Another important article just came out about tax credits in Camden — this one by Catherine Dunn highlighting how few Camden residents received construction jobs as part of the program in Camden. It’s well worth a read (and, for those that don’t click through, the number is 27. Only 27 Camden residents were hired for construction jobs). This is good and important work, and I think the first step to improving policy in Jersey cities is to really do a deep dive into the results of the existing program, and the whether the logic behind it holds up to scrutiny.
It seems the state is finally catching up to what we’ve been discussing here for years: tax subsidies are, generally, a blunt and ineffective tool for community development (if a politically convenient one). The literature, in general, makes the case that building infrastructure — essentially making the city the type of city people want to live in — is far more effective in the long-term than these strategies. Getting to the point where we can talk about that is important.
But it’s a first step. It doesn’t necessarily address what comes next. And I’ve been thinking (and reading, and researching, and sometimes even organizing) around that issue quite a bit.
Because Camden is complicated. It’s a start to say this is what generally happens. It’s another thing to interpret that literature and data through the lens of Camden’s specific challenges.
Consider it the other direction. I have a rule in my policy conversations (debates?) that I always call out folks who use New York City as their example of what works. Because NYC is dramatically different than virtually any other city in the United States. It has a different financial underpinning. A different history. A different political situation. It’s very hard to make a wider case using New York.
And, of course, we can ask similar questions about Camden. Do we expect the wider literature to directly apply?
This isn’t to defend the current policy — I’ve been clear since the beginning that the theory of change behind the Economic Opportunity Act was fundamentally flawed. And it’s not to criticize those who are adding evidence to the debate, which is refreshing and much needed. It’s just to say that specifically applying that evidence to Camden is perilous, ought be done humbly.
That’s where the intellectual policy work starts — with an understanding of the evidence, and the knowledge that Camden’s particular challenges means adapting those evidence and strategies so that they’re tailored to this particular context.
Share it!
