Time for some Friday fun. Two of my biggest passions are cities and basketball — but rarely combine the two in this space. Last night, listening to 97.5 The Fanatic during the NBA draft, I started to make some connections across the two. It turns out, my biggest concern about the Sixers rebuilding project mirrors my biggest concern about the Camden rebuilding project. In both cases, I worry that we’re creating a climate that discourages players (or homegrown entrepreneurs, or local residents more generally) from wanting to invest here.

A little background first: 

Among NBA fans, the grand experiment being conducted by the 76ers is already infamous. Because the worst teams in the NBA get the highest draft picks (more or less), there are incentives to lose. The 76ers have taken this to an extreme, repeatedly drafted talented, but injured, players who cannot contribute in the short-term. This way, the team continues to lose and be able to grab more potential superstars at the top of the draft. This is, somewhat controversially, labeled “tanking.” I’m not sure the overlap of Camden wonks and NBA wonks — my sense is that it is not high — but there’s a lot more to it than this. The NBA is obsessed with an assets-based model, in which players are considered “assets” and teams are trying to acquire as many assets as possible in order to make trades. The Sixers are taking this model to the extreme, and in the course of doing so, may be alienating players.

At first glance, the grand economic experiment in Camden is quite a bit different. The state is subsidizing corporations to move to the city at a record pace — for the NBA fans, that probably looks more like free agency spending than “tanking” — but it holds some similarities.

One Camden politician explained the theory behind these major tax breaks as being about 30 years from now — the city couldn’t attract investment on the tax rolls now, but these corporations would eventually come on the tax rolls at once and the city would no longer have a deficit. In other words, the plan is to “give away” tax revenue now, so that more revenue comes down the line.

Camden is, essentially, the tanking of municipal finance. We can’t get enough revenue now, so we’ll give it away so that we can get more later.

So many of the big questions about the Sixers strategy hold true in Camden as well: how much do the small things matter? The Sixers seem happy to hire largely unheralded players, lose games, and even trade away players who do have promise, in an effort to find the superstar(s) to lead the team to a championship. The Camden redevelopment strategy seems to have the a similar obsession; seeing bigger projects as the key to revival, perhaps at the risk of smaller, local, entrepreneurs. 

Both strategies seem to worry less about a whole host of smaller variables, like having a “winning culture” or creating a climate friendly to players (or small businesses). Let me give some examples:

 – the Sixers are known for being calculated in their rebuilding process. They were willing to trade a rookie-of-the-year (Michael Carter-Williams) a year later for a draft pick. They sign their 2nd round picks to contracts that are very favorable to the team, and when KJ McDaniels refused (even when he later played well) he got traded for next to nothing. 

 – Combine that with losing. The grind of losing over 82 games is brutal, and it’s not clear it’s a good environment for young players to develop. Zach Lowe does a great job with the issue, addressing the issue of “losing habits” head on. But the Sixers roster continues to be built more as a collection of “assets” rather than a coherent team designed to win basketball games. It’s a tough place to play. 

Camden is undergoing a similar challenge about a different type of development. While the Economic Opportunity Act has been very successful in bringing large, new companies, there are rumblings that for local entrepreneurs, Camden is a tough place to play as well..

Part of that has to do with the way that the tax subsidies are structured — they provide subsidies largely for infrastructure development, which means you have to have the capital to build up front. Not a lot of small businesses do, so they’re locked out of these tax breaks. And part of the local frustration is because the city is not negotiating Community Benefits Agreements that ensure Camden residents get jobs at new corporations, or that new businesses support local business through their purchases. Without much leverage, residents are worried that these large corporations will have a largely suburban labor force and build “contained campuses” — essentially fortresses that prohibit dollars from “trickling” into the surrounding neighborhood.

And, finally, small businesses are worried that they are going to be crowded out, as big businesses take prime development spots throughout the city. 

For example, one of downtown Camden’s last remaining retail blocks is now slated for demolition to build the Joint Health Sciences Center (a Rutgers-Camden, Rowan and Cooper Medical School collaboration). Kevin Riordan does a great job laying out the situation and concerns: 

Half of downtown Camden’s last remaining retail block will be razed, and a three-month-old restaurant owned by a homegrown entrepreneur also will be demolished, if the latest redevelopment scheme for the city becomes a reality.

…

Johnson is right: Outside of the 200 block, hardly any retail establishments remain in downtown Camden, a former regional shopping hub now filled — after decades of grandiose plans for unrealized projects  — with vacant ground, parking lots, and institutions (many of which are off the tax rolls) of all kinds.

The restaurant in question is Newtown Kitchen and Lounge, which recently opened and is quickly gaining a reputation for being one of the best restaurants in town. What kind of message does it sent this “homegrown entrepreneur” that, if the restaurant’s block shows some life it becomes the site of development? Who is going to take a risk under those circumstances to improve a block or a neighborhood?

In short, I’m concerned that local entrepreneurs will get the same message about Camden that players are getting about the Sixers. Philly isn’t a good place to play. Camden isn’t a good place to invest. The the risks of being traded are too high, and the chances of being undermined by “big” development makes entrepreneurship too risky. I’m worried that in the rush to get the big things right, we’re ignoring the small things that makes an organization, and a city, thrive.