We’ve had a robust discussion about development here in Camden over the past few weeks. Kadeem Pratt, a Camden resident and one of my students, submitted this guest post to continue the discussion: 

A number of scholars have recently suggested that redevelopment is dividing the city of Camden – byway of gentrification and developmental racism. It has become common today to dismiss the fact the city of Camden needs investment and redevelopment. In recent blog post Rasheda Weaver and Gayle Christiansen, offered heavy emotionally charged critiques of how Camden should be developed – along with the lack of benefits offered to residents of the city. 

 

Scholars today tend to believe that a community needs can be understood by analyzing white papers, without actually interacting with the community at large. Conventional wisdom has it that gentrification happens as result of corporate expansion through real estate development. A process known all too well to effect many urban communities. Common sense seems to dictate that when parcels are rehabbed neighboring property values increase.

My whole life I heard it say that CMD means “Crime, Murder, and Drugs” as a lifetime resident I almost believed that theory. You would think that a city that has endured decades of disinvestment, non-existent voter turnout, and very little negotiating power will be a national model of how to turn around a failing local economy and government after attracting over one-billion dollars in investments from Holtec, Subaru , Liberty Trust Property .

Although I should know better by now, I cannot help but to think that corporate investment is what Camden needs for the phase it’s at now. At the same time I know these very investments may gentrify neighborhoods and whole communities. However, I believe that Rasheda or Gayle must look at the big picture such as: 1) integration amongst old and new residents; 2) a new public image for Camden; 3) the moral impact of the youth who gain to benefit from young professionals such as their selves coming to the city.

In discussions of Waterfront development and Cooper Grant development, one controversial issue that remains at the core is who Camden is being built for? On the one hand, Camden is thriving but not its residents argues Rasheda. One the other hand the vision that many developers have does not fit in with the reality at hand contends Gayle while many maintain Camden is becoming divided into a middle SES class and a working SES class.

My own view is that all of these factors are at work –investment; gentrification; development; job creation etc. Although, many residents may not benefit monetarily from development but may benefit morally from development. Moral of the story is development must happen.

However to aid the process everyone must step outside the stereotypes of Camden; the “R” bubble; and of anti-development in Camden – and began to push an agenda focused on connecting communities such as Bergen Square, Lanning Square, Parkside, East Camden, Cramer Hill etc.

Although I agree with Gayle and Rasheda up to a point, I cannot completely accept their overall conclusion that development happening now is racist and unsustainable. I believe that Rasheda and I can agree that as a result of development – the positives that result are new grade schools, new residential housing, and office space – which will likely have an impact in the fight for new infrastructure. 

This article is in fact addressing the gains that Camden residents my benefit from byway of much needed investment and development. The upshot of all this, is that development must happen in Camden to bring about a New Camden that will include existing and new residents who stand the chance to gain socially, economically, culturally, and academically. But we must first approach this with an optimistic view and develop strategies on how cooperation’s can be a good neighbor.