The Political Future of Cities: Camden, New Jersey and the Municipal Rehabilitation and Economic Recovery Act of 2002

Abstract

Since the mid-20th century demographic and economic changes have left older post-industrial American cities located amidst fragmented metropolitan areas and has resulted in the loss of political power accompanied by loss of economic wealth. This has left urban centers in the Northeast and Midwest United States in various states of decline. Located within the sixth largest metropolitan area in the country, the City of Camden, New Jersey is one of America's most distressed cities. During the longest period of decline and de-industrialization in the 1960s and 1970s, Camden lost nearly half of its industrial job base, more than other de-industrializing American cities and over one-third of its population. Currently, Camden's circumstances related to concentrated poverty, unemployment, failing schools and a crumbling infrastructure typify the worst consequences of urban decline. The Municipal Rehabilitation and Economic Recovery Act ("Camden Recovery Act") passed in 2002 was state-level legislation designed to intervene in Camden's municipal operations and re-structure economic development in the city in a way not seen since the Great Depression. Through the Camden Recovery Act, New Jersey's state government pumped tens of millions of dollars in additional spending into Camden for the purpose of re-positioning the city in the region through large-scale comprehensive redevelopment plans. In the process they took over virtually the entire decision-making apparatus and excluded Camden's municipal government from all but basic day-to-day governing decisions. Largely, the approach was in response to the various agendas and interests that influenced the Recovery Act: state legislators with regional agendas, county public officials seeking to bring more public investment to the city, and institutions in Camden working to revitalize the city. The politics of economic recovery in Camden lends to the discussion around the political future of older postindustrial cities in several ways. Primarily it illustrates political solutions to urban decline found at the state level with the support of a regional political coalition of urban and suburban lawmakers. Indeed, as the national economy in the United States has worsened in recent years, the fiscal health of cities has brought a renewed focus on the relationship between state and local governments. The case of Camden makes several points of comparison with state takeovers in similarly sized and situated cities. Critics of state takeovers point out that they are unconstitutional and call into question the imposition of state-appointed managers to take over control from democratically elected public officials, while proponents say it is the only way to get local government's fiscal house in order. However similar, Camden's takeover was more comprehensive than recent municipal bankruptcies and its redevelopment plans underscore the challenges faced in urban revitalization between the goals of efficiency and the values of democratic accountability.