My colleague Dr. Andrew Seligsohn’s treatise on the strengths of a regional approach (i.e. Metro Police) to the drug issue in Camden sparked a bit of a discussion in the comments section (which I love to see). That discussion touched on one of the issues I find most critical in the discussion of current urban issues. Should we consider supporting or opposing individual aspects of policies, or should be consider them as packages? In other words, is supporting pieces of “detrimental” legislation a good idea, or allowing policy-makers to “sweeten a bitter pill?”
Here’s the comment from Nick Cvetkovic (remember: I have no way to confirm identities):
“While the entire industry is not contained in Camden County, moving from 37 municipal police forces to one county force would be an enormous step in the right direction.”
Dr. Seligsohn offers some real good insights on a theoretical level as far as the potential positive effects of regional policing is concerned.
However it needs to be pointed out the the current Camden County Metro Police doesn’t even cover all of Camden, self-admittedly. Based on current political realities the chances of even just the towns physically bordering Camden moving to true regional policing is essentially zero. True regional policing meaning that the officers on the street don’t just cover their own municipality as they do now and that they are controlled and dispatched centrally. There seems to not even be much of a movement toward any kind of country force even just involving a shuffling of administrative control with no changes in the actual policing.
The communities along the River Line are all in Burlington County and there seems to be little to no political will to move to a regional force there.
Nick refutes Dr. Seligsohn’s main point, essentially that regionalization is necessary to combat a drug problem that isn’t easily contained within Camden’s boundaries. He does so by arguing that the Metro Police (the new county force replacing Camden’s police force) is not a regional force and that there is no political will for a regional solution.
I want to circle this argument back to a more central thesis, the question of whether it is advisable to support a policy on the basis of limited components within it. Here, regionalization is a relatively small part of the move to a Metro force; the main argument is that it is cheaper (by getting out of union contracts), and that it is a fresh start (that the previous system was dysfunctional). Should support for a true regional solution impact the way you feel about this policy?
Dr. Seligsohn readily acknowledges that the Metro Police is not a true regional force, but he sees it as a step in the right direction. Nick likely sees talk of regionalization as a distraction from the real issues involved in the takeover.
There is a lot of resonance here with the recent education announcements. I’ve talked about it at length here, but if you believe that both a) school buildings need renovation and b) charter schools are problematic in Camden, then the policy of tying school building renovations to new Charter schools is quite smart politically. It is reasonable for residents to say, we need these renovations no matter what. That sentiment would fracture the coalition against Charters.
That leaves the discussion exactly where it begins. Should Camden residents support policies because of much needed aspects like school renovations that are addressed within them? Or should these policies be seen as a package, and opposed (or supported) based upon their main thrust?
Share it!
