Why is Tobyhanna real estate declining in value so fast?
Investor · Pinole, CA · Member since 2016 · 13 posts · 1 vote
Why is Tobyhanna real estate declining in value so fast?
Most Popular Reply
Wholesaler · Philadelphia, PA · Member since 2016 · 1 post · 2 votes
10yIf you are looking to invest in Philly may I suggest Philadelphia
47 Replies
- Investor · Orange County, CA · Member since 2015 · 2k+ posts · 3k+ votes10y
Originally posted by @Lynaire McGovern:
Hi David,
SFH in my area start at 400K which I cannot afford. I am interested in rentals and 400K homes do not cash flow as rentals. I have seen many homes in PA under 100K and even under 50K. These lower prices offer much higher cash flow potential.
L
Do those sub 100k and sub 50k homes really offer much higher cash flow potential over the long term? What is the rate of rental increases on those homes vs the 400k homes in your area? How does the tenant base stack up? Why don't those renters in PA just buy those properties if the mortgage + expenses are so much lower than rent? And back to your original question, which was a very good one and one I think you ought to seriously give more thought to, why are those homes so cheap? If you can't afford 400k homes, that's fine, I'm quite sure that there are some within driving distance that you can afford, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are any better or worse investments just because of the price ... you often get what you pay for, things are cheap or expensive for a reason, and that which is cheap in the short run may turn out to be very expensive in the long run ... some food for thought ...
- Rock Star Extraordinaire · Northeast, TN · Member since 2015 · 10k+ posts · 16k+ votes10y
Originally posted by @David Faulkner:
Originally posted by @Lynaire McGovern:
Hi David,
SFH in my area start at 400K which I cannot afford. I am interested in rentals and 400K homes do not cash flow as rentals. I have seen many homes in PA under 100K and even under 50K. These lower prices offer much higher cash flow potential.
L
Do those sub 100k and sub 50k homes really offer much higher cash flow potential over the long term? What is the rate of rental increases on those homes vs the 400k homes in your area? How does the tenant base stack up? Why don't those renters in PA just buy those properties if the mortgage + expenses are so much lower than rent? And back to your original question, which was a very good one and one I think you ought to seriously give more thought to, why are those homes so cheap? If you can't afford 400k homes, that's fine, I'm quite sure that there are some within driving distance that you can afford, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are any better or worse investments just because of the price ... you often get what you pay for, things are cheap or expensive for a reason, and that which is cheap in the short run may turn out to be very expensive in the long run ... some food for thought ...
The problem up there is the same problem it's been forever - there's no jobs. The best thing about the area from a living point of view is that it's a reasonably priced bedroom community for ABE, albeit with high property taxes, crappy schools and no appreciation. Look on the MLS right now and houses there where I lived sell for about the same thing they sold for in the 1980s.
Skyline Properties - PITTSBURGH, PA · Member since 2016 · 28 posts · 11 votes10y
Hello, @Anthony angotti I'm also A investor in the Pittsburgh, PA area nice to meet you . My focus is mainly on the out skirts of Pittsburgh such as Mon valley , McKeesport , Duquesne , Turtle creek, Monrovile, and Penn hills . It's would be great to hear input from another local on our market . Looking forward to hearing more .
- Investor · Pinole, CA · Member since 2016 · 13 posts · 1 vote10y
@David Faulkner I would have to drive to Bakersfield, Fresno, Redding or Susanville to find a small house in fair condition for under $100K which is 4 or 5 hour drive from my home. Sacramento used to be cheap but no longer. Stockton is getting more expensive as well and has high crime.
Are there any homes within one or two hours drive of Orange County for under 100K? If so, I would be interested in them. I saw Trona, CA has inexpensive homes but it looks like a desert wasteland.
I am trying to start my real estate investment career with a limited budget. If you have listened to any BP podcasts they frequently say that cash flow trumps (pardon the pun) appreciation because appreciation can come and go.
- Investor · Sacramento, CA · Member since 2012 · 289 posts · 151 votes10y
Somewhat off topic, but I wonder if this is a sign of things to come:
Commuting suburb with poor job market, farther away, and over developed track housing developing gang and crime issues.
With urbanization and infill developments, are these the new ghettos?
- House Flipper · East Stroudsburg, PA · Member since 2013 · 1k+ posts · 205 votes10y
Had to respond regarding properties in Tobyhanna, PA. the largest development is A Pocono Country Place that has close to 4,000 homes. Of this inventory of homes,many are the smaller homes that were originally constructed for weekend or seasonal occupancy. Of recent date most of the occupancy is full time occupants. Currently there are 110 houses available from $13,000. to $249,000. In the past 12 months 244 houses were sold, 219 sold for under $90,000. and 22 homes sold for over $90,000. This would certainly indicate that a reasonable active market exists. From my experience there are indifviduals who are actively acquiring houses for their buy and hold programs. The lower the price usually indicates the house requires more than TLC. It is difficult to find such a large inventory of attractively priced homes, that are still reasonable priced after improvements. Provided the information to give an alternate point of view.
- Bakersfield, CA · Member since 2016 · 378 posts · 307 votes10y
@Lynaire McGovern sub $100k properties are difficult to find in any town that people actually want to live in (yeah, you see plenty of them still in the middle of the dessert or mountains, but not in cities with booming communities). I do see them here in Bakersfield, but as others have mentioned. Especially if you are a cash buyer. I'm in negotiations for a client buying a duplex for $105k here in Bakersfield that should cash flow two to three hundred bucks every month, so I know it's possible. They are getting harder and harder to find though, you really have to jump on them as soon as they pop up because cash investors are constantly on the prowl for these types of properties, at least here in Bakersfield.
- Fremont, CA · Member since 2015 · 289 posts · 63 votes10y
It is very typical issue that all of us in California are facing.
Let me ask you this it is cash flow properties or lower price 100k thing ?
I see the reason for going out of state when you are getting good returns on the money. Now comes to < 100k keep in mind following things also to consider
1. Cost or loan will be higher
2. If there is some big item like roof or plumbing or heating has to be replaced it will be swipe away profit for years
All the best
Originally posted by @Lynaire McGovern:
@David Faulkner I would have to drive to Bakersfield, Fresno, Redding or Susanville to find a small house in fair condition for under $100K which is 4 or 5 hour drive from my home. Sacramento used to be cheap but no longer. Stockton is getting more expensive as well and has high crime.
Are there any homes within one or two hours drive of Orange County for under 100K? If so, I would be interested in them. I saw Trona, CA has inexpensive homes but it looks like a desert wasteland.
I am trying to start my real estate investment career with a limited budget. If you have listened to any BP podcasts they frequently say that cash flow trumps (pardon the pun) appreciation because appreciation can come and go.
- Property Manager · Sacramento, CA · Member since 2016 · 91 posts · 34 votes10y
@Derek Daun, I actually think you (sadly) might be on to something. It seems like there are some areas at least on the west coast here that are moving towards that. I've definitely seen a trend of people moving away from those areas and more into areas much closer to the city hubs and with more potential for walkability (and always better job markets).
- Investor · Orange County, CA · Member since 2015 · 2k+ posts · 3k+ votes10y
Originally posted by @Lynaire McGovern:
@David Faulkner I would have to drive to Bakersfield, Fresno, Redding or Susanville to find a small house in fair condition for under $100K which is 4 or 5 hour drive from my home. Sacramento used to be cheap but no longer. Stockton is getting more expensive as well and has high crime.
Are there any homes within one or two hours drive of Orange County for under 100K? If so, I would be interested in them. I saw Trona, CA has inexpensive homes but it looks like a desert wasteland.
I am trying to start my real estate investment career with a limited budget. If you have listened to any BP podcasts they frequently say that cash flow trumps (pardon the pun) appreciation because appreciation can come and go.
Antelope Valley (Lancaster, Palmdale) as well as places in Riverside County like Moreno Valley have inexpensive RE ... perhaps not under $100k but certainly under $200k ... I am much more familiar with Antelope Valley than Riverside county. Do you own your own home in CA? If not, you could buy a primary residence with the intent to at a later date turn it into a pure reno ... if so, you could turn it into a rental and invest in your next primary residence without selling ... this way, you could secure a property with as little as 3.5% down on much higher quality assets that have a much better chance at appreciation and you could add some value to via sweat equity and control hands on since they are near to you ... much better strategy IMO ... never underestimate the power of your home court advantage investing locally, or conversely the disadvantage you face going out of state.
Many of the folks you mention on the podcasts I would consider inexperienced newbies (not all, but many) that are inexperienced (haven't lived through a full RE cycle as an investor) and in some cases not many units and in others are more interested in selling product than giving new investment advice, plus they live and/or invest in markets with no long term track history for appreciation, so their advice is sound for them in their markets ... we on the other hand live in a market with 50+ year track record of strong appreciation well above the national average and well above inflation and you can confirm as historical sales prices are public record... that is how properties got to be expensive in the first place and there are strong underlying fundamentals of high demand and perpetually limited housing supply that I see no sign of changing.
I'm not saying to ignore cash flow, I am saying consider the long term, not just the short term, and appreciation as well as cash flow ... appreciation creates both equity and cash flow, since price and rent increases go hand in hand, so even if a CA property cash flows less than say the midwest on day 1, if the last 50 years of steady appreciation in CA and no appreciation in the midwest (after inflation) holds (quite likely IMO), then its cash flow will quickly catch up and then exceed the midwest, and that will be icing on the cake compared to the equity increase. This won't apply for every CA submarket, and surely less so for the inexpensive inland markets your looking for, but if that is what you can afford and willing to spend they can work too ...
- Investor · Orange County, CA · Member since 2015 · 2k+ posts · 3k+ votes10y
... and I owe you a thanks, Lynaire ... you were lucky post #1,000 for me ... my only regret is that my # of votes doesn't exceed my number of posts, unless you want to vote for my last 4 posts ;) If I can help you succeed investing locally here in CA, though, that would be even better :) ...
- Flipper/Rehabber · Las Vegas, NV · Member since 2016 · 174 posts · 251 votes10y
David I agree with you about the podcast but my concern, probably not surprisingly, is they rarely discuss the macro picture and risk management, which I think is a disservice to newer investors.
On a separate note: I'm having a hard time reconciling your long term appreciation thesis in LA (which I assume is the main area to which you're referring).
Where are you getting your data regarding the last 50 years of steady, inflation adjusted, appreciation? Every chart I can find looks like a roller coaster? While it is true from a select point to a select point you see substantial appreciation, from other points (10-20 years), you're at a break even or a substantial loss. Maybe we're looking at different charts?
Next, I completely understand the limited supply side of your underlying fundamentals point but I'm struggling with the demand side. According to the US census, population in LA county has increased just over 10% since 1990. And inflation adjusted household income has actually been flat or decreased since 2000 based on what I read (I couldn't find anything going back to 1990). Yet, according to the economist magazine, inflation adjusted prices are up over 50% since 1990.
It doesn't seem like a 10% increase in population and very little, if any, household income growth could support a 50% increase in prices? Which leaves cheap credit and investors, neither of which I'd consider a long term, sustainable, underlying fundamental.
Regarding cheap credit. Again, according to the economist magazine, almost 100% of the inflation adjusted appreciation in the LA housing market, since 1980, has come since the early 2000's when Greenspan took rates below 1.75 percent. During that time rates have been between 1.75 and 0 for 10 of those years. My point is how much more can credit expand?
Last is investors, all the data I've seen says foreign investment has increased immensely in US real estate over the last year. That's the only thing I can see in the data that would fundamentally drive the market higher?
Any ideas what I'm failing to see on the demand side, that would keep prices moving higher or even justify their current levels? Is it possible the high demand you're referring to is simply easy money and investors?
Thanks
- Investor · Orange County, CA · Member since 2015 · 2k+ posts · 3k+ votes10y
Originally posted by @George Gammon:
David I agree with you about the podcast but my concern, probably not surprisingly, is they rarely discuss the macro picture and risk management, which I think is a disservice to newer investors.
On a separate note: I'm having a hard time reconciling your long term appreciation thesis in LA (which I assume is the main area to which you're referring).
Where are you getting your data regarding the last 50 years of steady, inflation adjusted, appreciation? Every chart I can find looks like a roller coaster? While it is true from a select point to a select point you see substantial appreciation, from other points (10-20 years), you're at a break even or a substantial loss. Maybe we're looking at different charts?
Next, I completely understand the limited supply side of your underlying fundamentals point but I'm struggling with the demand side. According to the US census, population in LA county has increased just over 10% since 1990. And inflation adjusted household income has actually been flat or decreased since 2000 based on what I read (I couldn't find anything going back to 1990). Yet, according to the economist magazine, inflation adjusted prices are up over 50% since 1990.
It doesn't seem like a 10% increase in population and very little, if any, household income growth could support a 50% increase in prices? Which leaves cheap credit and investors, neither of which I'd consider a long term, sustainable, underlying fundamental.
Regarding cheap credit. Again, according to the economist magazine, almost 100% of the inflation adjusted appreciation in the LA housing market, since 1980, has come since the early 2000's when Greenspan took rates below 1.75 percent. During that time rates have been between 1.75 and 0 for 10 of those years. My point is how much more can credit expand?
Last is investors, all the data I've seen says foreign investment has increased immensely in US real estate over the last year. That's the only thing I can see in the data that would fundamentally drive the market higher?
Any ideas what I'm failing to see on the demand side, that would keep prices moving higher or even justify their current levels? Is it possible the high demand you're referring to is simply easy money and investors?
Thanks
Thank you for some very insightful, and frankly tough questions ... I don't shy away from them, nor do I claim to have all the answers, nor to I claim that such answers are universally true for all investors. So, with that what I hope is intellectually honest disclosure, I will respond point by point with my rationale, experience, and data ...
First and foremost, I need to emphasize my point about home court advantage ... my personal belief and experience is that it is that despite passive investing folklore, REI, even buy and hold REI, is really more an active investment than a passive one, more like starting your own business than buying a S&P index fung. It can be passive in the long term if done properly and actively in the short term, much like a fast food franchize can be put on auto-pilot with time (only with better business model IMO), but at it's core it starts off like an active investment. That is all a long winded way of saying that I believe "trumps" all in this asset class. The OP and I happen to reside in the same market, and I am attempting to offer advice that I believe applies to this market and rationale that I think can be applied with a grain of salt globally. I don't mean to sound insulting to other markets, as there are opportunities for locals to make money there too; I only try to offer specific advice to my left coast fellows while tempering it with globally applicable rationale (hopefully),
Next, appreciation rates, population growth, and income appreciation. Appreciation rates ... yes, they are a roller coaster ride in the short term, and yes LA can be a roller coaster ride more so than other markets. First, the timeframe of your focus ... over the long term, the LONG TERM historical averages are clear, otherwise LA homes would cost $100k, not $500K+. I focus on long term returns, not short term. To be fair, though, I do not ignore short term, and believe and have experienced via 2006 anything happening in the short term, but my short term focus is on wealth preservation, making sure I can afford to hold through thick and thin, more so than the long term focus on wealth growth. Specifically, for me in that market that involves forced appreciation to get a short term equity bump to insulate me to some extent from short term market fluctuations and hold from a position of financial strength (combined with my forced cash flow, down payment equity, cash reserves, and other income). Population growth ... there is reported population growth and there in reality (documented + undocumented) actualy population growth ... also, it is important to consider the average wealth of that population growth over the abolute quantity ... I'd argue that the whole darn SoCal coast already is or is rapidly becoming "gentrified" ... the population may not be growing exponentially, but the net worth of the population sure as heck is, and those high net worth individuals and businesses create 2nd order wealth in their employees and services demanded (you may disagree). I also like to consider local affordability to keep myself in check. Again, though, to my active vs passive thesis, it does not apply globally across the nation or even to sub markets in SoCal; the rationale and logic are global bult ultimately the riches are in the niches. I am very much a product of my investing environment, and my specific advice is local but the rationale is hopefully global applicable and a unique POV from the masses on BP.
Quick story to reinforce my points on this ... my parents sold a property in SoCal for ~$150k late '70s ... it was cash flow positive and had doubled from their purchase but they thought it was overpriced and couldn't possibly go up any further, they were right in the short term as it stayed flat for the next several years, in the long term it was a duplex a few blocks from the ocean and enough said (ouch! double their money was the worse investment mistake they've ever made as it would've been paid off today and cash flowing like a freight train as icing on the equity cake). They invested throughout the 80's, when A&D jobs got absolutely decimated in SoCal and interest rates were +10%, and you know what else happened in prime coastal RE in the '80's? Prices doubled, and following closely therefter were rents ... supply and demand fundamentals even in the face of other headwinds. Will it continue on? ... nothing is guaranteed, especially in investments, anyone claiming otherwise is ignorant, trying to sell you something, or both ... I for on e contiinue to leverage my local knowledge to buy, hedge, and watch carefully ... your local milage most definitely will vary ...
- Flipper/Rehabber · Las Vegas, NV · Member since 2016 · 174 posts · 251 votes10y
David thank you for an incredibly thought provoking reply. Let me address what you've said numerically to keep our thoughts congruent.
1. Home court advantage: I really hope new investors are reading this and taking pieces of what I'm saying and pieces of what you're saying and blending them together. I'm as much of a proponent of understanding the market where you invest as much as I am understanding the macro picture. As an example, one gentleman post that the santa monica sub market never really experienced a down turn in 2009. Having done this research, you could take it a step further and analyze the data for the 1990's when the LA market experienced substantial depreciation through out the decade. This home court knowledge could be priceless. If santa monica didn't decline then either, it would be the very first place I'd buy if the market goes down again to a level which is supported by fundamentals (population and income levels). As a matter of fact, I'm going to allocate time to the research because I think it may be an actionable thesis.
My main goal in posting on BP is to promote thorough risk management and making sure it plays a bigger role than ROI exclusively. We all see posts on BP about people who made fantastic returns or a home run flip. This is great, but the question of "what did they risk to achieve the gains?" is never asked.
It's analogous to a hedge fund that's produced average 10 year returns of 30% but is using 200% leverage. Is the return worth the risk of a 33% decline wiping out all your money? Maybe...maybe not. It all depends on the investor, but the increased risk can't be ignored. It has to be considered upfront along with the potential returns. Said another way, which is the better hedge fund, one that has an average gain of 15% with a max draw down of 2% or a fund that has an average gain of 20% with a max draw down of 30%? Again, my point is it's an individual decision, but the investors making the decision have to look at the risk vs. return. What most investors do is just look at the fund generating the 20% return and assume its better.
So circling back to your point of home court advantage. This allows investors to better understand risks and opportunities. Here we completely agree.
2. The long term: I think the discrepancy in our views maybe the definition of long term? I'm looking at 10 year and even 20 year time frames. 1980 to 2000 was a 20 year span when there was little to no appreciation adjusted for inflation? Granted, if you take a snap shot of todays prices, appreciation has been fantastic assuming you didn't buy 2004-2007. But I don't know if you can take isolated points in time, 1980-1990, 1980-2006, 2000-2016, 1980-2016 and conclude LA always has great long term appreciation. For the simple reason it ignores, 1980-2000, 1990-2000, 2005-2016. That said, I only have a chart to 1980, I don't have the 50 year you have.
3. Forced appreciation and/or cash flow. I want to make sure everyone realizes what my main points are and this highlights one of them. When I talk about a market being over priced from a stand point of risk to reward I'm assuming retail prices. If an investor in LA (or anywhere) can find a deal that brings their total cost basis to a level that's consistent with broad prices in 2012, assuming it cash flows (or they can increase cash flows), go for it. Since they're buying at a level that's supported by the fundamentals (which I believe the data confirms) their downside is limited and, in this case, it is very probably prices will recover to that high water mark because they aren't predicated on interest rates being at all time historic lows (which is their current levels globally). This is night and day different from an investor buying at todays prices and making the numbers work through nothing but cognitive dissonance because they "think" prices are going higher or interest rates are going lower. As humans we tend to make emotional decisions and then rationalize them...no humans are more susceptible to this than investors.
4. I would defer to you on the population. I know official stats don't always paint the real picture. I'm sure net worth has increased dramatically due to asset prices being close to all time highs. And this likely does have a trickle down effect. The problem is what if asset prices aren't at all time highs any more and what has made asset prices go so high? I'd argue it's the world floating on a sea of liquidity...is that sustainable? maybe, maybe not. It's a matter of probabilities.
5. You're parents story. I'm happy to hear your parents did well. Although to stay consistent, if were dealing with inflation adjusted numbers, the 150k price and doubling was in nominal terms? I'm not sure that would've been an inflation adjusted gain in the 1970's? I could be wrong. And to your point about prime coastal real estate. It's always smart to buy the best even if it is a premium. It'll go down less in bad times and go up faster in good times.
One last point I'd like to discuss is your final reference to demand. I agree with you but I want to define "demand" for any newer investors reading this. It's a term not well understood. What most define as "demand" is actually "want." Want is wanting something, demand is combining want with the ability to afford what's wanted. Without sufficient income "demand" can't be expressed in the economy and is therefore simply a "want."
As an example: When I hear people talk about "pent up demand", they're really referring to "pent up want." Unless theres's a whole generation of young people that have the money to buy their first home but refrain because they choose to live with their parents?
Without income (or purchasing power) there is no demand. And remember the majority of purchasing power in today's economy is based on half of global interest rates being negative.
You're very correct...nothing is guaranteed. But there are probabilities.
Thanks for the dialoge David.
- Investor · Pittsburgh, PA · Member since 2016 · 41 posts · 12 votes9y
@David Faulkner re: "Do those sub 100k and sub 50k homes really offer much higher cash flow potential over the long term? What is the rate of rental increases on those homes vs the 400k homes in your area? How does the tenant base stack up? Why don't those renters in PA just buy those properties if the mortgage + expenses are so much lower than rent? And back to your original question, which was a very good one and one I think you ought to seriously give more thought to, why are those homes so cheap?"
Homes in Pittsburgh are so cheap for a combination of reasons: the steel implosion brought on some tough times for this area, when many people fled to to find work elsewhere. I'm sure there was a housing glut for a while. There are high property taxes here - I think that holds down home values in some areas and even causes faster devaluation of struggling areas with shrinking populations. There are $400,000 and up neighborhoods but their are plenty of $100,000 to 200,000 neighborhoods also that are ok. The under 100K neighborhoods are lower wages working class neighborhoods. Most of those neighborhoods are ok older neighborhoods. The 50k homes are usually fixer uppers or just small homes or row homes, if this is not the case then its just a sign of an undesirable neighborhood (Wilkinsburg, Homewood, etc). I've seen fixer uppers in the $300K and up areas start at 100K.
I think the reasons so many rent instead of buying is is bad financial management (beyond paying rent and other must pay bills) or the 'I'll never get a head' thinking. There are people that resign themselves to the thought that only 'rich people' can afford their own home. There are some folks that get stuck renting from having bad credit or having homes repossessed but that is the minority.
There are also a lot of temporary residents in the area for higher education or internships. The outskirts of the Pittsburgh metro area has a lot of drilling activity, so rental properties are in high demand in areas near drilling hot spots one to two hours from downtown Pittsburgh. There is not a lot of rental housing in the newer suburbs, so displaced folks from outer lying areas are forced into traditional rental markets. I've even seen trucks of drilling workers parked near housing just a few minutes from downtown! Pittsburgh has been rated as a great place to live many times in the last ten years. Companies are relocating to here or adding locations here and new start ups are common. This area will have high demand for rental housing for many years to come.
- 9yJohn BucciPro MemberReal Estate Agent · Tarrytown, NY · Member since 2016 · 149 posts · 63 votesStephen Franco Hey, would love to connect. Interested in deals in eastern PA to NY ..Pm me please. Thanks!
- Real Estate Agent · Philadelphia, PA · Member since 2016 · 27 posts · 0 votes9y
Philadephia is good place to invest especially near Temple University
- 9yStephen FrancoPro MemberScranton, PA · Member since 2016 · 201 posts · 44 votes
@John Bucci please PM or call
- Investor · Pinole, CA · Member since 2016 · 13 posts · 1 vote9y
@David Faulkner and @George Gammon Thanks David for your input. I have moved on from PA and I am now looking in Nevada which is more expensive than PA but still much cheaper than CA. I can make a weekend trip to Reno or Las Vegas to buy a property which would be hard to do for a property in PA. The rents seem pretty low in Nevada but the appreciation is fairly high. I might be open to living in Nevada one day as well. The only downside is that I have no relatives in Nevada like I did in PA.
- Maspeth, NY · Member since 2016 · 75 posts · 62 votes9y
Originally posted by @Roxanna Pifer:
I see I'm a bit late to this thread but here's my insight. Many of the homes in Tobyhanna area in a large HOA development called PCP (Pocono Country Place). Deserving or not, this development has gained a very bad reputation for crime and gang activity which drove down prices. The influx of NY commuters has also brought with it increasing gang activity to the Poconos. I lived in the neighboring town, sharing a school district for 19 years and left a few years back. I buy my investment properties in the next county down.
I would shy away from Pocono Country Place 100%, and most of everything in the Pocono Mountain West school district. PCP has long been a haven for gang activity from NY/NJ area, and it reflects in the prices. And the gangs are also in the school district system. I know familis that have lived there for over a decade move 10 mins away to Pocono Mountain East or Pleasant Valley school districts just so their kids don't have to attend that school. A lot of the people that move from NY to the Poconos move for the cheap home prices and the safer communities, but this area is where a lot of the bad seeds that moved seem to congregate. I have a friend that works law enforcement in this area and the stories I hear are disturbing.
- Wake Forest, NC · Member since 2017 · 1 post · 0 votes9y
I lived in that area for 6 years - including 1 year renting in tobyhanna. Most of these posts are. Or helping you. Believe me, the area is awful and has nowhere to go but down. Crime, gangs - its ALL true. there are comparably cheap homes in other areas- but I don't think you should treat the Poconos as an investment - I can all but guarantee you'll lose. This may sound bitter - but not many people seems to be giving you a helpful answer.
If your interested in making "investments" without knowing the area - your money is better in the bank.
Join the conversationCreate a free account to reply, vote on answers and follow this thread.