in the
1990s; these trends continued after
2000. Monroe Countys population
increased 45% over the 1990s and
Pikes 66%. Between 2000 and
2003, Monroe Countys population
grew by another 10% and Pikes by
an additional 8%. Though more
modest, Wayne County grew by
20% in the 1990s and another 7.3% between 2000 and 2003.
There was also significant, although slower, population growth in the Lehigh Valley
(Lehigh and Northampton counties) and Berks County between 7% and 11% in
the 1990s and 2% to 3% from 2000 to 2003.
The last residence of movers (those in a different house in 1995 versus 2000,
according to the U.S. Census) illustrates the driving force behind these population
increases. One out of every four (24%) Monroe County residents (or 60% of those
who moved) lived out of state in 1995; the same was true of one in five (19%) Pike
County residents (or 45% of those who moved).
Eastern sections of Northampton and Lehigh counties also saw significant in-migration from out of state. However, a significant portion of the growth in Lehigh
County and most in Berks County was driven by in-state movers indicating the
impact of greater Philadelphia on these counties.
czbLLC
% of Movers from Out-of-State

70%
61%
60%
45%
50%
40%
30%
30%
24%
16%
20%
12%
10%
0%
Pike County
Monroe County Wayne County
Northampton
Lehigh County
Berks County
County
According to feedback from area Realtors, a large portion of Lehigh Valley transactions are driven by consumers coming to the area from outside the region. Fully
64 percent of Realtors say the majority of their clients are from outside the region,
with buyers from nearby New Jersey and New York among the most frequently
cited. Interestingly, agents are finding sales split nearly equally across city, suburb and
county. About 30 percent of sales are in urban areas, 30 percent in rural areas, and
40 percent in suburban communities.
While these six counties (Monroe, Pike, Wayne, Lehigh, Northampton and Berks)
gained nearly 150,000 people between 1990 and 2000, the rest of Region 2
those areas not linked to strong external markets actually lost 10,000 residents
over the same period. For example, Lackawanna and Luzerne counties, which
include the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Corridor, both lost 3% of residents in the 1990s
and an additional 2% between 2000 and 2004. Schuylkill County also lost population 2% in the 1990s and another 2% between 2000 and 2004.
Not only did Region 2s southern and eastern counties gain the most residents, they
typically attracted the highest-income owners in the 1990s.
czbLLC
On average, owners in-migrating to Berks, Lehigh and Northampton counties had

incomes over $60,000; owners in-migrating to Monroe and Pike had incomes over
$50,000. In fact, Lehigh Valley suburbs tended to attract the highest-income owners
(those earning over $80,000). These areas also have the most housing specifically
targeted to these owners.
czbLLC
Unlike Lackawanna and Luzerne counties, whose high average incomes were
attributable to a few suburban townships, Monroe and Pike counties attracted highincome owners countywide.
These population trends both reflect and encourage connections between parts of
Region 2 and external economies. The regions external counties (those bordering
southern New York and northern New Jersey) are exporting workers.
One-fifth (22%) of all working adults in Monroe County and nearly half (48%) in
Pike County work outside of Pennsylvania typically in northern New Jersey or
New York City. Northampton County also sends 15% of working adults across the
state line. Many of these traveling workers are new to Region 2, in-migrating to take
advantage of cheaper housing still accessible to their jobs.
czbLLC
While conditions differ from one county to another, Region 2 as a whole has more
households than jobs (or a jobs-to-household ratio less than 1). In contrast, its
surroundings specifically suburban Philadelphia and Northern New Jersey
have more jobs than households (or a jobs-to-household ratio greater than 1) and
therefore need to import workers.
Jobs-to-Household Ratio, 2000
1.33
Jobs-to-Households
1.40
1.20
1.00
1.25
0.94
0.85
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Region 2
Philadelphia Suburbs
Northern New Jersey
Southern New York
Area
Source: U.S. Census, County Business Patterns.
czbLLC
Southern New York while closely linked to Region 2s northern counties (Tioga,
Bradford, Susquehanna and Wayne) is not nearly as strong an economic engine
as northern New Jersey or the Philadelphia suburbs. Those counties bordering
Region 2 have fewer jobs than households. The average home value in this area
actually trails Region 2s overall average ($111,578 vs. $115,218).
The regions internal counties Carbon, Schuylkill, Lackawanna and Luzerne
are disconnected from these outside forces and are reliant instead primarily on local
economic engines and demand for housing. Just 3% to 4% of movers in these
counties (those in a different house in 2000 versus 1995) last lived outside Pennsylvania; just 1% to 2% of workers travel to out-of-state jobs. According to czbs
resident survey, newer residents (those living in their current home less than six
years) in Stroudsburg (Monroe County) and Honesdale (Pike County) were far
more likely to have last lived out of state than those in other markets: 27% of
newer residents in Stroudsburg and 37% in Honesdale moved from outside Pennsylvania, compared to just 5% of
newer residents in Pottsville
While Honesdale is defined by its older house(Schuylkill County) and Wilkesholds and older housing stock, it is positioned to
benefit from adjacent strong housing markets in
Barre (Luzerne County).
nearby places such as Stroudsburg and Monroe
County, and from recreation growth in places
like Pikes County. Today, there are hints of a
potential transformation. Strip commercial
development is growing on the edge of town,
and renovated and new banking facilities are
being completed in the downtown. There is a
sustained and growing effort to market the
downtown and some of the near neighborhoods
in terms of their historic appeal. There is an
excursion railway, an urban museum, and a
community walking tour. The target audience is
primarily tourists and artists, but also includes
potential spillover residential customers from
nearby New York State.
As the market for tourism and recreation at a
popular recreation lake and the Pocono Mountains grows, Honesdale is positioned to capture a
greater share. Exchange with external markets
enables a place to leverage affordability for
comparative gain to nonresidents that in turn
generates extractable value.
czbLLC
As the population in these internal

counties continues to decline
(together, they lost 2% of their
population in the 1990s and
another 1% between 2000 and
2004), demand for housing
declines as well.
Therefore, the impact (or lack of
impact) of powerful external
forces have created some
important distinctions across
Region 2. First, those counties
linked to booming northern New
Jersey and the Philadelphia suburbs
(specifically Berks, Lehigh,
Northampton, Monroe, Pike and
Wayne) are becoming high
growth and high value areas.
Those counties linked only to
weaker outside markets (specifically Tioga, Bradford and Susquehanna) or largely

without access to outside markets (Sullivan, Wyoming, Lackawanna, Luzerne,
Schuylkill, and Carbon) are remaining low growth and low value areas.
A range of sales data, including the number of days for-sale housing spent on
market, the ratio of properties sale price and list price, and how sale prices
(adjusted for inflation) changed between 2003 and 2004, supports this division of
Region 2.
These maps again show considerable strength in the Lehigh and Northampton
markets, with Berks County appearing to be close behind. Lackawanna County
exhibits considerable softness in its housing market, with some strength apparent in
the northern portion of the county.
czbLLC
czb also examined the average number of days properties spent on the market in
2005 in order to get a sense for current demand.
czbLLC
Again, results are consistent with strength in Lehigh, Northampton and Berks
counties, and some weakness in Lackawanna.
However, not all high growth/high value areas are the same, nor are all low
growth/low value areas the same. How external forces have interacted with, and
continue to interact with, existing housing stock and settlement patterns shapes
subsequent settlement patterns and market value trends. Similarly, how long-time
households arrange and rearrange themselves in internal counties dictates how
individual municipalities or neighborhoods fare. As a result, czb reviewed the nature
of population trends in the 1990s and the nature of the existing housing stock to
further specify conditions in Region 2.
High Growth/High Value Areas

The regions growing counties (Monroe, Pike, Wayne, Lehigh, Northampton and
Berks) are growing differently. The Pocono Region (Monroe, Pike and Wayne) is
attracting mainly above-average-income homeowners. Only a handful of municipalities in Wayne and Monroe counties, and none in Pike County, attracted mostly
renters in the 1990s. These counties housing markets are nearly uniformly strong
czbLLC
(and increasingly higher-cost). They are also primarily owner-oriented; together,

these counties had less than 17,000 rental units in 2000 (or only 8% of Region 2s
rentals, despite being home to 11% of the regions population).
The Lehigh Valley (Lehigh and Northampton counties) and Berks County had not
one but two population trends in the 1990s: one in suburban areas and one in
urbanized areas. These counties suburbs are attracting the highest-income owners,
while area cities are drawing mainly lower-income owners and renters. This only
exacerbates existing concentrations of poverty and minority residents in alreadyweaker housing markets far from new growth, jobs, and wealth-building homeownership opportunities.
In these growing areas, two-thirds of movers (those moving into their current
residence between 1990 and 2000) in cities are renters; roughly half of those in
boroughs are renters; and just one-fourth in townships are renters. In Monroe, Pike
and Wayne counties, movers in boroughs and townships averaged similar incomes;
moving owners in boroughs actually averaged higher incomes than those in townships. The situation is starkly different in the Lehigh Valley and Berks County, where
the average income of movers in cities was barely half that of those in townships
and moving owners average income just three-quarters of township owners
average income.
Area
Pocono Region
Lehigh Valley and Berks
County
Borough
47%
Average
Household
Income (90s
Migrants)
$42,587
Township
77%
$50,134
$54,992
Borough
55%
$50,435
$61,047
City
35%
$38,094
$54,878
Township
76%
$64,043
$70,696
Place Type
Homeownership Rate (90s

Migrants)
Average
Owner
income (90s
Migrants)
$57,685
Allentown itself is well served by a network of highways: Interstate 78, US Highway 22, Interstate 476 (PA Turnpike), and State Route 309. Moreover, the suburban townships are thriving.
Like Allentown, the townships benefit from their location near stronger housing markets.
These communities are located only an hour and a half north of Philadelphia and 90 miles west
of New York City. Pressures from those markets are beginning to shape the greater Allentown
area.
czbLLC
czbLLC
New residents are also coming to these areas from different places. Most municipalities throughout Monroe and Pike counties had among the highest percentages
of residents moving between 1995 and 2000. These places also had among the
highest percentages of residents moving from out of state. In contrast, those municipalities with the most residential mobility in Berks, Lehigh and Northampton
counties primarily the areas cities (Reading, Allentown, Bethlehem and Easton)
drew most new residents from within the county (a reflection of renter households moving to new apartments nearby more so than of outside residents inmigrating). Suburbs to the south of these counties attracted larger percentages of
new residents from other counties in Pennsylvania (namely, those surrounding
Philadelphia).
czbLLC
czbLLC
czbLLC
Those places attracting the most renters and the lowest-income in-migrants typically had the most older housing (units built in 1939 or earlier) mainly cities and
boroughs in Berks, Lehigh, Northampton and Wayne counties. (All municipalities in
Monroe and Pike counties had below-average portions of older housing.)
czbLLC
In fact, across Region 2, older cities and boroughs have homeownership rates well
below those in townships. (On average, while 85% of township residents own their
homes, only 72% of borough residents and just 57% of city residents do so.)
In growing areas, population growth and the in-migration of strong households (not
to mention the highest housing values) were primarily concentrated in newer, suburban communities typically places with the greatest portion of single-family
detached housing, the smallest portions of older housing, and the largest portion of
owner units with at least 4 bedrooms.
Because older places tend to have a harder time attracting investment (at least
according to current trends in Region 2), the regions growing counties look very
different. Behind the distinctions is the fact that these counties are home to vastly
different types of places and housing.
czbLLC
Percent of Population in Urban Areas, 2000
Percent of Population
100%
90%
90%
85%
73%
80%
70%
60%
50%
50%
40%
30%
20%
16%
11%
10%
0%
Lehigh
Northampton
Berks
Monroe
Wayne
Pike
County
In 2000, just half of Monroe County residents, 16% of Wayne County residents,
and only 11% of Pike County residents lived in urban areas. The vast majority of
Lehigh Valley and Berks County residents (73% to 90%) live in urban areas.
At the same time, just four municipalities in these more rural counties had over
10,000 people in 2000. (All of these were in Monroe County; the largest municipality in Pike County was home to fewer than 9,000 residents and the largest in
Wayne County fewer than 5,000 residents.) In contrast, the more urbanized
counties include cities as large as Allentown (106,000) and Bethlehem (over
70,000), and a total of 19 places with at least 10,000 residents.
And while Monroe, Pike and Wayne counties all became more densely populated
in 2000 (as compared to ten years earlier), residents were still far more spread out
than in Berks, Lehigh and Northampton counties. By 2000, Monroe County had
228 residents per square mile, Pike County had 85 and Wayne County just 65.
These densities were well below those in Berks, Northampton and especially
Lehigh counties.
czbLLC
Persons per Square Mile of Land
Population Density, 1990 and 2000

750
603.3
553.8
500
250
123.5
86.8
0
Berks, Lehigh and Northampton Counties
Monroe, Pike and Wayne Counties

Area
1990
2000
In Monroe, Pike and Wayne counties, just 20% of all municipalities (12 out of 61)
are boroughs; the remaining 80% are townships. In Berks, Lehigh and Northampton
counties, nearly half of all municipalities (46%, or 63 out of 139) are boroughs or
cities.
Area
Berks, Lehigh and
Northampton Counties
Monroe, Pike and
Wayne Counties
Place Type
Boroughs
Places
#
%
58
42%
4%
Townships
76
55%
Boroughs
12
20%
0%
49
80%
Cities
Cities
Townships
In the Lehigh Valley and Berks County, 84% of all population growth in the 1990s
occurred in townships (as opposed to cities or boroughs). Not surprisingly, cities
and older boroughs are falling further behind as a result continuing to have
higher poverty rates, lower home values, and larger minority populations than their
suburban counterparts.
The Urban/Suburban Divide

In the Lehigh Valley and Berks County, the median value of owner-occupied housing varies dramatically between cities and suburbs.
czbLLC
In cities and boroughs, over half of all owner-occupied housing is valued below
$100,000. The same is true of only 30% of units in Berks County townships, 19% in
Lehigh County townships, and just 15% in Northampton County townships. The
average owner-occupied unit in a city is worth just two-thirds (68%) of the average
owner-occupied unit in a township in Northampton County, just half (53%) in
Lehigh County, and less than half (41%) in Berks County (see table below).
Location
% Valued
<$50,000
% Valued
<$100,000
% Valued
>$200,000
2%
59%
6%
$112,463
61%
93%
1%
$54,736
Township
1%
30%
10%
$134,973
Borough
2%
51%
2%
$108,093
12%
71%
2%
$89,820
Township
1%
19%
22%
$168,176
Borough
3%
55%
2%
$103,812
City
8%
61%
7%
$107,979
Township
1%
15%
17%
$158,341
Place Type
Borough
Berks County
Lehigh County
Northampton
County
City
City
Average Value of
Owner Units
czbLLC
According to sales records from 2003 to 2005, controlling for house and neighborhood characteristics, the average price of a home in Reading is worth 61% less, one
in Allentown is worth 26% less, and one in Easton 14% less than in the surrounding
suburbs.
In contrast, values are fairly uniform between townships and boroughs in Monroe
and Pike counties:
Location
Monroe County
Pike County
Place
Type
% Valued
<$50,000
% Valued
<$100,000
% Valued
>$200,000
Average Value of
Owner Units
Borough
3%
32%
6%
$123,284
Township
2%
29%
12%
$138,288
Borough
2%
37%
9%
$132,457
Township
2%
35%
12%
$134,861
In these counties, cities collective poverty rates range from roughly 17% in Lehigh
and Northampton counties to more than 26% in Berks County. In Lehigh and
czbLLC
Northampton counties, cities collective poverty rates are more than double the
boroughs poverty rates (6.2% and 7.1%, respectively) and more than four times
that of townships (3.7% and 3.2%, respectively). In Berks County, Readings poverty
rate (26.1%) is nearly four times that of county boroughs (6.8%) and more than six
times that of county townships (4.1%).
Today Stroudsburg continues to be well positioned for solid growth and strong real estate
values, reflecting the enormous market pressures in the adjacent suburbs, throughout Monroe
County and nearby areas. Local residents have learned to compete with buyers from outside
the state and from the Philadelphia area for available housing. New, higher-priced houses tend
to sell quickly. Commercial and retail activity is expanding. Even existing core commercial areas,
such as downtown Stroudsburg, are seeing significant renovation and new construction. These
dynamics will increase the growing pressure on workforce and low-income housing.
Since it is not a weak market city, the challenge to Stroudsburg is to address its affordable
housing needs as the conventional real estate market rapidly expands. With so little available
land inside the borough limits, there is clearly a need for developing new housing in the suburban areas, but there are also the expected obstacles to such development: local opposition
based on density and socio-economic class concerns, the need for housing close to transportation and services, and the lack of sufficient funding for a nonprofit development capacity.
Immigration
Area lenders confirm that immigrants (non-native born or second generation) are a
growing component of demand in parts of Region 2, especially in communities
bordering the New Jersey and Philadelphia markets. Latinos are the largest, most
prevalent component of immigrant groups, although several lenders mentioned
Asian and Eastern European immigrants as small but growing markets (where one
did not exist even a few years ago). Importantly, these consumers seem attracted
to the quality, pricing and features of low-cost older homes in urban areas. These
units offer convenient locations, the potential for units to be shared with extended
family, and proximity to community organizations (such as faith-based institutions
and cultural benchmarks) these families value. These homebuyers comprise demand
for areas previously not attractive to newcomers. Some lenders suggested some of
these immigrant buyers are still working in larger metropolitan markets in the New
YorkNew JerseyPhiladelphia corridor and then commuting long distances. Others
suggested these long commutes generally end after the family establishes homeownership and locates employment nearby.
czbLLC
Nearly all (91%) of Region 2s nearly 110,000 Hispanic residents live in high-growth
counties. In Berks, Lehigh and Northampton counties, the vast majority (84%) of
Hispanic residents live in cities.
Just one-third (37% in Berks County, 32% in Lehigh County, and 37% in
Northampton County) of Hispanics own their homes. In contrast, further north (in
the other area with a substantial Hispanic population), the vast majority (88%) of
Hispanic residents live in townships and most (72% in Monroe County, 82% in Pike
County, and 64% in Wayne County) are homeowners.
czbLLC
The average Hispanic household incomes in Monroe and Pike counties were
roughly double those among Hispanic households in Berks, Lehigh and Northampton counties. Whats more, Hispanic households in Monroe and Pike counties
typically have incomes above those of non-Hispanic white households, while those
in counties to the south have incomes equivalent to just 54% to 61% of the median
among non-Hispanic white households.
czbLLC
czbLLC
Low-growth Areas
Similarly, Region 2s low-growth and low-value areas are far from uniform. To the
north, external forces from weaker markets (those in Southern New York) are not
strong enough to fuel population gains or value increases in Region 2. For example,
while at least one-third of workers in most municipalities along the New York
border cross the state line for work, many of these same municipalities (as well as
those throughout these counties) register above-average poverty rates.
czbLLC
And half of all municipalities (80 out of 166) in these counties registered population
losses between 2000 and 2004; the remaining municipalities all experienced belowaverage growth (when compared to the rest of Region 2).
Values in this area also remain among the lowest in Region 2.
czbLLC
In those counties bordering Southern New York, a significant portion of the housing
stock in many municipalities consists of manufactured housing.
% Manufactured Housing
czbLLC
According to czbs review of HMDA data, loans for manufactured homes are most
common in rural areas, such as Tioga and Bradford counties. Eighty percent of
manufactured housing loans went to borrowers with incomes at or below 80
percent of area median income. But manufactured housing loans are generally
higher cost (greater than three full percentage points above Treasury rates).
Focusing on the two counties where manufactured housing mortgages are
prevalent, Bradford and Tioga, one-third and one-half of borrowers, respectively,
paid high rates for their mortgage on a manufactured home. Not surprisingly, in
Region 2, high-rate loans are more common in more rural areas.
Region 2s internal, more urbanized counties (Lackawanna, Luzerne, Carbon and
Schuylkill) are not linked to external markets and lack their own drivers of growth.
Property values in these areas continue to trail those in counties to the south and
east. Just as population trends suggest, the growth prompted by Region 2s external
engines (New York City, New Jersey, and Philadelphias suburbs) is not reaching the
interior counties. Not only do few new residents move from outside the state, but
throughout most of this area the vast majority of residents (in some cases over 90%
of residents) were born in Pennsylvania.
czbLLC
czbLLC
Like the rural counties to their north, these counties are also not attracting new
residents. Most municipalities throughout the area either lost population between
1990 and 2000 or experienced below-average growth.
Aging Householders
As a result of these counties and many of their communities losing population,
older householders are not being replaced by younger families. In cities and
boroughs in Schuylkill, Carbon, Luzerne, and Lackawanna counties (those places
that lost 3% to 9% of their population over the 1990s) typically one-third of owners
are 65 years old or older, and over half of owners moved into their current home
in 1979 or earlier.
czbLLC
czbLLC
Area lenders repeatedly mentioned the need to address the regions aging demographic, along with the need to retain and attract younger families as well as businesses with good jobs.
Low Demand Means Low Values

As a reflection of these realities, most owner-occupied housing units in these
counties (and in some cases, more than three-quarters of owner-occupied units)
are valued below $100,000.
Average sale prices in these internal counties not only trailed those in eastern
counties in the last ten years, but fell further behind between 2000 and 2004: while
more municipalities in southeastern counties saw average sale prices exceed
$150,000 after 2000, most in the internal counties and the more urbanized
municipalities along the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Corridor saw average sale prices
remain below $75,000.
Sales data from 2003 and 2005 reflected similar discrepancies. After adjusting for
inflation, prices in Lackawanna County are actually decreasing by 2.3% annually. In
czbLLC
contrast, prices are increasing by 5.1% annually in Berks County, 10.6% annually in
Northampton County, and 10.9% annually in Lehigh County.
According to czbs resident surveys, when renters were asked why they had not yet
purchased a home, fully half (50%) in Wilkes-Barre felt that renting was a better
deal than owning, compared to 30% of renters region-wide and only 12% in
Stroudsburg (Monroe County). Nearly half of Wilkes-Barre renters (42%) indicated
that they were not sure anything could be done to encourage them to purchase a home.
Internal, urbanized counties also saw far less investment in the 1990s. While 35% of
Region 2s housing units are in Schuylkill and Carbon counties or along the
Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Corridor, just 22% of units added in the 1990s were in these
counties. Luzerne County received just 60% of its share of new construction;
Lackawanna and Schuylkill counties received barely over half of their share.
Counties' Share of New Housing
2.0
1.99
1.97
1.62
1.26
1.0
1.25
1.23
1.22
1.10
1.05
1.01
0.89
0.84
0.60
0.57
0.56
Lu
ze
rn
e
La
ck
aw
an
na
Sc
hu
ylk
ill
Le
hig
h
Ca
rb
on
fo
rd
Br
ad
Be
rk
N
s
or
th
am
pt
on
og
a
Ti
ue
ha
nn
a
an
yo
m
in
Su
sq
Su
l li v
ay
ne
W
Pi
on
ro
e
0.0
ke
Ratio of New Units to All Units
(Portion of Region's Housing Units Built in the 1990s versus Portion of All Units)
County
In 2004, over 12,000 home-improvement loans were made in Region 2. Not surprisingly, these loans have greater shares of all loans originated in older communities
in and around Scranton as well as more rural places such as Tioga County. Yet,
Lackawanna, Luzerne and Schuylkill counties all received less than their share of
home-improvement loans, despite having the highest portion of older homes (44%
of housing units in Luzerne County, 48% in Lackawanna County, and 53% in
Schuylkill County were built before 1940).
czbLLC
While many of the boroughs of Northeastern Pennsylvania are recovering and repositioning
themselves in the new economy, this process has proved much more elusive to boroughs like
Pottsville. In many ways this borough (and those like it) is facing the perfect storm. It is far from
strong real estate markets; its population is characterized by a high percentage of older households; its housing stock is old and in many cases quite obsolete. Moreover, it is not located with
immediate access to an interstate highway.
Responding to decline, Pottsville has nurtured an industrial core, has grown key governmental
and service functions, and has begun to leverage its history. Yet, despite all these actions, the
borough has been unable to create a viable market niche for its real estate, whether considering
the grand historic houses or the modest row houses.
To analyze these needs, it is important to understand Pottsville as an archetype of so many
Coal Country boroughs. In 2006 Pottsville will celebrate the two hundredth anniversary of its
founding. Over those two centuries Pottsville mirrored many of the events and conditions of
similar coal towns in Pennsylvania. In essence, five primary factors have combined to shape the
challenge facing Pottsville. They are:
The ongoing population decline;
A large number of grand historic houses;
An extensive supply of affordable housing;
A core of lower-income households; and
An unclear future market niche for the borough.
While it is possible that the decline has stabilized, a significant recovery remains unlikely. The
local promotional brochure proclaims the views from the seven hills but these hills also hem
in the city so that highways 61 and 209 cross inside the city, but Interstate 78 and Interstate 81,
located well outside the borough, provide alternative routes for the vast majority of auto and
truck traffic. For Pottsville, it will be critical to leverage what it already has in order to create a
strong basis for future growth.
Northern tier counties are affected by the three key characteristics evident throughout
Region 2: older households, aging housing stock, and the lack of nearby market strength. In
addition, they are also affected by the limited amount of household financial capacity, made up of
income (passive and active) and wealth (savings and equity in real estate). Currently, household
median incomes are roughly 60 percent of the state median. These factors combine to produce
a largely stagnant market in most housing types, except for manufactured units in nearby rural
areas.
The Urban/Suburban Divide in Weaker Areas

The vast majority of this new construction (63% in Lackawanna and Luzerne
counties, and 82% in Carbon and Schuylkill counties) occurred in townships.
In Lackawanna and Luzerne counties between 2000 and 2004, cities and boroughs
lost roughly 3% and 4% of residents, respectively, while county townships
czbLLC
collectively grew by just over 1%. Sales data indicated that urban housing markets
are consistently performing considerably worse than those of suburban areas. In
Lackawanna County, homes in Scranton are worth on average 53% less than
identical homes in the rest of the county.
While these counties are fairly similar all removed from strong external markets,
all seeing population losses and an overall aging of the existing population, all seeing
stagnant housing values they do have important differences. Although not as
strong as the economic engine within the Lehigh Valley and nearby in northern
New Jersey or suburban Philadelphia, the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre Corridor does
have a significant number of job opportunities. In contrast, Carbon and Schuylkill
counties are forced to export workers (having only 2 jobs for every 3 households).
czbLLC
Jobs-to-Household Ratio, 2000
Jobs-to-Households
1.20
1.02
1.00
0.80
0.69
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Carbon & Schuylkill Counties
Lackawanna & Luzerne Counties

Area
Carbon and Schuylkill counties also have a high percentage of single-family attached
housing older row houses. In contrast, the housing stock in Luzerne and Lackawanna counties is more diverse, with higher portions of single-family detached and
multifamily units.
czbLLC
czbLLC
Therefore, using an areas connection (or lack of connection) to strong external

markets, recent population trends, existing settlement patterns and housing stock,
and housing values, czb divided Region 2 into 5 subregions:
Subregions
czbLLC
Key Variables
Region 2
Coal Country
Scranton/
Wilkes-Barre
Corridor
Rural Areas
Lehigh Valley
and Berks
County
Pocono
Region
Average Income and Values

Average Income
Average Value
Trends
Population Change
19902000
Population Change
20002004
% of Residents
In-migrating from
Outside PA
% of Owners
Moving in 1979 or
Earlier
Homeownership
Rate among 1990s
Migrants
Average Income of
Owners Migrating
in the 1990s
Average Income of
Renters Migrating
in the 1990s
People-based Indicators
% Hispanic
$49,489
$41,475
$44,337
$42,328
$55,131
$52,266
$114,653
$79,237
$104,131
$90,390
$127,775
$133,395
6.9%
-0.1%
-2.6%
2.5%
9.1%
42.2%
3.3%
-0.1%
-1.7%
0.0%
5.3%
12.8%
7%
4%
4%
6%
7%
18%
38%
46%
48%
35%
35%
21%
58%
61%
49%
64%
57%
72%
$62,298
$51,689
$58,415
$47,131
$69,648
$60,261
$31,254
$26,684
$27,848
$28,022
$33,791
$35,238
5%
1%
1%
1%
9%
5%
% Owners 65+
29%
33%
33%
27%
27%
25%
% Homeowner
Average Owner
Income
Place-based Indicators
% Units Built in
1990s
% Units Built 1939
or Earlier
% Manufactured
Homes
Abandonment
Rate
% Owner Units
<$100,000
73%
78%
69%
77%
72%
80%
$56,154
$45,711
$51,605
$46,613
$63,206
$56,639
12%
8%
7%
14%
12%
24%
34%
49%
46%
35%
31%
12%
6%
5%
4%
17%
3%
9%
1.9%
3.2%
2.7%
2.0%
1.1%
1.6%
51%
75%
62%
72%
41%
34%
czbLLC
Typology of Places
Recognizing the power of using recent population trends, linkages to strong
external markets, and existing housing-stock characteristics to describe the demand
for housing in Region 2 and make sense of this varied region, czb repeated this
analysis on the municipality level. Through this effort, beyond classifying counties
into subregions, czb was able to classify the 576 diverse municipalities throughout
Region 2 into 10 categories.
czb first classified Region 2 municipalities based on market strength a reflection of
local trends in the 1990s and market values.
Suburban communities in the Lehigh Valley and Berks County, most municipalities
throughout Monroe and Pike counties, and a few outer-ring suburbs around
Scranton and Wilkes-Barre are among the strongest markets in Region 2 (Market
Strength Category 1). Weaker markets are most prevalent in the internal and rural
counties, as well as in the urban and older areas in the Lehigh Valley and Berks
County.
czbLLC
Market Strength
% of Boroughs in Category
1
(Strong)
3%
6 (Weak)
6%
14%
35%
27%
14%
0%
0%
0%
36%
57%
7%
% of Townships in Category
14%
20%
24%
26%
14%
2%
Average Household Income
$70,846
$58,501
$49,561
$44,600
$38,688
$34,173
Average Value, Single-family
$172,491
$144,498
$124,858
$104,388
$81,044
$53,475
Average Value, Single-family Detached
$176,615
$146,874
$128,780
$112,658
$88,389
$76,268
Average Value, Single-family Attached
$117,067
$102,345
$92,144
$74,886
$59,452
$40,405
$751
$635
$573
$530
$460
$441
Homeownership Rate
86%
85%
78%
69%
60%
60%
% of Owners Aged 65 Years or Older
23%
25%
28%
32%
34%
36%
% of Units Built in the 1990s
25%
20%
16%
7%
4%
2%
% of Units Built in 1939 or Earlier
13%
14%
26%
42%
53%
64%
% in a Different House (1995 vs. 2000)
37%
34%
33%
36%
38%
42%
% in a Different House, Same County
18%
18%
20%
20%
24%
28%
% in a Different House, Different State
10%
9%
5%
7%
6%
5%
Homeownership Rate of 1990s Migrants
80%
75%
64%
50%
39%
39%
% Working Out of State
11%
10%
5%
6%
4%
2%
Average Commute (in minutes)
27.4
27.8
24.1
22.0
20.6
22.2
% of Cities in Category
Average Gross Rent
The healthiest communities are mainly suburban townships. These areas typically
have the highest household incomes, home values and rents (and therefore present
the greatest cost challenges to poorer households). The vast majority of residents
are homeowners, and just one in five owners is 65 years old or older. At least one
out of every five units was built between 1990 and 2000; fewer than one in six was
built in 1939 or earlier. Roughly 10% of residents moved from out of state between
1995 and 2000, and a similar percentage continue to work in jobs outside Pennsylvania. More than three-quarters of all recent migrants (those moving into their
present unit since 1990) were homeowners.
The weakest communities are typically cities or older boroughs. (Most cities and
two out of five boroughs were classified in the two weakest market-strength
categories.) These areas have the lowest household incomes, home values and
rents. Just 60% of households are homeowners, and more than one-third of owners
are 65 years old or older. Less than 5% of units were built between 1990 and 2000,
while over half were built in 1939 or earlier. As many as two-fifths of residents
moved between 1995 and 2000, and most movers last lived in the same county.
(Just as few in-migrants moved from out of state, few workers living in these
czbLLC
markets commute to jobs outside Pennsylvania.) At the same time, only 39% of all
recent migrants (those moving into their present unit since 1990) were homeowners. (This suggests that many movers are renters simply moving from one local
apartment to another.)
czb also classified municipalities based on the age and configuration of their existing
housing stock.
The real lessons stem from how these two classifications interrelate the typical
market strength in municipalities with varying types of housing stock.
Single Detached, Newer
Average Market Strength

(1 = Strongest; 6 = Weakest)
2.2
Single Detached, Older
3.5
Rural
3.9
Single-Family Attached
4.5
Multifamily
4.1
Housing Stock
czbLLC
% of Places
% of Places with Above-Average Market Strength

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
90%
39%
32%
17%
Single
Single
Detached,
Detached,
Newer
Older
Rural
Single Attached
24%
Multifamily
Housing Stock Typology
Almost all places classified as Single Detached, Newer (90%) have above-average
market strength. In contrast, just two in five communities with older single-family
detached housing, one-third of rural communities (those with substantial manufactured homes), one-fourth of multifamily communities, and just 17% of mainly rowhouse communities have above-average market strength.
Where a community is located within Region 2 how close to or far from
external markets also plays a part in the relationship between housing stock
characteristics and market strength.
czbLLC
For example, in high-growth areas, almost all communities have above-average

market strength regardless of housing stock characteristics (although certain urban
areas and older boroughs are weaker); the reverse is true in low-growth areas.
czbLLC
Section 3. Imbalanced Housing Supply/Implications

for Affordable Housing (Meeting Needs)
The relative affordability of housing is spurring population growth and significant
demand for homeownership in Region 2s eastern counties those closest to the
external markets of Philadelphia, New Jersey and New York. However, this high
demand is driving up housing prices and creating affordability problems for lowerincome households and some long-time residents in those areas. Conversely, in
portions of the region where housing prices are still very affordable, the lack of economic
vitality has led to decades of population losses as residents move to more robust job
markets. A central reality of Region 2 is that affluent and low-income families alike
coming into Region 2 may struggle to find homes that match both their price range
and preferred set of amenities.
A strong 80% of Realtors surveyed agreed that first-time buyers are overextending their finances in order to get into the homeownership market. Moreover, fully
90% of Realtors who are focused on first-time, affordable markets said the same.
The average Region 2 loan applicant had $70,000 in income and purchased a home
with a loan of nearly $95,000. The relationship between annual income and the
loan balance is one way to express affordability how much the borrower is
earning versus how much the borrower will have to make in repayments. While
not even approximate to any mortgage underwriting, this simple ratio helps provide
an understanding of which parts of Region 2 involved more borrowers stretching
(relative to other places in the region) to afford a home. Monroe, Northampton
and Pike counties are among those with the highest ratios.
Income to Loan Value Ratios
Income
Loan Amt.
Loan: Income
Ratio
Monroe
$79,714
$129,317
1.62
Northampton
$78,199
$124,659
1.59
Pike
$81,162
$127,447
1.57
Lehigh
$75,014
$113,188
1.51
Berks
$69,209
$104,317
1.51
Wyoming
$61,852
$85,937
1.39
Lackawanna
$67,622
$87,494
1.29
64 / Section 3: Imbalanced Housing Supply/Implications for Affordable Housing
czbLLC
Wayne
$80,835
$104,579
1.29
Carbon
$68,281
$88,260
1.29
Luzerne
$64,681
$81,720
1.26
Schuylkill
$57,214
$70,394
1.23
Tioga
$57,712
$69,390
1.20
Susquehanna
$65,433
$76,417
1.17
Bradford
$64,674
$70,920
1.10
Sullivan
$81,589
$86,690
1.06
R2 Average
$70,213
$ 94,715
1.34
Tabulations of 2004 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data.
czb surveyed area residents about the likelihood that they would remain at their
current address, and also asked their reasons for staying or leaving. Twenty-nine
percent of Honesdale residents indicated that they were considering moving
because their housing payments were too expensive (compared to just 3% regionwide). In Stroudsburg, 25% were concerned with the rising cost of living (compared
to just 8% region-wide).
According to czb surveys, affordability is a significant obstacle to homeownership in
high growth areas: 31% of renters in Honesdale and 53% of renters in Stroudsburg
responded that the lack of affordable homes was their biggest obstacle to homeownership, compared with just 26% of respondents in Pottsville and 17% of
respondents in Wilkes-Barre.
Importantly, 90% of Realtors felt the housing stock itself presented a problem.
Presumably even families who have addressed financial barriers may be frustrated
by their inability to find a decent home in a suitable location at an affordable price,
even in a relatively affordable market (compared to national medians) such as the
Lehigh Valley. Over 92% of Realtors who say that their focus is on first-time
buyers cite lack of supply as a problem.
czbLLC
Section 3: Imbalanced Housing Supply/Implications for Affordable Housing / 65
Section 4. Power of Existing Conditions

(Moving Markets)
Area lenders view the housing as being of good quality, although older units are in
need of updating and improvements. Older homes with historic architecture are
not frequently on the market in move-in condition. According to czb field work,
older buildings were most likely to be in poor condition:
Age of Housing Unit
% in Poor Condition
1900 or earlier
14%
1900 to 1930
13%
1930 to 2000
9%
Nevertheless, based on czb surveys, the type or age of a home turns out to be a
poor predictor of a consumers willingness to invest. Across the region, the key
factor for private investment in housing is neighborhood quality. Poor upkeep, low
maintenance standards and safety issues (either real or perceived) are consistent
liabilities.
Problems beget other problems. According to czb field work, buildings in poor
condition were most likely to be in block groups with other poor buildings, more
problems, greater minority populations, higher poverty, higher abandonment, lower
homeownership and lower median values:
The average poor building is in a block group where 15% of surveyed
buildings were found to be in poor condition. The average good
building is in a block group where just 9% of properties were found to
be in poor condition.
The average poor building is in a block group with a problem ratio
over 2.
The average poor building is in a block group where 9% of residents
are Hispanic. The average good building is in a block group where just
4% of residents are Hispanic.
The average poor building is in a block group where 18% of residents
are poor. The average good building is in a block group where just
13% of residents live below the poverty line.
66 / Section 4: Power of Existing Conditions
czbLLC
The average poor building is in a block group where 3.4% of buildings

are abandoned. The average good building is in a block group where
just 2.5% of buildings are abandoned.
The average poor building is in a block group where barely half (55%)
of residents own their homes. The average good building is in a block
group where 63% of residents own their own homes.
The average poor building is in a block group with a median value of
roughly $74,500. The average good building is in a block group with a
median value of over $82,800.
Seventeen percent of the general resident survey sample and 20 percent of the
over-sample indicated that they would be more likely to invest more in their homes
if their neighbors took better care of their property. A home investment product
targeted at those unable to afford needed repairs could result in a domino effect, as
the willingness of some neighbors to invest is translated into action by potential
PHFA program investments.
According to czb surveys, decreasing neighborhood quality was also cited as a
major reason why residents planned to move. This was true of 23% of those likely
or certain to move in Pottsville, 27% in Allentown, and 30% in Wilkes-Barre.
Allentown and Wilkes-Barre residents were also the least likely to plan to make
substantial home improvements in the next two years just 35% of Wilkes-Barre
residents and 38% of Allentown residents planned to do so, compared to 42% of
residents region-wide. In Wilkes-Barre, 35% of respondents would invest more in
their homes if their neighbors took better care of their own properties.
According to czbs survey, residents of the regions large cities were more likely
than residents region-wide to feel that their neighborhoods were getting worse:
37% of respondents from Wilkes-Barre and 43% from Allentown felt that their
neighborhoods were getting somewhat worse or much worse, compared with
just 21% of respondents from the region as a whole.
czbLLC
Section 4: Power of Existing Conditions / 67
Wilkes-Barre has evolved into a community characterized by a high percentage of older housing
units and a high percentage of aging households. Moreover, Wilkes-Barre is not located close to
a strong real estate market; rather, it is adjacent to many similar cities that are all competing for
the same few target households. The likelihood that any one community will capture the market
and begin to thrive is slim. This reality is not lost on renters, and it shows up in the degree of
confidence residents have in their own market.
czb field work in Wilkes-Barre found the following patterns:
On the blocks that were originally well built and located near amenities or institutional
anchors, the level of upkeep is still strong.
Blocks that were built with high densities, lower-quality houses, and more through traffic
all had lower levels of upkeep as evidenced by routine exterior maintenance and
ordinary landscaping. These blocks also had higher vacancy rates and more properties
categorized as being in poor condition.
What is equally important is the fact that all of the blocks showed few houses in good or
excellent condition. There is a clearly pattern of maintaining, but not upgrading, houses even
better houses on more desirable blocks. This absence of standard-setters further depresses the
overall market because there is no expectation that whole blocks will be excellent examples of
sound investment.
68 / Section 4: Power of Existing Conditions
czbLLC
Section 5. Conclusion
Northeastern Pennsylvania is vastly more affordable than neighboring markets to
the east in New Jersey or New York, or to the south toward Philadelphia. Yet for
many whose incomes are too low to compete for market-rate housing, it is
nonetheless an expensive place to live.
With the strength of adjoining external markets, many parts of Region 2 are also
becoming more expensive, which means the housing-cost burden for thousands of
Pennsylvania households is worsening. Yet because demand is uneven, only places
that are desirable to the wider market are affected by the rising prices and the
home equity created as a result. So the real story of Region 2 when all the findings
are put together is that it is affordable to some and becoming less affordable, but in
an uneven way. That means low-income households face two hurdles. The first
obstacle for low-income households is that housing is by and large more expensive
than they can afford, so they need housing assistance to close the gap. The second
barrier is that the housing they can afford is nearly always in places experiencing low
demand, and thus ownership there does not help them build wealth comparable to
the high-growth markets in the region.
Together this means that the region needs to have both a supply of affordable
homeownership opportunities and quality rental stocks, and that supplies of both
have to be in proportions and locations that generate healthy market outcomes.
Low-income homeownership opportunities have to make sense: they must
generate not just an affordable mortgage payment, but provide value through
appreciation to the owner. Low-income rental housing has to make sense also: it is
not just an affordable rental payment, but a lease for an apartment in a good
neighborhood.
Today, there is a mismatch between the location of affordable rental housing and
employment opportunities for working families in Region 2. As the labor market
evolves from manufacturing to more service employment, these trends among
workforce housing will be exacerbated. There is a continued need for more affordable rental units across the region, both single and multifamily, and particularly in the
fastest-growing eastern counties, where labor markets will face a shortfall of lowwage workers located nearby.
czbLLC
Section 5: Conclusion / 69
70 / Section 5: Conclusion
czbLLC
For a variety of reasons, not the least of which are limitations imposed by the
federal and state guidelines that govern the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
program, many of these PHFA-funded projects are located in areas of distress in
Northeastern Pennsylvania. In all, three out of four (76%) PHFA-funded multifamily
projects are located in places with below-average market strengths; 90% are in
places classified as either Single Attached or Multifamily; and nearly half (46%)
are in Multifamily places with below-average market strength.
The housing-cost burden on low-income households in these high-growth areas is
going to grow substantially. This presents an opportunity not only to address the
needs of low-income renters, but also to have a positive impact on the housing
market. By strategically constructing new, mixed-income rental complexes in highrent markets, it would be possible to help reduce the rental cost burden for lowincome families, while also helping to revitalize stagnating markets through the
benefits derived from attracting higher-income households. Moreover, new rental
complexes placed in increasingly or potentially unaffordable areas will help stave off
future shortages of rental housing for low-income workers.
czbLLC
Section 5: Conclusion / 71
Appendices
Appendix A. Resident Survey Instrument ................................................................. A2
Appendix B. Resident Survey Summary Statistics and Crosstab Analysis ......... A9
Appendix C. Regression Results for Resident Surveys ........................................A18
Appendix D. Multiple Listing Service Regression Results ....................................A20
Appendix E. Preliminary Findings for PHFA Region 2 .........................................A24
Appendix F. Key Informant Interviews Protocol..................................................A28
Appendix G. Realtor Survey.......................................................................................A30
Appendix H. Narratives of Archetype Communities ...........................................A34
Archetype Community Narrative 1: Wilkes-Barre ...........................................................A34
Archetype Community Narrative 2: Allentown.................................................................A37
Archetype Community Narrative 3: Towanda ...................................................................A40
Archetype Community Narrative 4: Stroudsburg.............................................................A43
Archetype Community Narrative 5: Honesdale ................................................................A45
Archetype Community Narrative 6: Pottsville ....................................................................A48
czbLLC
Appendices / A1
Appendix A. Resident Survey Instrument

Introductory script:
Commissioned by state of Pennsylvania/PHFA; conducted by Muhlenberg
College
Very helpful to state in effort to strengthen region; grateful for your
participation
8 to 12 minutes of participants time
PART ONE GENERAL INFORMATION
Q1. First, how long have you lived in your current home? _____________ Years
Q2. Where did you move from when you moved into this home?
1. The same city or town
2. A nearby city or town
3. A different county in Pennsylvania
4. Outside of Pennsylvania
5. Outside of the United States
6. Not sure
7. Refused
Q3. In what year was your home built? _____________________________
PART TWO NEIGHBORHOOD RATING AND EXPECTATIONS
Please rate the quality of the following aspects of life in your neighborhood. For
each question please rate the aspect of your neighborhood as excellent, good, fair
or poor.
Q4. The overall quality of your home

or apartment building
Q5. The overall quality of your
neighborhood
Q6. The condition of most houses in
your neighborhood.
Q7. The safety of your
neighborhood.
Q8. The quality of schools in your
neighborhood.
A2 / Appendices
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Not
Sure
Refused
NA
czbLLC
Q9.
Compared to two years ago, is your neighborhood a much better,

somewhat better, somewhat worse, or much worse place to live?
1. Much better
2. Somewhat better
3. Somewhat worse
4. Much worse
5. Not sure
6. Refused
Q10. Compared with the rest of the city or town that you live in, is your neighborhood a much better, somewhat better, somewhat worse, or much worse
place to live?
1. Much better
2. Somewhat better
3. Somewhat worse
4. Much worse
5. Not sure
6. Refused
Q11. The people moving into my neighborhood seem to be
1. Earning about the same income as me and other longer time residents
2. Making more money than me or other longer time residents
3. Making less money than me and other longer time residents
4. Not sure
5. Not applicable; there are few newcomers
6. Refused
Q12. The people moving into my neighborhood seem to
1. Have the same property upkeep standards as me and other longer time
residents
2. Have better property upkeep standards as me and other longer time
residents
3. Have worse property upkeep standards as me and other longer time
residents
4. Not sure
5. Refused
PART THREE MOBILITY DECISION
Q13. Which of the following best describes your likelihood of staying in your
home during the next TWO years? Would you say you are certain to stay,
likely to stay, likely to move, or certain to move from your home in the next
two years?
czbLLC
Appendices / A3
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Certain to stay
Likely to stay
Likely to move
Certain to move
not sure (Volunteered)
Refused (Volunteered)
Q14. (If Planning to Move Only) What is the primary reason you expect to leave
your current home in the next two years? (Read List)
1. House payments are too expensive
2. Cost of living in area is too expensive
3. Size of home is too small
4. Size of home is too large
5. Home is too much to maintain
6. Retirement
7. Job change
8. Family change (divorce, marriage, other)
9. Decreasing neighborhood quality
10. Schools are a concern
11. Other reason (Volunteered)
12. Not sure (Volunteered)
13. Refused (Volunteered)
Q15. In your view, is the economy in your region changing
1. For the much better
2. For the better
3. Not changing
4. For the worse
5. For the much worse
6. Not sure
7. Refused
Q16. Do you own your home or rent?
1. Own
2. Rent
3. Not sure
4. Refused
PART FOUR A HOMEOWNERS
Q17. How important was resale value in your decision to buy your current home?
1. Extremely important
2. Somewhat important
3. Not too important
A4 / Appendices
czbLLC
4. Not important at all

5. Not sure
6. Refuse
Q18. Have you remodeled or improved your home in last two years?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Not sure
4. Refuse
Q19. Did you spend more than $10,000 for that purpose?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Not sure
4. Refuse
Q20. (If Recently Invested Only) Which improvements did you make? (READ LIST;
MARK ALL THAT REPLY)
Remodeled existing bathroom
Added a bath
Improved the family room
Improved the kitchen
Finished the basement
Improved the garage
Improved the exterior (siding, paint)
Improved the interior finishes (floors, paint)
Replaced roofing
Replaced windows
Improved or added a deck/patio
Other ___________________________________________
Not sure (Volunteered)
Refuse (Volunteered)
Q21. (If Recently Invested Only) How did your pay for this work? (READ LIST;
MARK ALL THAT REPLY)
Second mortgage
Refinanced first mortgage
Savings
Help from family members
Special home improvement loan _____________________________
Credit cards
Mostly did work myself
Not sure (Volunteered)
Refused (Volunteered)
czbLLC
Appendices / A5
Please rate your level of agreement with the following statements. For each
statement that I read please tell me if you strongly agree, somewhat agree,
somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with the statement.
Strongly
Agree
Q22. I plan to make substantial

investments in my current
home in the next two years.
Q23. I am unable to make needed
repairs to my home because
of lack of money.
Q24. I would invest more in my
home if my neighbors took
better care of their homes
and property.
Somewhat Somewhat
Agree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Not Sure
Refused
Q25. How much did you purchase your home for? $____________________
Q26. How did you obtain the mortgage for your home?
1. Mortgage broker
2. Direct lender
3. Someone else
4. Did not need mortgage
Q27. How would you rate the difficulty/ease of obtaining a mortgage?
1. Very easy
2. Somewhat easy
3. Somewhat difficult
4. Very difficult
Q28. What type of mortgage do you have?
1. Fixed rate
2. Adjustable rate
Q29. How much would you estimate your home could sell for if you placed in on
the real estate market today? $____________________
A6 / Appendices
czbLLC
PART FOUR B RENTERS

Q30. How much is your monthly rent? __________________________
Q31. What is the main reason you havent purchased a home yet? (Read List)
1. Prefer to rent because it provides more flexibility/options
2. Prefer to rent because it is a better deal for me financially
3. Cant find a home that I like in a desirable neighborhood
4. Waiting to buy until I can have a bigger down payment
5. Waiting to buy until credit is repaired
6. Would like to buy, but do not know how to begin
7. Other (Volunteered)
Q32. Which of the following do you think would have the biggest effect on making
you decide to buy a home? WHAT WOULD HELP YOU DECIDE TO BUY
A HOME?
1. A class to teach me how
2. More affordably priced homes in the area
3. A special mortgage package (Please explain:
_________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
4. Other (Volunteered)
5. None of these
Q33. Would you be willing to attend a series of workshop in the evenings on
buying a home, assuming it was offered at a convenient time?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Dont know
4. Refused
PART FIVE SOCIO-ECONOMIC INFORMATION
Q34. How old are you? _________________________________
Q35. How old are the members of your household?
_______________________________
Q36. What is your household income?
1. Less than $25,000
2. $25,000 to $50,000
czbLLC
Appendices / A7
3.
4.
5.
6.
$50,000 to $75,000
$75,000 to $100,000
$100,000 to $150,000
$150,000 or more
Q37. What best describes your work status? (Read List)

1. Full-time
2. Part-time
3. Retired
4. Student
5. Looking for employment
6. Homemaker
7. Disabled/unable to work
8. Other
9. Not sure
10. Refused
Q38. (If Currently Employed Only) How long does it take you to commute one way
to your job? ________________________ Minutes
Q39. Do you wish you could live closer to work or school?
1. Yes
2. No
3. Not sure
4. Refused
Q40. What is your zip code? ____________________
Q41. Would you like to add anything else?
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
A8 / Appendices
czbLLC
Appendix B. Resident Survey Summary Statistics

and Crosstab Analysis
Table B1 Survey of Residents Sample Sizes
Frequency
General Sample
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
441
49.0
49.0
Allentown
89
9.9
58.9
Honesdale
74
8.2
67.1
Pottsville
72
8.0
75.1
Stroudsburg
79
8.8
83.9
Towanda
70
7.8
91.7
Wilkes Barr
75
8.3
100.0
900
100.0
Total
Table B2 Likelihood of Staying Home by Community

Likelihood of staying home
Certain to
move
Likely to
move
Likely to
stay
Certain to
stay
Not sure
Refused
Row %
Row %
Row %
Row %
Row %
Row %
Pottsville
9.2%
10.8%
21.5%
55.4%
3.1%
Stroudsburg
5.6%
7.0%
26.8%
59.2%
1.4%
Towanda
5.7%
8.6%
22.9%
60.0%
2.9%
Wilkes-Barre
3.3%
13.3%
33.3%
48.3%
Honesdale
12.9%
10.0%
25.7%
48.6%
2.9%
Allentown
4.5%
18.2%
28.8%
47.0%
1.5%
czbLLC
1.7%
Appendices / A9
Table B3 Primary Reason for Leaving Home: Pottsville

Primary reason to leave home
House payments too expensive
Cost of living too expensive
Home too small
Home too large
Too much to maintain
Retirement
Job change
Family change
Decreasing neighborhood quality
Schools
Other
Not sure
Certain to move
Likely to move
Col %
Col %
14.3%
14.3%
14.3%
14.3%
16.7%
16.7%
16.7%
50.0%
14.3%
14.3%
14.3%
Table B4 Primary Reason for Leaving Home: Stroudsburg

Home too small
Home too large
Retirement
Job change
Family change
Schools
Other
Not sure
A10 / Appendices
Certain to move
Likely to move
Col %
Col %
25.0%
50.0%
20.0%
25.0%
20.0%
20.0%
40.0%
czbLLC
Table B5 Primary Reason for Leaving Home: Towanda

Home too small
Home too large
Retirement
Job change
Family change
Schools
Other
Not sure
Certain to move
Likely to move
Col %
Col %
16.7%
16.7%
25.0%
16.7%
16.7%
33.3%
50.0%
25.0%
Table B6 Primary Reason for Leaving Home: Wilkes-Barre

Home too small
Home too large
Retirement
Job change
Family change
Schools
Other
Not sure
czbLLC
Certain to move
Likely to move
Col %
Col %
50.0%
12.5%
12.5%
12.5%
50.0%
12.5%
25.0%
25.0%
Appendices / A11
Table B7 Primary Reason for Leaving Home: Honesdale

Home too small
Home too large
Retirement
Job change
Family change
Schools
Other
Not sure
Certain to move
Likely to move
Col %
Col %
28.6%
33.3%
14.3%
11.1%
11.1%
14.3%
14.3%
11.1%
11.1%
22.2%
28.6%
Table B8 Primary Reason for Leaving Home: Allentown

Home too small
Home too large
Retirement
Job change
Family change
Schools
Other
Not sure
A12 / Appendices
Certain to move
Likely to move
Col %
Col %
8.3%
25.0%
8.3%
8.3%
33.3%
8.3%
33.3%
33.3%
33.3%
8.3%
czbLLC
Table B9 Home Improved in Past Two Years by Community

Remodeled or improved home
Yes
No
Row %
Row %
Pottsville
Stroudsburg
Towanda
Wilkes-Barre
Honesdale
Allentown
71.7%
63.0%
70.0%
53.2%
53.8%
72.0%
28.3%
37.0%
30.0%
46.8%
46.2%
28.0%
Table B10 Spent More than $10,000 on Home Improvements in Past 2 Years by
Community
Spent more than $10,000
Yes
No
Not Sure
Row %
Row %
Row %
Pottsville
Stroudsburg
Towanda
Wilkes-Barre
Honesdale
Allentown
33.3%
41.2%
35.7%
56.0%
46.4%
44.4%
60.6%
55.9%
64.3%
44.0%
50.0%
55.6%
6.1%
2.9%
3.6%
Table B11 Home Investment Intentions by Community

Plan to make substantial investments in home
Pottsville
Stroudsburg
Towanda
Wilkes-Barre
Honesdale
Allentown
czbLLC
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly
agree
Not sure
Row %
Row %
Row %
Row %
Row %
28.3%
31.5%
28.3%
31.9%
26.9%
32.0%
26.1%
31.5%
25.0%
31.9%
28.8%
26.0%
23.9%
20.4%
30.0%
14.9%
11.5%
26.0%
17.4%
14.8%
11.7%
19.1%
26.9%
10.0%
4.3%
1.9%
5.0%
2.1%
5.8%
6.0%
Appendices / A13
Table B12 Inability to Make Home Investments by Community

Unable to make needed repairs
Pottsville
Stroudsburg
Towanda
Wilkes-Barre
Honesdale
Allentown
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly
agree
Not Sure
Refused
Row %
Row %
Row %
Row %
Row %
Row %
30.4%
44.4%
28.3%
29.8%
48.1%
34.0%
37.0%
16.7%
30.0%
31.9%
11.5%
24.0%
19.6%
13.0%
20.0%
17.0%
15.4%
20.0%
13.0%
24.1%
16.7%
17.0%
21.2%
14.0%
1.9%
5.0%
4.3%
1.9%
8.0%
1.9%
Table B14 Home Investment Dependent on Neighbors by Community

Would invest more in property if neighbors took care of property
Pottsville
Stroudsburg
Towanda
Wilkes-Barre
Honesdale
Allentown
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly
agree
Not Sure
Refused
Row %
Row %
Row %
Row %
Row %
Row %
41.3%
55.6%
51.7%
25.5%
50.0%
56.0%
34.8%
22.2%
26.7%
38.3%
30.8%
26.0%
13.0%
13.0%
10.0%
14.9%
7.7%
14.0%
8.7%
3.7%
3.3%
19.1%
3.8%
2.2%
5.6%
8.3%
2.1%
5.8%
4.0%
1.9%
Table B15 Average and Median Rent by Community

Amount of monthly rent
Mean
Pottsville
Stroudsburg
Towanda
Wilkes-Barre
Honesdale
Allentown
A14 / Appendices
$572
$696
$339
$390
$453
$623
Median
$450
$678
$368
$420
$425
$690
czbLLC
Table B16 Length of Commute to Work by Community

How long is your commute to work? (One way)
Under 15
mins.
1530 mins.
3045 mins.
Over 45
mins.
Row %
Row %
Row %
Row %
Pottsville
Stroudsburg
Towanda
Wilkes-Barre
Honesdale
Allentown
59.5%
59.4%
66.7%
67.7%
64.1%
71.9%
21.6%
28.1%
18.2%
12.9%
15.4%
18.8%
8.1%
6.3%
15.2%
9.7%
10.3%
10.8%
6.3%
9.7%
10.3%
9.4%
Table B17 Reasons Renters Havent Purchased a Home by Community

Reason haven't purchased a home yet
Pottsville
Stroudsburg
Towanda
Wilkes-Barre
Honesdale
Allentown
czbLLC
Rent
provides
more
flexibility
Rent is
better
financially
Row %
Row %
10.5%
11.8%
10.0%
16.7%
12.5%
13.3%
26.3%
11.8%
20.0%
50.0%
37.5%
20.0%
Waiting
Can't find
to buy
a home in until have
desirable
bigger
neighbordown
hood
payment
Row %
5.3%
5.9%
20.0%
8.3%
Row %
15.8%
23.5%
8.3%
12.5%
13.3%
Waiting
to buy
until
credit
card is
repaid
Would
like to
buy but
don't
know
how to
begin
Other
Not sure
Row %
Row %
Row %
Row %
15.8%
10.0%
8.3%
25.0%
26.7%
10.5%
5.9%
8.3%
6.3%
6.7%
15.8%
23.5%
20.0%
17.6%
20.0%
6.3%
13.3%
6.7%
Appendices / A15
Table B18 Ways to Encourage Renters to Purchase a Home by Community

Biggest effect on deciding to buy a home
A class
explaining
process
More
affordable
homes
Assistance
with
mortgage
Other
Not sure
Refused
Row %
Row %
Row %
Row %
Row %
Row %
Pottsville
Stroudsburg
Towanda
Wilkes-Barre
Honesdale
Allentown
26.3%
52.9%
20.0%
16.7%
31.3%
20.0%
5.9%
10.0%
8.3%
6.7%
36.8%
17.6%
20.0%
25.0%
37.5%
46.7%
5.3%
5.9%
40.0%
12.5%
26.3%
17.6%
10.0%
41.7%
18.8%
26.7%
5.3%
8.3%
Table B19 Age of Housing Stock by Community

Year home was built
Before
1900
19011950
19511970
19711990
19912000
20012005
Row %
Row %
Row %
Row %
Row %
Row %
Pottsville
Stroudsburg
Towanda
Wilkes-Barre
Honesdale
Allentown
7.5%
7.1%
22.2%
21.2%
30.0%
14.0%
42.5%
19.6%
13.3%
39.4%
14.0%
25.6%
10.0%
35.7%
24.4%
15.2%
14.0%
23.3%
25.0%
26.8%
26.7%
21.2%
32.0%
23.3%
10.0%
5.4%
6.7%
3.0%
8.0%
7.0%
5.0%
5.4%
6.7%
2.0%
7.0%
Table B20 Planning to Make Home Investments by Age of Home

Plan to make substantial investments in home
Year home was built

Before 1900
19011950
19511970
19711990
19912000
20012005
A16 / Appendices
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly
agree
Not sure
Row %
Row %
Row %
Row %
Row %
18.4%
36.6%
24.6%
29.1%
29.2%
38.5%
28.9%
25.4%
32.8%
30.4%
25.0%
30.8%
28.9%
19.7%
23.0%
20.3%
33.3%
15.4%
23.7%
18.3%
14.8%
16.5%
8.3%
15.4%
4.9%
3.8%
4.2%
czbLLC
Table B21 Ability to Make Needed Home Investments by Age of Home

Unable to make needed repairs
Strongly
disagree
Year home was built
Row %
Somewhat Somewhat
disagree
agree
Row %
Row %
Strongly
agree
Not Sure
Refused
Row %
Row %
Row %
Before 1900
31.6%
28.9%
26.3%
13.2%
19011950
35.2%
28.2%
18.3%
18.3%
19511970
32.8%
18.0%
19.7%
21.3%
6.6%
19711990
44.3%
24.1%
12.7%
15.2%
3.8%
19912000
54.2%
25.0%
20.8%
20012005
69.2%
23.1%
1.6%
7.7%
Table B22 Typology: Neighborhood Quality and the Moving Decision

Frequency
Typology
18-55 Income >$50k with Kids
18-55 Income >$50k without Kids
18-55 Income <$50k with Kids
55+ Income >$50k
55+ Income <$50k
By Mean Unit Quality
Typology
55+ Income >$50k
55+ Income <$50k
czbLLC
Moving
No
Yes
78
1
51
11
46
20
67
11
48
11
36
37
Moving
No
Yes
3.487
2
3.275
3.455
3
2.75
3.119
2.727
3.333
3.273
2.917
2.541
By Mean Neighborhood Quality

Typology
55+ Income >$50k
55+ Income <$50k
By Mean Neighborhood Safety
Typology
55+ Income >$50k
55+ Income <$50k
Appendices / A17
Moving
No
Yes
3.551
3
3.373
3.182
3.022
2.421
3.134
2.6
3.146
2.455
3.028
2.405
Moving
No
Yes
3.429
4
3.392
3.091
3.156
2.55
3.106
3.4
3.312
2.909
2.886
2.432
Appendix C. Regression Results for Resident Surveys

Table C1 Maximum-likelihood Probit Estimations
Moved in last 3 years

Age of building
Household income
Neighborhood Safety
School Quality
Neighborhood Getting Worse
Neighborhood Compared to Rest of
City
Neighbors' Home Upkeep Relative
to Respondent
View of Regional Economy
Number of children
Older home (>50 years)
Neighborhood Quality
Nearby Homes Condition
Unit Quality
Observations
(1)
Plan to remodel
(2)
Remodeled/
Spent 10k
(3)
Likely to move
0.198
(2.04)*
0.002
(1.96)*
0.050
(0.68)
-0.145
(2.46)*
0.037
(0.79)
0.230
(2.24)*
0.043
0.012
(0.10)
0.001
(0.67)
0.024
(0.26)
-0.057
(0.81)
0.003
(0.06)
-0.087
(0.68)
0.068
-0.036
(0.69)
-0.000
(0.11)
0.093
(2.24)*
-0.009
(0.28)
-0.010
(0.37)
0.097
(1.66)
-0.004
(0.31)
-0.114
(0.43)
-0.160
(0.06)
0.076
(1.14)
0.045
(1.35)
0.169
(2.35)*
0.025
(0.26)
0.097
(1.41)
-0.025
(0.35)
-0.084
(1.41)
251
(1.39)
-0.034
(0.86)
0.154
(1.75)
0.027
(0.25)
0.006
(0.08)
-0.046
(0.56)
0.090
(1.34)
172
(1.44)
-0.020
(1.01)
0.013
(0.31)
-0.001
(0.02)
0.035
(0.94)
0.045
(1.09)
-0.006
(0.17)
277
Absolute value of z statistics in parentheses

* significant at 5%; ** significant at 1%
A18 / Appendices
czbLLC
Typology
55+ Income >$50k
55+ Income <$50k
% Moving
Yes
1%
18%
30%
14%
19%
51%
By Mean Neighborhood Quality
Moving
No

55+ Income >$50k
55+ Income <$50k
Yes
3.6
3.4
3.0
3.1
3.1
3.0
By Mean Neighborhood Safety

Typology
Moving
No

55+ Income >$50k
55+ Income <$50k
Yes
3.4
3.4
3.2
3.1
3.3
2.9
By Mean Unit Quality

Typology
czbLLC
4.0
3.1
2.6
3.4
2.9
2.4
Moving
No

55+ Income >$50k
55+ Income <$50k
3.0
3.2
2.4
2.6
2.5
2.4
Yes
3.5
3.3
3.0
3.1
3.3
2.9
2.0
3.5
2.8
2.7
3.3
2.5
Appendices / A19
Appendix D. Multiple Listing Service Regression

Results
Table D1 Regression Results
Number of Acres
Bathrooms
Bedrooms
Square Feet
quarter== 1
quarter== 2
quarter== 3
Year
Days on Market
Scranton
(1)
Lackawanna
-0.0000457
(1.47)
-0.0000848
(0.14)
0.1462586
(4.01)**
0.0002823
(3.53)**
-0.0653095
(2.04)*
0.026789
-0.91
0.0682359
(2.59)**
0.0026365
-0.28
-0.0002015
(3.00)**
-0.5300022
(21.71)**
Bethlehem City
(2)
Lehigh
0.0000058
(13.62)**
0.2819132
(42.09)**
0.0947885
(15.00)**
0
(1.80)
-0.106085
(8.65)**
-0.0217006
(1.96)*
0.0172068
(1.57)
0.108605
(22.24)**
0.0002583
(1.67)
(3)
Northampton
0.0000035
(9.90)**
0.294691
(26.69)**
0.092756
(8.64)**
0.0000654
(3.44)**
-0.1273101
(9.17)**
-0.0493302
(3.94)**
0.0179027
(1.50)
0.1056797
(20.17)**
0.0002876
(2.95)**
0.0599826
(0.95)
Bethlehem City N
0.0175566
(0.88)
Allentown
-0.2608709
(19.45)**
Easton
-0.1422203
(7.56)**
Reading
Constant
57.4737284
(2.92)**
Observations
3872
R-squared
0.34
Robust t statistics in parentheses
A20 / Appendices
(4)
Berks
0.000216
(1.60)
0.2999459
(22.76)**
0.1068511
(9.35)**
0.0000666
(2.16)*
-0.0509871
(6.44)**
-0.013319
(1.77)
0.000576
(0.08)
0.051207
(29.58)**
-0.0000181
(0.58)
-200.4462057
(20.16)**
9960
S0.72
-200.7714214
(19.13)**
7974
0.65
-0.6058869
(23.95)**
-91.9186359
(26.51)**
27003
0.73
czbLLC
Table D2 Regression Results Including Homeownership and Poverty
Number of Acres
Bathrooms
Bedrooms
Square Feet
quarter== 1
quarter== 2
quarter== 3
Year
Days on Market
Homeownership
Poverty Rate
Scranton
(1)
Lackawanna
-0.0000487
(1.75)
-0.0001112
(0.18)
0.1464835
(3.97)**
0.0002831
(3.50)**
-0.0654128
(2.04)*
0.0285497
(0.97)
0.0671007
(2.55)*
0.0004301
(0.05)
-0.0002048
(2.88)**
-0.0022022
(1.28)
-0.004896
(1.17)
-0.5260349
(21.62)**
Bethlehem City
(2)
Lehigh
0.0000065
(14.29)**
0.2895833
(42.49)**
0.1063381
(16.56)**
0
(1.14)
-0.1052132
(8.04)**
-0.0191798
-1.62
0.023224
(2.02)*
0.1061677
(20.68)**
0.0005062
(5.85)**
0.01
(9.02)**
-0.025407
(19.51)**
(3)
Northampton
0.0000032
(8.74)**
0.3079818
(27.49)**
0.093477
(8.35)**
0.000067
(3.39)**
-0.1272736
(8.87)**
-0.0516031
(3.97)**
0.0181469
(1.46)
0.1048207
(19.41)**
0.0002896
(2.92)**
0.0077452
(9.47)**
-0.0139811
(6.30)**
(4)
Berks
0.0001944
(1.41)
0.3142658
(21.74)**
0.0986167
(8.02)**
0.0000696
(2.11)*
-0.0513288
(6.19)**
-0.0123563
(1.56)
0.0011482
(0.14)
0.0485815
(26.97)**
-0.0000361
(1.12)
0.0029813
(6.46)**
-0.0130579
(14.18)**
0.0590299
(3.49)**
Bethlehem City N
0.0541294
(4.36)**
Allentown
-0.1544325
(14.12)**
Easton
-0.1104356
(7.33)**
Reading
Constant
10.0511043
(0.54)
Observations
3872
R-squared
0.33
Robust t statistics in parentheses
czbLLC
-202.0036942
(19.64)**
9469
0.69
-0.8589662
(50.99)**
-86.7490214
(24.05)**
-199.5716111
(18.44)**
7951
0.62
26902
0.69
Appendices / A21
Table D3 Average Sale Prices and Change in Price for Decline in Poverty/Increase
in Homeownership
Lackawanna
Lehigh
Northampton
Berks
Average Sale Price 2005:

Urban
Suburban
$86,154.00
$161,622.00
$133,735.00
$241,352.00
$186,486.00
$242,652.00
$52,741.00
$178,494.00
$2,610.80
$3,397.13
$685.63
$2,320.42
$1,491.89
$1,941.22
$158.22
$535.48
Average Increase in Price for 1 Percent Decline in Poverty Rates:

Urban
Suburban
$430.77
$808.11
$3,343.38
$6,033.80
Average Increase in Price for 1 Percent Increase in Homeownership Rates:

Urban
Suburban
-$172.31*
-$323.24*
$1,337.35
$2,413.52
The negative effect of homeownership on sales prices in Lackawanna County is statistically insignificant.
Footnotes:
1
This shows needs and also current and future demand for housing as well as PHFA products/assistance.
This characterizes the housing stock and shows how that stock is performing in the marketplace.
While conditions in these archetypes were not unique, the net of all stocks and flows czb reviewed was
sufficiently different from the others to justify separation. Furthermore, there are alternative ways to describe
Region 2. Region 2 could be divided into two parts: the urban areas, like Allentown and Reading and Scranton,
and the suburban townships. It could also be subdivided into the areas that are growing in population and those
that are losing population. It could be divided into those areas that are attracting highly paid white-collar
professionals and those that are not. Such approaches to describing Region 2 would not be inaccurate. But we
determined that defining five archetypes and extracting six trends, or typologies, would be more useful in
conveying the transitory nature of Region 2.
We analyzed data from 575 distinct jurisdictions in Region 2 and evaluated them on the basis of population
growth or decline, property value change from 19802000, plus unemployment rates, poverty rates, and
educational attainment. This informed our selection of the six representational sites we selected. Sites were also
chosen to reduce duplication and increase representational capacity.
5 Z
Scores are a powerful tool for illustrating how the values for different geographies compare. Z Scores
convert these individual values from percentages or dollars into distances (measured in standard deviations) from
the groups overall average value. (The standard deviation for a set of values reflects how tightly they are
clustered around the average. When values are normally distributed around the average, roughly two-thirds
are within one standard deviation (either above or below) the average. A large standard deviation indicates that
the values vary widely; a small standard deviation implies that most values are very close to the average.)
Why is distance so useful in examining a housing market? Ordinary housing affordability studies tend to look
at percentages and dollars. As such the tendency is to focus on what a house or an apartment costs in a given
area in relation to what a given household can afford. Though useful, this information generates a very incomplete picture, and thus while adequate to the task of addressing housing need, it is wholly inadequate to the task
of addressing need in the context of market health. To be able to do this, markets have to be described in
relation to other markets. Z-scoring makes it possible to see a market the way the market sees a market: in
comparison. Choices are always made among options, however few. To understand the health of a market it is
A22 / Appendices
czbLLC
crucial to understand whether a given market is better or worse that the markets it is competing against to
retain and attract the housing investment choices of households that market needs to be healthy.
The Z Score for an individual case and variable is equal to the individual cases variable value minus the groups
average value for that variable, divided by the groups standard deviation for that variable. For the bulk of cases,
the Z Score will be between -1 and +1 (or within one standard deviation either below or above the average).
In this way, Z Scores quickly highlight extreme cases those not among the bulk of values right around the
average.
Z Scores are especially useful because they provide relative values, and tailor that relativity to the group of cases
(or geographies) being analyzed. In other words, Z Scores recast individual values in the context of a given
group.
To better understand Region 2, czb identified indicators that acted as useful signs of market strength, settlement
patterns, and population trends. For an idea of how different municipalities fared along these lines, czb
calculated Z Scores for all such indicators quickly illustrating average communities, those slightly above or
below average, and those extreme cases (more than one standard deviation either above or below average).
czb then translated Z Scores into Cluster Scores using the following conversions:
For variables where a lower

value indicates healthier
market conditions
For variables where a higher

value indicates healthier
market conditions
Z Score
(or a values number of
standard deviations from the
distributions mean)
Cluster Score
Less than -2
1 (healthiest)
-1.99 to -1
-.99 to 0
0 to .99
1 to 1.99
2 or more
6 (most distressed)
Less than -2
6 (most distressed)
-1.99 to -1
-.99 to 0
0 to .99
1 to 1.99
2 or more
1 (healthiest)
1 This data must be placed in the context of responses discussed earlier regarding some resident concerns
about neighbor upkeep being an impediment to reinvestment. This is to say that the idea of high standards
typical of upwardly mobile neighborhoods is not a major issue in Region 2. A possible lesson for consideration is
whether market flatness in Region 2 is generational, i.e., attributable to the characteristics of this generation of
residents at this time in this location.
2 Significant effort was made to obtain MLS data for all counties in Region 2. However, we had difficulty locating
Realtors willing to provide us with the information
czbLLC
Appendices / A23
Appendix E. Preliminary Findings for PHFA Region 2

Region 2 includes Berks, Bradford, Carbon, Lackawanna, Lehigh, Luzerne, Monroe, Northampton,
Pike, Schuylkill, Sullivan, Susquehanna, Tioga, Wayne and Wyoming counties.
Table E1 Approved Mortgage Loans for Home Purchase, Single Family (14 unit,
owner-occupied)
County
Berks
Mean Value
Number
% High Rate
(300 bps >
T-bond)
Man. Hsg.
(HUD
Code)
Man HsgShare
High Rate
PA-Mailing
Address
Lender
$117,084
6,859
12%
1%
43%
30%
Bradford
$89,793
464
11%
10%
33%
36%
Carbon
$108,577
1,353
12%
3%
37%
26%
Lackawanna
$107,364
2,711
14%
1%
39%
31%
Lehigh
$132,752
7,009
13%
1%
46%
29%
Luzerne
$96,156
3,930
17%
1%
41%
18%
Monroe
$147,185
4,623
15%
0%
52%
10%
Northampton
$156,769
5,776
11%
1%
31%
26%
Pike
$142,768
2,131
13%
n/a
n/a
14%
Schuylkill
$82,418
1,431
17%
2%
33%
30%
Sullivan
$122,246
57
4%
8%
n/a
53%
Susquehanna
$96,033
456
13%
6%
19%
38%
Tioga
$94,752
270
5%
17%
49%
53%
Wayne
$128,369
1,117
11%
3%
13%
32%
Wyoming
$106,493
282
12%
6%
33%
30%
Total
38,469
Tabulations of 2004 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data.
Most activity in Berks (Reading), Lehigh (Allentown) and Monroe

(Towanda/Poconos) counties.
Largest mortgages (but still less than national averages) in Monroe,
Northampton (Bethlehem), Pike (Poconos) and Lehigh.
High-rate loans more common in more rural areas, but still under one-fifth of
loans.
Manufactured housing most common in Tioga and Bradford, although numbers
are small approximately 500 purchase loans in the region, and 1,100 of all
loan types (refi, purchase, improvement).
A24 / Appendices
czbLLC
But, manufactured housing loans are generally higher cost (greater than 3 full
percentage points above treasury rates). 80% of manufactured loans went to
borrowers with incomes at or below 80% AMI.
About one-out-of-three loans originated were by lenders with a Pennsylvania
address.
Table E2 Mortgage Denial Rates, 2004, All Loan Types
<=80% AMI
>80% AMI
Berks
30%
17%
Bradford
30%
14%
Carbon
30%
18%
Lackawanna
30%
19%
Lehigh
26%
14%
Luzerne
35%
23%
Monroe
25%
11%
Northampton
25%
15%
Pike
25%
16%
Schuylkill
30%
14%
Sullivan
28%
5%
Susquehanna
26%
19%
Tioga
29%
12%
Wayne
21%
9%
Wyoming
33%
20%
Tabulations of 2004 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data
On average 28% of low-income (<=80% AMI) are denied when making a

mortgage loan application, compared to 17% of higher-income applicants
41% of low-income applicants for loans on manufactured housing were denied.
No significant differences between counties
czbLLC
Appendices / A25
Table E3 Number of Reported Loans Originated, 2004

Home
Improvement
Berks
% HIL
Refinancing
% Refi
1,777
10%
9,462
52%
Bradford
277
18%
785
50%
Carbon
477
14%
1,643
47%
Lackawanna
1,276
15%
4,315
52%
Lehigh
1,997
11%
8,605
49%
Luzerne
1,680
14%
6,300
53%
Monroe
998
9%
5,659
50%
2,122
13%
8,316
51%
Pike
336
7%
2,283
48%
Schuylkill
697
15%
2,503
53%
Sullivan
33
19%
79
45%
Susquehanna
298
19%
743
49%
Tioga
211
20%
503
48%
Wayne
364
13%
1,350
47%
Wyoming
194
19%
552
53%
12,737
12%
53,098
51%
Northampton
Total
Tabulations of 2004 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Data.
Table E4 Income Loan Value Ratios

Income
Loan Amt
Loan: Income
Ratio
Monroe
$79,714
$129,317
1.62
Northampton
$78,199
$124,659
1.59
Pike
$81,162
$127,447
1.57
Lehigh
$75,014
$113,188
1.51
Berks
$69,209
$104,317
1.51
Wyoming
$61,852
$85,937
1.39
Lackawanna
$67,622
$87,494
1.29
Wayne
$80,835
$104,579
1.29
Carbon
$68,281
$88,260
1.29
Luzerne
$64,681
$81,720
1.26
Schuylkill
$57,214
$70,394
1.23
A26 / Appendices
czbLLC
Tioga
$57,712
$69,390
1.20
Susquehanna
$65,433
$76,417
1.17
Bradford
$64,674
$70,920
1.10
Sullivan
$81,589
$86,690
1.06
R2 Average
$70,213
$ 94,715
1.34
All counties compare favorably with many NY/NJ markets

Loan amounts suggest relatively low-cost payments relative to income
Poconos show highest prices relative to income
Table E5 Loan Type By Income Level
Home purchase
<=80%
AMI
Loans
Home improvement
>80% AMI
<=80%
AMI
>80% AMI
Refinancing
<=80%
AMI
>80% AMI
18,600
20,559
6,454
6,283
24,196
28,902
$90,000
$133,000
$20,000
$30,000
$80,000
$100,000
% High rate
17%
11%
11%
7%
21%
12%
% Man. Hsg
2%
1%
2%
1%
1%
0%
Median loan $
There is a large volume of lending activity in the region for low-income

borrowers
One in five refi borrowers with low-incomes took out high rate loans
czbLLC
Appendices / A27
Appendix F. Key Informant Interviews Protocol

Background
Approximately 20 telephone interviews were conducted between September and
November 2005 with key informants with expertise in real estate and lending
markets in Region 2.
Each interview lasted between 30 and 60 minutes, starting with a core of approximately eight key informants selected through the client and contacts in the region,
and then using a snowball approach, pursuing additional informants based on
referrals from each round of interviews. Interview subjects will included at least 4
mortgage origination officers at small institutions, and at least 4 lending staff at larger
(national) institutions, as well as 2 self-employed mortgage brokers, select staff from
community affairs or CRA departments. The leaders from 4 selected nonprofit
housing organizations were also included, each of whom has relationships with
financial institutions.
Interview Process
1. Introduction and the purpose of the call.
2. The interviewers role:
Be neutral.
Keep interviewer commentary to an absolute minimum; almost everything
interviewers say will be in the form of a question.
Keep the interview moving along to generate useful information.
3. The interviewer takes detailed notes.
4. Close the interview. Thank the interviewee for his/her time, and ask if s/he
would recommend another key informant to interview.
Script:
I am a researcher with czb LLC. Our firm has been engaged to gather information
related to housing trends in the region of Northeast PA. I obtained your name from
___________ (referral source). We do not need very much of your time, but we
A28 / Appendices
czbLLC
do understand you have considerable expertise in this field. Your comments are
confidential and you will not be cited in any form. If you have any questions or
concerns for your privacy is important, you may stop the interview anytime. Lets
get started.
Interviews with financial industry experts:
1.
How do you define your market area?
2.
What is your assessment of the housing market in your area? Single-family?

Multifamily?
3.
Who is buying homes? What are they buying? What do you see as hot
sectors? Weak ones?
4.
What opportunities do you see in this market? Threats?
5.
How about the low-income market? What share of your business is to these
customers? What motivates your attention to this market? How would you
assess this segment currently?
6.
Describe your typical customer. What are they buying? Now imagine a
working-class family. Are there decent affordable homes for this family?
7.
What would your like to see changed in the housing stock? In the lending
market?
8.
What are the most common reasons families are declined loans?
9.
Are there any property types that you feel are a unique strength in your area?
Borrower types?
10. What loan products are you most proud of? What products need
improvements?
czbLLC
Appendices / A29
Appendix G. Realtor Survey

Respondents: 167 Realtors from the Lehigh Valley.
Softening markets?
61% responded the market has been more active in recent months than historic
averages.
But 62% feel that segments of their local market are leveling off.
42% wrote the entire market is leveling off.
44% suggested it is the high end ($300,000 or more) that is leveling off.
11% suggested investment properties are flattening.
80% agreed first-time buyers are overextending their finances in order to get
into the market. 90% of Realtors focused on first-time affordable markets said
the same.
39% agreed appraisers in my area are being pressured to inflate home values.
Chart G1 Single-Family, Owner-Occupied Predominates
REALTOR Ranking by Property Type
100%
6th
5th
4th
3rd
2nd
6th
6th
90%
5th
80%
4th
6th
5th
70%
5th
3rd
60%
6th
4th
50%
4th
1st
40%
3rd
2nd
30%
3rd
5th
20%
2nd
2nd
10%
1st
1st
1st
0%
Detached Single Family
Homes
A30 / Appendices
Investment/Rental
property
2-4 Unit OwnerOccupied
Condominiums
4th
3rd
2nd
1st
Vacation Homes
czbLLC
Table G2 Issues Preventing Low- to Moderate-Income Individuals from Buying a

Home
Issues preventing low- to moderateincome individuals from purchasing
a home:
Lack of information regarding the
process of securing a mortgage.
The inability of individuals to secure a
down payment.
The lack of housing options that are
both affordable and well maintained
The inability of individuals to be
approved for a mortgage due to
credit problems
Major
Problem
Minor
Problem
Not A
Problem
Not Sure
27% (38)
40% (56)
31% (43)
1% (2)
63% (88)
33% (46)
4% (5)
0% (0)
62% (86)
28% (39)
10% (14)
0% (0)
50% (70)
43% (60)
6% (8)
1% (1)
64% of Realtors say half to the majority of their clients are from outside the
area.
Many commented on the influx of buyers from NY an NJ with more income.
About 30% of sales are in urban areas, 30% rural and 40% suburban.
70% of Realtors focused on first-time buyers said programs to help buyers are
too confusing.
90% feel lack of inventory is a problem; 92% of first-time buyer Realtors said
the same.
Down payment is a problem, as well as credit. Lack of information also a
problem, but less than down payment and credit.
About PHFA:
52.5% of Realtors are aware of PHFA.
40% of Realtors focused on first-time affordable buyers.
The longer and more active a Realtor is, the more likely they are to know
PHFA, but less likely to work with lower-income consumers.
czbLLC
Appendices / A31
Table G3 Realtor Ratings of PHFA Products

Rating of PHFA Products
Keystone Home Loan Mortgage
Revenue Bond (MRB) Subsidized
Loans
Homestead Second Mortgages
Down Payment Assistance Loans
Housing Counseling Services
Acquisition-Rehab Loans (example
FHA 203(k))
Access Home Modification Program
home improvements for people
with disabilities
Very
useful
Somewhat Not very

useful
useful
Useless
21%
69%
3%
7%
40%
43%
9%
9%
30%
49%
16%
5%
14%
42%
33%
12%
17%
42%
25%
17%
Recommendations to PHFA include:

17% suggest change rules to make easier to use.
36% suggest consumer outreach.
47% suggest training for Realtors by PHFA on products and services.
Table G4 Type of Housing Activity Most Wanted
Type of housing activity would you most like to see in your community?
Improvement / Rehabilitation of existing units
47%
New affordable single-family units
74%
Middle- and upper-level single-family units
23%
New affordable condo units
23%
Middle and upper level condo units
7%
Affordable rental housing
11%
Middle- and upper-level rental housing
5%
High-quality manufactured housing
7%
Cooperatively owned units
1%
Key Findings:
The market has been hot but may be cooling.
A32 / Appendices
czbLLC
Supply side constraints limit growth of ownership opportunities.

Need to develop at the affordable end.
PHFA has opportunities to expand outreach with real estate professionals.
Homebuyer education and counseling is a partial solution.
czbLLC
Appendices / A33
Appendix H. Narratives of Archetype Communities

After sorting counties into subregions and municipalities into the typology, czb
identified six representational markets Pottsville, Wilkes-Barre, Towanda,
Allentown, Stroudsburg, and Honesdale for further study. These Archetype
Communities represent either the most common type of place within a given
subregion, or are the type of place that is home to the largest share of the
population in a given subregion. In each of these communities, czb conducted
additional resident surveys and field work
Subregions
In each of the Archetype Communities, czbs additional resident surveys and field
work included analyzing current housing unit, street, and block conditions, to
supplement data from the census and other sources. Like czbs subregions and
typology of places, these six Archetype Communities can also provide insights into
other similar communities in Region 2 as well as elsewhere in Pennsylvania.
Archetype Community Narrative 1: WILKES-BARRE

In many ways Wilkes-Barre is a good example of the demographic and housing
conditions that are prevalent in the Wyoming Valley. While currently the fifth most
populous city in Region 2, Wilkes-Barre has seen a steady decline of its population
for decades. From 1990 to 2004 the city lost 12.5% of its population, or slightly
under 6,000 individuals. These declines are similar to population losses in the
Wyoming Valleys other cities of Scranton and Hazleton. (See Table H1).
A34 / Appendices
czbLLC
Table H1 Population Trends in Wilkes-Barre and Neighboring Cities

Year
1980
1990
2000
2004
Wilkes-Barre
51,551
47,523
43,123
41,559*
Scranton
88,117
81,805
76,415
73,928*
Hazleton
27,318
24,730
23,329
22,319*
*Census Bureau estimate.
As can be expected, the loss of population has corresponded with significant levels
of public unease with the conditions in the city of Wilkes-Barre. First, Wilkes-Barre
residents were far more pessimistic about the direction of their neighborhood than
their counterparts in other areas of Region Two. Most notably, citizens of WilkesBarre were twice as likely as individuals throughout the region to report that their
neighborhood was getting worse. This pessimism appears to be driven by a number
of factors related to neighborhood quality. Specifically, perceptions of dangerous
streets, marginal schools and average housing stock underlie a substantial degree of
resident unease.
On an aggregate level, Wilkes-Barre residents were far less likely to highly rate their
neighborhood quality in comparison with other Region 2 residents. As can be seen
in Table H2, Region 2 residents outside of Wilkes-Barre were twice as likely as the
citys residents to rate their neighborhood as excellent.
Table H2 Perceptions of Neighborhood Quality
Rating
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Not Sure/Refused
Overall Region 2
Wilkes-Barre
36%
51%
10%
2%
1%
18%
57%
18%
3%
4%
Perhaps the most significant factor contributing to the relatively low levels of
neighborhood satisfaction is concern regarding public safety in Wilkes-Barre.
According to the Pennsylvania State Police, crime rates in Wilkes-Barre during 2005
dramatically increased. For example, armed robberies increased by 164% between
2004 and 2005, with a doubling of murders during the city during the same period.
Such dramatically worsening safety conditions come across in czbs surveys of
Wilkes-Barre citizens, where city residents were almost two and a half times more
czbLLC
Appendices / A35
likely to rate neighborhood safely negatively than the general population of Region
2. These results can be found in Table H3 below.
Table H3 Perceptions of Neighborhood Safety
Rating
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Not Sure/Refused
Overall Region 2
Wilkes-Barre
37%
50%
9%
3%
1%
24%
53%
11%
12%
0%
In addition to concerns regarding public safety, Wilkes-Barre residents gave poorer

ratings of the quality of both their own homes and homes throughout their
neighborhood. While 39% of residents of Region Two rated their current housing
quality as excellent, only 28% of Wilkes-Barre residents shared this view. Similarly,
While 30% of Region 2 residents said housing conditions in their neighborhood
were excellent, only 20% of Wilkes-Barre residents made a similar appraisal. Table
H4 provides a more in-depth overview of this topic.
Table H4 Perceptions of Housing Quality
Rating
Excellent Rating of Current
Home Quality
Excellent Rating of
Neighborhood Housing
Conditions
Overall Region 2
Wilkes-Barre
39%
28%
30%
20%
The czb field surveys in Wilkes-Barre provided some evidence to corroborate the
mediocre housing appraisals of its residents. While overall ratings from the field
evaluations point to housing conditions that are fair to good, there are a number of
measures that point to deteriorating conditions. For example, poor upkeep of
housing aspects such as roofing that requires regular maintenance can indicate
gradual decline of neighborhood housing stock. In Wilkes-Barre, 24% of houses
surveyed were rated as having poor housing conditions, compared to 16% in the
five other urban and small towns that czb visited. As with roofs, window conditions
can demonstrate direction of housing stock in a neighborhood. While 49% of
windows throughout our sample of Region 2 communities were rated good, only
33% of windows in Wilkes-Barre homes maintained the same quality.
A36 / Appendices
czbLLC
These signs of housing wear, combined with safety and educational quality concerns
have left Wilkes-Barre residents more pessimistic about the direction of their
neighborhoods. More specifically, Wilkes-Barre residents are twice as likely (30% to
15%) as Region 2 residents to say that their neighborhood is getting worse. This
pessimism appears related to a diminished likelihood of city residents investing
more in their property. Most notably, 34% of Wilkes-Barre residents reported that
they would invest more in their property in neighbors took better care of their
property, compared to only 17% of the general sample of Region 2 residents.
Table H5 Agreement with Statement: I would Invest More
in My Property if Neighbors Took Better Care of Theirs
Strongly Agree
Somewhat Agree
Somewhat Disagree
Strongly Agree
Not Sure/Refused
Overall Region Two
Wilkes-Barre
5%
12%
30%
43%
9%
19%
15%
38%
26%
2%
In all, Wilkes-Barre seems to be one of the most troubled cities in Region 2. Like its
urban counterpart Allentown, Wilkes-Barre seems to be feeling pressures on its
neighborhoods from increased crime, pressured schools and declining property
upkeep. However, unlike Allentown it is in a region that is not seeing significantly
increased demand for housing. With continued population drains and an array of
social and safety concerns the housing market may continue to be confronted with
significant challenges.
Archetype Community Narrative 2: ALLENTOWN
As the largest city in PHFA Region 2, Allentown displays a complex housing
scenario that belies many of the broader trends occurring in the region. While
located within the sphere of development pressure from New Jersey and
Philadelphia, Allentowns urban characteristics have made it an outlier in terms of
many of the broader housing trends be experienced in the Lehigh Valley and
Poconos. As the population of Lehigh County has skyrocketed since 1990,
Allentowns population has remained steady at approximately 106,000. While the
overall population level in Allentown has not changed, the internal characteristics of
the city demonstrate dramatic demographic shifts. Most notably, Allentown went
from an overwhelmingly (86%) white city in 1990, to a quickly diversifying urban
czbLLC
Appendices / A37
area today. With these demographic shifts have come increased transience in most
city neighborhoods and turbulent housing market conditions. One factor clearly
associated with high levels of movement is the perception of neighborhood safety.
Based on czbs fall 2005 survey, Allentown residents are twice as likely as all Region
2 residents to rate neighborhood safety negatively (see Table H6).
Table H6 Perceptions of Neighborhood Safety
Rating
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Not Sure/Refused
Overall Region 2
Allentown
37%
50%
9%
3%
1%
24%
53%
11%
12%
0%
Similarly, Allentonians are twice as likely to state that their neighborhood is getting
worse in comparison with their counterparts throughout Region 2. (See Table H7).
Table H7 Perceptions of Neighborhood Direction
Direction of Neighborhood
Much Better
Somewhat Better
Somewhat Worse
Much Worse
Not Sure/Refused
Overall Region 2
Allentown
12%
43%
12%
3%
29%
12%
29%
23%
8%
29%
As part of their relative dissatisfaction with neighborhood conditions, Allentown

residents are more likely than other Region 2 residents (20% to 12%) to report that
neighbors have worse property upkeep than themselves. These findings are
consistent with czbs site visit to Allentown where 17% of housing units observed
received an overall rating of poor. As can be seen in Table H8, the number of
homes in Allentown that were rated in poor condition is higher than the 11%
average from the combined site visits in Region 2. Similarly, key exterior home
features such as paint condition appeared to big significantly worse in Allentown
compared to other Region 2 locations.
A38 / Appendices
czbLLC
Table H8 Ratings and Perceptions of Housing Conditions

Category
Homes Rated in Poor Condition
(Site Visits)
Painting of Home Rated in Poor
Condition (Site Visits)
Neighbors have Worse Property
Upkeep (Survey)
Overall Region 2
Allentown
11%
17%
16%
32%
12%
20%
The cumulative effect of perceptions of diminished housing conditions and

neighborhood quality appears to be related to an increased likelihood of moving
among Allentown residents. Almost 1 in 4 residents (23%) of Allentown indicate
that they are either likely or certain to move in the next two years. This level of
projected movement is 10% higher than the overall Region 2 level of 13%.
Underlying the high level of transience in Allentown are two major factors. First, the
most common reason for individuals to plan to move is dissatisfaction with
neighborhood quality. More specifically, 27% of city residents indicated that
decreasing neighborhood quality is the primary reason that they will leave there
current home. Second, small home size was listed by 20% of city residents as the
main reason they intend to move in the next two years. Both of these reasons for
moving are above the Region two averages displayed in Table H9.
Table H9 Resident Attitudes Regarding Movement from Current Home
Category
Percent of population Certain or
Likely to Move in Next Two Years
Decreasing Neighborhood Quality
Primary Reason for Moving from
Current Home
Small Home Size primary Reason for
Moving from Current Home
Overall Region 2
Allentown
13%
23%
16%
27%
14%
20%
A key local issue affecting the housing market in Allentown is the quality of city
schools. The Allentown School district has received a considerable degree of bad
publicity related to educational quality. In fact, the State of Pennsylvania has opted
to take over aspects of the district to ensure improved educational quality. czbs
survey of Allentown residents indicates that residents of the district are much more
likely to rate schools quality as poor than overall Region 2 averages. Most notably,
while only 3% of Region 2 residents rated their neighborhood schools as poor, 11%
czbLLC
Appendices / A39
of Allentown residents rated their schools in this highly negative manner. Similarly,
among individuals planning to move from their home in the next two years,
Allentown residents were twice as likely as their Region 2 counterparts to cite
schools as the primary reason for moving. Such concerns diminish the attractiveness
of city housing to families with school-age children
In all, the perceptions of deteriorating neighborhood quality, diminished educational
resources and compromised housing stock make Allentown a significantly different
market than other Lehigh Valley locations, including its urban counterpart
Bethlehem. While located in the heart of a fairly high growth area the city is faced
with many challenges that make the housing market much different than
neighboring communities.
Archetype Community Narrative 3: TOWANDA
The northern tier of Region 2 maintains a number of characteristics that separates it
from the remainder of the region. Low population density, stagnant population
growth and a few small towns define this overwhelmingly rural area that borders
New York State. Unlike the Pocono and Lehigh Valley areas of the region, the
northern tier has not shared in the strong housing market driven by demand
pressures from the New York and Philadelphia metropolitan areas. As can be seen
in Table H10, northern tier counties demonstrated remarkable levels of population
stability between 1990 and 2000.
Table H10 Population Trends In Northern Tier Region
Year
1990 Census
2000 Census
Tioga County
Wyoming County
Sullivan County
Bradford County
41,126
28,076
6,104
60,967
41,373
28,080
6,556
62,761
Within the northern tier area there are numerous small towns such as Wellsboro,
Mansfield and Towanda. czb chose Towanda as a representative community in
which household surveys and field visits took place. The results of this analysis point
to a community with slight population loss, low levels of in-migration, very high
levels of home ownership and moderate levels of resident satisfaction. First, the
resident survey indicated that over 80% of Towanda residents either lived their
entire lives in the borough or moved from a nearby city. Not only does Towanda
A40 / Appendices
czbLLC
appear to have a low infusion of residents from outside the boroughs immediate
vicinity, there seems to be little likelihood of individuals moving from the town in
the near future. In particular, only 15% of individuals surveyed indicated that they
are either likely or certain to move in the next two years. This finding seems a bit
surprising given the very pessimistic view that Towanda residents have about the
regions economy. Compared to the Region 2 average and the five other
municipalities that we focused on in this research, Towanda residents provided the
worst appraisal of the areas economic direction. As can be seen in Table H11,
almost 2 out of 3 (62%) residents of the borough felt the regions economy was
worsening, compared to only 46% of residents region wide.
Table H11 Perceptions of Regional Economy
Rating
Overall Region 2
Towanda
6%
27%
33%
13%
22%
4%
16%
43%
19%
18%
Getting Much Better

Getting Somewhat Better
Getting Somewhat Worse
Getting Much Worse
Staying the Same/Not Sure/Refused
An overwhelming percentage (86%) of Towanda residents report that they own

their homes. Given the very low levels of transience found in the borough it does
not come as a surprise that property owners place relatively low levels of
importance on the resale values of their homes. More specifically, over half (54%) of
Towanda residents indicated that their homes resale value was either not important
to them. As can be seen in Table H12 below, this level is significantly lower than
what is found throughout the region.
Table H12 Importance of Home Resale Value
Rating
Very Important
Somewhat Important
Not Too Important
Not Important at All
Not Sure/Refused
Overall Region 2
Towanda
21%
34%
17%
18%
10%
15%
27%
27%
27%
5%
With limited importance placed on resale value, Towanda homeowners have made
marginal home improvements in recent years. Compared to Region 2 averages,
czbLLC
Appendices / A41
Towanda residents had much lower rates of home improvement in areas such as
bathroom, kitchen and exterior materials. These lower levels of home improvement
can help explain fairly high levels of disrepair identified during czbs site visits to
Towanda. In particular, over 1 out of 4 roofs in the borough were rated in poor
condition, with 1 in 5 homes having poor paint conditions.
These marginal housing conditions are reflected in resident appraisals of their own
homes and the homes of their neighbors. Most notably, Towanda residents are
twice as likely as Region 2 residents to identify their current housing conditions as
only fair or poor. Similarly, residents of the borough were 50% less likely than the
regional average to rate the condition of homes in their neighborhood as excellent.
The more negative views regarding housing conditions are magnified by mixed
views about the quality of schools in the borough. As can be seen in Table H13
below, Towanda residents are far less likely to give excellent ratings to their public
schools than other residents of Region 2.
Table H13 Ratings of School Quality
Rating
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Not Sure/Refused
Overall Region 2
Towanda
29%
47%
12%
3%
10%
10%
57%
17%
9%
7%
Yet even with an array of measures that point to citizen dissatisfaction with
important aspects of quality of life, almost two out of three residents of the
borough expressed the view that their neighborhood was getting better.
Conversely, only 16% of residents surveyed stated a belief that neighborhood
quality was getting worse. Towanda citizens also are fairly comfortable with the way
their neighbors maintain their properties, with 3 out of 4 residents indicating their
neighbors maintain their properties equal or better to the way they do. Thus, it
appears that Towanda will likely stay in the holding pattern that it seems to have
settled into.
A42 / Appendices
czbLLC
Archetype Community Narrative 4: STROUDSBURG

The Poconos represent one of the fastest growing areas of both Region 2 and
Pennsylvania as a whole. Since 1980, population growth in the major Pocono
counties has risen at impressive rates, with an equally impressive effect on the areas
housing market. With its close proximity to New Jersey and the New York City
Metropolitan Area, the Pocono region has undergone a significant transformation. In
particular, growth in the eastern most areas of the Poconos, namely Monroe and
Pike counties, has been at rates not seen in the commonwealth. As can be seen in
Table H14, the population of Monroe County has more than doubled since 1980,
with Pike Countys population tripling.
Table H14 Population Trends in Pocono Region
YEAR
MONROE COUNTY
PIKE COUNTY
1980
1990
2000
2004
69,409
95,709
138,687
158,925*
18,271
27,966
46,302
54,117*
*Census Bureau estimate.
While a majority of population growth and housing construction in the Pocono

region has taken place in the suburban and rural areas, the towns of the region have
clearly felt the effects of high paced development. Places such as Stroudsburg, East
Stroudsburg, Mount Pocono and Milford have experienced relatively modest
increases in population, but have experienced significantly increased demand for
housing. In particular, Stroudsburg serves as an excellent example of a Pocono
municipality that is in the midst of a vibrant housing market, and balancing the
effects of growth on quality of life. From the results of czbs surveys it appears that
Stroudsburg residents give generally favorable ratings to key aspects of the
boroughs physical and social characteristics, but do harbor concerns about some
issues in the borough.
First, residents of Stroudsburg appear to be more optimistic about the quality of life
in their town than the average citizen of Region 2. Overall, Stroudsburg residents
report high levels of satisfaction with neighborhood safety, public schools and
housing. Compared to the overall population of the region, Stroudsburg
respondents were 8% more likely to rate their neighborhood quality as excellent,
15% more likely to rate neighborhood safety as excellent, and 6% more likely to
czbLLC
Appendices / A43
rate public schools as excellent. Table H15 below provides more detail on these
ratings
Table H15 Ratings and Perceptions of Neighborhood Characteristics
Category
Overall Region 2
Stroudsburg
36%
37%
29%
44%
52%
35%
Excellent Rating of Neighborhood Quality

Excellent Rating of Neighborhood Safety
Excellent Rating of Neighborhood Schools
Stroudsburg residents also reported above average ratings of their current homes,
with almost half (45%) rating their residence as excellent. These appraisals of home
quality are consistent with the czb site visits to Stroudsburg which demonstrated
fairly strong aesthetic and structural quality. Key aspects of housing quality such as
windows, doors, exterior materials and roofing were found to be in favorable
condition. Table H16 demonstrates these ratings.
Table H16 Field Survey Ratings of Housing Quality
Good
Fair
Poor
Unable to Rate
Window
Condition
45%
41%
12%
1%
Door
Condition
73%
22%
3%
1%
Exterior Material
Condition
55%
40%
4%
<1%
Paint
Condition
37%
46%
14%
2%
The westward migration of New Jersey and New York residents to Pocono
destinations like Stroudsburg has affected the perceptions of borough residents.
First, as individuals move to Stroudsburg many continue to work in the
metropolitan New York City area, simultaneously holding on to larger salaries. This
leads current residents to perceive their new neighbors as wealthier. More
specifically, Stroudsburg residents are four times as likely to see there neighbors
making more money than them as they are to see their neighbors making less
money. However, even as they see their neighbors getting wealthier, a relatively
large portion of Stroudsburg residents believe their neighbors do not maintain their
property as well as they do. As can be seen in Table H17, residents of Stroudsburg
are almost twice as likely as the overall population of Region 2 to claim their
neighbors have worse property upkeep.
A44 / Appendices
czbLLC
Table H17 Resident Perceptions of Property Upkeep

Neighbors and Property Upkeep
Region 2
Stroudsburg
73%
8%
12%
7%
55%
11%
24%
12%
Same Property Upkeep

Better Property Upkeep
Worse Property Upkeep
Not Sure/Refused
These relatively negative perceptions of the way neighbors maintain their property
correlates with higher levels of pessimism about the direction of neighborhoods.
Most notably, despite high levels of satisfaction with overall neighborhood quality,
over 1 in 5 residents see their neighborhood quality getting worse. As can be seen
in Table H18, these levels of pessimism surpass the average levels in Region 2.
Table H18 Resident Perceptions of Neighborhood Direction
Neighborhood Direction
Much Better
Somewhat Better
Somewhat Worse
Much Worse
Not Sure/Refused
Region 2
Stroudsburg
12%
43%
12%
3%
29%
13%
37%
18%
3%
29%
Even with these signs of concern about neighbors and the direction of
neighborhood quality, the overall ratings of Stroudsburg as a place to live bode well
for continued demand for housing in the borough. Given its location, generally wellconditioned homes and resident satisfaction it is likely that Stroudsburg will
continue to be perceived as a valued location.
Archetype Community Narrative 5: HONESDALE

While it is reasonable to view Region 2 as a dichotomy of high demand (i.e. the
Poconos) and low demand (i.e. Wilkes-Barre) areas, the reality of the region is that
there are many more nuances. For example, Wayne County in the extreme
northeast section of Region Two serves as a transitional zone between the near
boom pace of development along the New Jersey border and the more glacially
evolving areas of the Wyoming Valley and northern tier. In Wayne County places
such as Hawley and Honesdale have felt the impact of housing demand and
czbLLC
Appendices / A45
population growth, but have not witnessed the break neck development associated
with portions of Pike, Monroe and Northampton counties. The results are places
that both physically and demographically bridge the high and low demand areas of
Region 2.
Unlike its immediate neighbors to the south that have experienced doubling or
tripling of populations in the last quarter century, Wayne County has experienced
strong, but less dramatic population growth. As Table H19 demonstrates, the
population of Wayne County grew by an average of about 7,000 people per
decade during the 1980s and 1990s. While clearly robust, this growth rate paled in
comparison to the other Pocono counties.
Table H19 Population Trends in Pocono Region
Year
Wayne County
Monroe County
Pike County
1980
1990
2000
33,894
39,944
47,722
69,409
95,709
138,687
18,271
27,966
46,302
Like many areas experiencing growth, housing development and population growth
have been centered in rural and suburban areas. However, unlike many areas of
Region Two where suburban growth has been at the expense of urban
populations, the central urban area of Wayne County has seen a relatively stable
population trend. In particular, Honesdale (the county seat) has seen very little
fluctuation in its population in recent decades. Most strikingly, compared to its
neighbor Carbondale which 14 miles to the west in the northeastern section of the
Wyoming Valley, Honesdales population has remained quite solid. Table H20
shows the contrast in population trends between these places.
Table H20 Population Comparison between Carbondale and Honesdale
Year
1990
Honesdale
(Wayne County)
4,972
Carbondale
(Lackawanna County)
10,664
2000
2004
4,874
4,865*
9,804
9,423*
* Census Bureau Estimate
The stability in population in Honesdale in underscored by citizen perceptions of

the community. Residents of Honesdale display generally favorable attitudes
A46 / Appendices
czbLLC
towards their housing, community safety, and schools. Perhaps most interestingly,
the czb survey results from Honesdale are very representative of Region 2 as a
whole. Take for example the results of the survey regarding neighborhood quality
displayed in Table H21. Honesdale, more than any other single community that we
observed closely mirrors the overall Region Two perceptions of neighborhood
conditions.
Table H21 Ratings of Neighborhood Quality
Category
Overall Region 2
Honesdale
36%
51%
10%
2%
0%
37%
51%
10%
0%
0%
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Not Sure/Refused
The very minimal level of negative ratings among Honesdale residents were the
lowest among the six cities/towns that czb focused on. This high level of satisfaction
appears based on factors such as school quality, housing conditions and public
safety. In most of these measures Honesdale residents rate life in their town as
excellent or good, with levels surpassing Region 2 averages. For example, citizens in
Honesdale are 10% more likely to rate their schools as excellent and 6% more
likely to rate public safety as excellent. While slightly less positive about the housing
conditions in their town than the overall Region Two average, Honesdale residents
did give solid ratings to this aspect of the towns physical status. Table H22 provides
more detail on this matter.
Table H22 Ratings and Perceptions of Neighborhood Quality
Category
Excellent Rating of Housing Condition in
Neighborhood
Excellent Rating of Neighborhood Safety
Excellent Rating of Neighborhood Schools
Overall Region 2
Stroudsburg
30%
26%
37%
29%
43%
39%
The residents of Honesdale also display substantial optimism about the future
direction of their town. By a margin of 3 to 1 Honesdale residents see their
neighborhood as getting better. The residents of the town are also very likely to
remain in Honesdale, with over 3 out of 4 citizens indicating that they are either
certain or likely to stay in the town.
czbLLC
Appendices / A47
These favorable perceptions of the physical condition of housing in Honesdale

closely match the czb field observations in the town. Residential properties, which
are overwhelmingly single detached units, received strongly positive ratings. Almost
90% of homes that were sampled had an overall quality rating of fair or good, with
only 9% receiving a poor rating. At a more detailed level, ratings of doors, windows,
paint and exterior material condition were all generally favorable, with only roofing
conditions approaching the negative average of all site visits in Region 2.
In all, Honesdale seems to be a fairly healthy community that is maintaining both a
stable population and a solid housing market. It is on the periphery of the
booming demand that has enveloped the Pocono region towards the south and
the steady decline that has diminished towns and cities in the nearby Scranton and
Wilkes-Barre areas.
Archetype Community Narrative 6: POTTSVILLE

Among the areas of Region 2 that have been the most hard pressed in recent
decades is Schuylkill County and its numerous small towns. At the heart of eastern
Pennsylvanias anthracite coal region, Schuylkill County has seen its fortunes ebb as
that industry has dramatically diminished. Its overall population has decreased by
approximately 5,000 individuals since 1990, with even greater loss of population in
the largest towns within the county. As can be seen in Table H23, major towns
such as Pottsville and Tamaqua have seen their populations dwindle significantly
over the past 15 years.
Table H23 Population Trends In Schuylkill County, 19902004
Year
Pottsville
1990
2000
2004
16,603
15,549
14,881
Mahanoy City
5,209
4,647
4,488
Tamaqua
7,943
7,174
6,827
Frackville
4,700
4,361
4,221
By percentage, these towns are some of the fastest declining places in Region 2, and
thereby some of the softest housing markets in eastern Pennsylvania. Such decline
has diminished the perceptions of the area among residents, and helped contribute
to an area suffering through a fairly difficult period. As the largest town and county
seat of Schuylkill County, Pottsville was chosen by czb for additional analysis and
surveying. A number of interesting findings were drawn from this research. First,
Pottsville residents are remarkably stable in terms of their background. More
A48 / Appendices
czbLLC
specifically, almost all of the towns residents have either grown up in Pottsville, or
moved there from a nearby community. As can be seen in Table H24, 89% of
Pottsville residents have roots in Schuylkill County.
Table H24 Points of Origin for Residents
Where Residents Moved From
Same City
Nearby City
Different County in PA
Outside of State
Not Sure/Refused
Region 2
Pottsville
41%
33%
8%
15%
2%
69%
20%
3%
5%
4%
This high degree of consistency in residency also matches with resident expectations of remaining in Pottsville in the near future. Just under 8 out of 10 residents
indicated that they are certain or likely to stay in Pottsville in the next two years.
However, residents of the town are more likely than the Region 2 average to
express intent to move from Pottsville in the near term. Overall, 20% of citizens of
Pottsville expressed the belief that they are likely or certain to move out of the
town in the next two years, compared to only 13% of residents throughout Region
2.
The elevated level of intent to leave Pottsville is associated with a number of factors
uncovered in the czb survey of residents. First, among individuals intending to leave
Pottsville, the primary reason noted was decreasing neighborhood quality. In
addition, residents of the town gave Pottsville less than average ratings in terms of
neighborhood quality. As can be seen in Table H25, Pottsville residents are twice as
likely as the Region 2 average to rate neighborhood quality in negative terms.
Table H25 Ratings of Neighborhood Quality
Residents Moved From
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Not Sure/Refused
czbLLC
Region 2
Pottsville
36%
51%
10%
2%
1%
23%
52%
22%
3%
0%
Appendices / A49
These overall neighborhood ratings seem connected with lower than average
ratings of housing quality, neighborhood safety, and property upkeep in Pottsville.
For example, residents of Pottsville seem more negative about their individual and
neighborhood housing. In comparison to regional averages, Pottsville citizens are
11% less likely to give their current home an excellent quality rating than
individuals throughout Region 2. Similarly, residents of the town were 13% less likely
to rate conditions of housing in their neighborhood as excellent. These negative
evaluations are compounded by a significant portion of Pottsville residents who see
their neighbors as maintaining their properties in a manner worse than themselves.
The marginally rated housing quality is compounded by extremely negative views
regarding the regions economy. With some of the higher unemployment rates in
the state, it is probably not surprising that Pottsville residents are fairly pessimistic
regarding the economy in the region. By a margin of 56% to 36%, Pottsville
residents see the local economy as getting worse.
With fairly high levels of dissatisfaction regarding economic and housing conditions,
and intentions to move from their current residences higher than regional averages,
it appears that residents of Pottsville place higher importance on resale value. As
can be seen in Table H26, Pottsville residents are substantially more likely to
indicate that resale value is either extremely important or somewhat important.
Table H26 Importance of Resale Value
Residents Moved From
Extremely Important
Somewhat Important
Not Too Important
Not Important All
Not Sure/Refused
Region 2
Pottsville
21%
34%
17%
18%
10%
33%
41%
15%
4%
7%
Even with some positive signs such as generally favorable ratings of neighborhood
safety and school quality, there are numerous measures that point to Pottsville
suffering from a period of decline. A steady loss of population and concerns
regarding housing quality seem to have put Schuylkill Countys largest municipality in
a perilous place.
A50 / Appendices
czbLLC

PHFA CZB

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PHFA CZB

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Analysis of

Housing and Markets in

A report prepared by czbLLC for

An Analysis of Housing and Markets in Northeastern Pennsylvania

An Analysis of Housing and Markets in Northeastern Pennsylvania

An Analysis of Housing and Markets in Northeastern Pennsylvania

An Analysis of Housing and Markets in Northeastern Pennsylvania

An Analysis of Housing and Markets in Northeastern Pennsylvania

An Analysis of Housing and Markets in Northeastern Pennsylvania

An Analysis of Housing and Markets in Northeastern Pennsylvania

An Analysis of Housing and Markets in Northeastern Pennsylvania

affordable housing from nearby metropolitan areas. Todays immigrants tend to be

An Analysis of Housing and Markets in Northeastern Pennsylvania

An Analysis of Housing and Markets in Northeastern Pennsylvania

An Analysis of Housing and Markets in Northeastern Pennsylvania

Aggregating or summarizing municipalities performances along these lines at the

An Analysis of Housing and Markets in Northeastern Pennsylvania

With this summary of conditions in Region 2 as a foundation, czb pursued two

An Analysis of Housing and Markets in Northeastern Pennsylvania

An Analysis of Housing and Markets in Northeastern Pennsylvania

Over half (56%) of all municipalities in the Pocono Region subregion

An Analysis of Housing and Markets in Northeastern Pennsylvania

In each of these Archetype Communities, czb conducted additional resident surveys

An Analysis of Housing and Markets in Northeastern Pennsylvania

An Analysis of Housing and Markets in Northeastern Pennsylvania

An Analysis of Housing and Markets in Northeastern Pennsylvania

An Analysis of Housing and Markets in Northeastern Pennsylvania

An Analysis of Housing and Markets in Northeastern Pennsylvania

An Analysis of Housing and Markets in Northeastern Pennsylvania

Power of External Markets

Real estate values in New York, New Jersey

Average Value of Owner-Occupied Stock, 2000

An Analysis of Housing and Markets in Northeastern Pennsylvania

This relative affordability is spurring significant demand for homeownership housing

Source: U.S. Census.

An Analysis of Housing and Markets in Northeastern Pennsylvania

Source: State Tax Equalization Board.

An Analysis of Housing and Markets in Northeastern Pennsylvania

Like many of the communities near the New

Monroe and Pike counties (linked

An Analysis of Housing and Markets in Northeastern Pennsylvania

An Analysis of Housing and Markets in Northeastern Pennsylvania

% of Movers from Out-of-State

Monroe County Wayne County

An Analysis of Housing and Markets in Northeastern Pennsylvania

On average, owners in-migrating to Berks, Lehigh and Northampton counties had

An Analysis of Housing and Markets in Northeastern Pennsylvania

An Analysis of Housing and Markets in Northeastern Pennsylvania

Northern New Jersey

Southern New York

Source: U.S. Census, County Business Patterns.

An Analysis of Housing and Markets in Northeastern Pennsylvania

As the population in these internal

An Analysis of Housing and Markets in Northeastern Pennsylvania

weaker outside markets (specifically Tioga, Bradford and Susquehanna) or largely

An Analysis of Housing and Markets in Northeastern Pennsylvania

An Analysis of Housing and Markets in Northeastern Pennsylvania

High Growth/High Value Areas

An Analysis of Housing and Markets in Northeastern Pennsylvania

(and increasingly higher-cost). They are also primarily owner-oriented; together,

Homeownership Rate (90s

An Analysis of Housing and Markets in Northeastern Pennsylvania

An Analysis of Housing and Markets in Northeastern Pennsylvania