I’ve been watching the reporting (particularly the Inky’s Michael Boren, who is doing a fantastic job) around the Pennsauken debate over becoming a part of the county-run police force. I’m finding the process fascinating, especially since there is such a direct comparison with what happened in Camden City and because the city is the only municipality to have already adopted the county-run model. On one hand, this process is a test of one of the primary narratives in Camden — that residents have less influence over political decisions because of the financial deficit faced by the city. On the other hand, the suburbs have significant stigma and are wary of being affiliated with Camden. 

Standing room only at Pennsauken committee meeting as officers and families appear to oppose county-run police force

— Michael Boren (@borenmc) May 20, 2015

Camden County is trying to convince Pennsauken officials to dissolve their police force in favor of county-run police force (like Camden's)

— Michael Boren (@borenmc) May 20, 2015

The case for a county-run police force in Pennsauken is being made by the county, who paid for a consultant to produce a report on the topic. The primary argument for such a switch should be familiar to Camden residents: it’s money. $30 million over 5 years, according to Michael Boren. But Boren also calls the change to the force a “hard sell.” Again, the reasons should be familiar to Camden City residents: 

“Heck no,” said Chesilhurst Police Chief Wendell Smith, who said he was surprised any town had expressed interest.

“You want to keep your own identity,” Smith said. The six officers in Chesilhurst, which has 1,600 residents, are on a first-name basis with the community, and one officer volunteers to help children with homework, Smith said. In Oaklyn, Mayor Bob Forbes said some officers coached youth sports.

Both are connections with residents Forbes and Smith said they didn’t want police to lose.

The article includes skeptical quotes from Cherry Hill, Pennsauken, Oaklyn and other towns. Boren also cites a “troubled” shared-services agreement between Woodlynne and Collingswood. 

The first, and most natural question to ask, is why are these values (shared by Camden residents) enough to stop (or, at least, slow) this transition at the municipal-level, but not enough to do so in Camden city? 

My guess, as I hinted above, is that this comes back to desperation and finances. The decision to move to a county-run force pitted the desire for local institutions against the municipality’s finances. It’s an ugly choice, and one that better financed cities do not have to face. 

But there’s a second layer to the Pennsauken choice, which wasn’t present in Camden, and that’s anti-Camden bias. Indeed, the same desire for local institutions and “home rule” is part of the wider system that’s led to Camden being a depository for things (and, heartbreakingly, people) that the suburbs do not want. From prisons to affordable housing, drug addiction to poverty, it’s historically been easier to send problems to Camden that to embrace finding solutions in suburban communities. Despite the horrifying history of housing discrimination and other forms of segregation, much of South Jersey still looks down upon Camden. That type of anti-Camden sentiment is simmering beneath the surface of this debate. Here’s an example from Michael Boren’s twitter feed during a meeting in Pennsauken, NJ:

One Pennsauken cop, who's also son of councilman: "Have a little pride in your police department and send Metro back to Camden." Applause

— Michael Boren (@borenmc) May 20, 2015

And this is why the Pennsauken decision has me glued to my twitter feed. It’s potentially an intersection of something I see everyday in Camden, residents and activists proud of their local institutions and interesting in maintaining them, with something darker — anti-Camden South Jersey sentiment. 

Tags: metro police, pennsauken police