Excited to be back for the blog as the semester starts to gear up; and especially because I’ll be starting my PhD program at Rutgers and need all of the writing practice I can get! Some of the topics I’m going to discuss may seem a little dated, but I haven’t read much past the usual articles from the Courier Post or the Inquirer, so it doesn’t feel like I’m beating a dead horse.
One of the topics I’ve flagged for future discourse is about the devaluation of Liberty Property Trust’s waterfront development. About a month ago, the developer announced a setback to the tune of $26 million after certain users decided not to proceed with their projects (as originally expected) which includes the new headquarters for American Water, office and apartment space, and a hotel. Citing both a decreased market demand in waterfront real estate and “the possible demise of tax breaks that have lured firms to Camden,” Liberty Property Trust is now still hoping to develop over 500,000 square feet of waterfront commercial space.
There’s something that needs to be said after this announcement given the countless perspectives I’ve heard these past two years regarding the increased economic development in Camden: poorly written and poorly implemented policies will only produce poor results. The fact that the tax credits the Economic Opportunity Act (EOA) afforded these firms were even mentioned as a possible reason for the devaluation immediately diminishes my trust in legislators that sponsored the EOA. I qualify this, of course, in also realizing that the incentive programs are still only halfway effective at the most – many of the incentives have at least a ten-year lifespan – and their impact still has a chance to swing up. Still, the Legislature and Economic Development Authority need review how to truly fortify economic environments and not just boast about big investments residents will never see or large buildings developers may never fill.
I’ve expressed support for the Development Subsidy Job Goals Accountability Act (P.L. 2007, c. 200) that would incorporate components of accountability and metrics to increase benefits to residents who see increased development in their communities as a result of economic development (policies). Aside from needing a shorter name, this policy needs to be enforced by the Economic Development Authority and I plan on advocating for it with our local and state legislators and administrators.
Another point of contention that came up during my summer was one that I actually took directly to Jim Walsh, a reporter with the Courier Post. Earlier in July, there was talk of increasing traffic flow and reducing jaywalking on Cooper Street between Haddon and Delaware Avenues by installing a fence down the middle of the corridor. I would read the article to draw your own conclusions first, but I’m also going to share my conversation with Jim (who wrote the article) and would love to hear other views about this:
JARED: Morning Jim,
I just read your article about the Cooper Street jaywalking barrier that will be constructed by the city and had a few questions; if you’re not able to answer all of them I will be sure to reach out to Vince Basara as well for more information.
- Have there been any plans drawn up and presented to the city’s zoning/planning board?
- Why is there an explicit emphasis in the wording of “stopping pedestrians in their tracks” or thwarting “the many jaywalkers who dart, weave and saunter…” and “pedestrians blazing their own path”? These terms sound slightly derogatory/condescending toward those who simply might not be able to afford vehicles.
- Can you provide some context on Joe Myers’ comment about helping people travel “to rapidly developing Waterfront area, but they’re not directly related to growth there…”? This didn’t fully make sense to me, but it sounded more like a comment directed for people outside of the city to benefit from development, and not those who live in Camden.
Again, I’d be happy to reach out to Joe and/or Vince but wanted to touch base with you first since this has your name and email address readily available.
Thanks so much!
JIM: Thanks for writing.
1 – To my knowledge, no plans have been submitted to any city boards.
2 – I chose to put the emphasis on pedestrians, as I felt the project would have a significant impact there.
Many people ignore crosswalks downtown (I’m one of them), and this will bring a big change.
Also, people who drive downtown (I’m one of them, too) must regularly watch out for pedestrians in the roadway. This will affect them, too.
Finally, the visual element of a fence running down a busy street is just more striking to me than synchronized traffic lights. So that’s how I chose to present the story.
(As an aside, I agree the level of car ownership affects the number of pedestrians in Camden. But I think people jaywalk for the sake of convenience, and not due to their economic situation. And I think some would argue a higher level of foot traffic reflects a greater need to keep that group safe.)
3 – I’ve reworded that sentence to (hopefully) make it more clear. I basically was trying to say that the new traffic pattern will help with traffic flow to and from the Waterfront, but that the planning process predated the projects currently under construction. Thanks for calling that to my attention.
Jim Walsh
As I start my PhD in Public Affairs (with my background in public administration, community development, and public policy) I’m excited to analyze issues in Camden and across New Jersey, and to discuss real strategies to address these problems with folks passionate about finding them. I’m excited to focus much more on strategy/solution-oriented posts that analyze issues, but also provide options for folks to think more critically about what direction Camden could be moving in, if more voices and perspectives are brought to the table. So if you see me around campus or anywhere else in the city, please feel free to reach out and let’s talk about how we can raise up people and not just buildings!
Share it!
Thoughts (read aloud in your best Andy Rooney voice):
– The lost street parking, as a percentage of total street parking in the neighborhood, represents only a share of available parking (5th street, Pearl Street, 3rd street, penn street, the square surrounding Johnson park…).
– The neighborhood is dominated by institutions (Rutgers, CCC, LEAP, the Federal Justice Complex) that feature parking amenities. If you were a patron of Cooper Street prior to the removal of parking, you most likely still have a wide array of parking options available, albeit slightly less convenient.
– Waterfront is by it’s very nature problematic for auto access (you start of with 180 degrees less in the way of access and egress vectors). While we hope for a future less dominated by auto transport, to serve a developing waterfront you need a more effective artery.
– Why are we sensitive to critiques of jaywalkers? They come in all shapes, classes, and colors, and they’re breaking the rules. I agree with Walsh’s thesis that jaywalking occurs as a matter of convenience, rather than the disparate impact of car ownership. I’ve seen Rutgers frat bros jaywalk, I’ve seen LEAP parents jaywalk, I’ve seen indigent addicts jaywalk. The suggestion that Walsh’s descriptions carry some implicit class or racial bias is a stretch, and it smacks of the sort of overly-PC outrage culture that keeps Jordan Peterson in high-end tweed suits. My relationship with serenity wobbles when confronted with jaywalking, it is among my biggest pet peeves. Passive measures intended to discourage the practice seem to be a low impact and above all non-discriminatory approach. A fence doesn’t know what color your skin is or how much money is in your wallet.
– The emphasis on the parking spots that are being lost overshadows the rest of the project: the rebuild of Elm, Vine, Main, and Point streets. These streets currently feature actual cobblestones. “Fix the streets” is a universal resident complaint. Process matters. I would be crazy and foolish to say otherwise. There are legit process questions at work here, questions of jurisdiction, governance, authority, and transparency. There is also a certain amount of suggestion and innuendo that crops up in the furor over lost parking.
– To whit: your last question. I didn’t see the original phrasing, and Walsh’s correction seems pretty clear in meaning…but I take issue with the accusation: “it sounded more like a comment directed for people outside of the city to benefit from development, and not those who live in Camden.” That’s a heavy charge to level. You presuppose the project’s disregard for resident benefit without evidence, conveniently omitting the associated North Camden street repairs. This is a personal bias, it does not represent the academic or journalistic standard to which I believe you aspire. Again, there are legitimate disagreements to be had between people of good will over the process that effects waterfront development. I don’t suggest that ends justify means, but what I see here is a narrow critique of means paired with an incomplete account of ends. They don’t justify, they don’t negate, they exist together and must be assessed together in whole.