DN Editorial: Why Philly should care about Camden

WITH NEARLY HALF of its police force and 70 firefighters laid off, Camden is in crisis . . . again.

Who cares? That is, who should care? Should Philadelphians keep our attention on our own not inconsiderable problems, or is it in our own interest to keep a wary eye on what happens across the river?

It could be argued that our attention shouldn't cross state lines, and this beleagured city has little impact on our own. Besides, the juxtaposition of "Camden" and "crisis" is hardly new; a Nexis search using just those terms brought up over 1,000 references in 17 years - roughly one a week. And that's just from the Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News.

This latest crisis was prompted by Gov. Christie's cut to the aid the state of New Jersey sends Camden. Last week, Mayor Dana Redd laid off police, firefighters and municipal workers to fill a $26 million deficit. And so the city that already ranks the poorest and most crime-ridden in the country descended even lower.

We should of course care about our near neighbor. But we should also ask if Camden's woes are a precursor to harder times for other cities like ours. Especially since, in some ways, Camden is a junior version of Philadelphia - an old industrial city with a host of urban ills.

In the ways that count, Philadelphia is in far better shape: our poverty rate is offset by a fairly healthy middle class and a healthy property-tax base. Camden has neither. Over half its residents are living in poverty. Jobs are scarce, property values low, and things aren't helped by a high preponderance of nonprofits which don't pay taxes.

The kind of economic ills that have beset Camden are not "catching"; that is, they are not likely to swim across the Delaware and start infecting Philadelphia. But that's not to say we shouldn't pay attention.

For one thing, Camden is part of the Philadelphia regional market. And markets don't recognize state borders. A weak or failing part of the region does no favors to the region as a whole.

Secondly, Camden is suffering in extremis, but every city in the country is having hard times. Tax revenues have dipped in recent years, the cost of municipal salaries and pensions are becoming unsupportable and yet demand for services is growing. Cities and metro regions are economic engines, but also struggle with complicated systemic problems.

Bottom line: we all have a stake in helping Camden solve its problems. And some of those solutions may be radical. For example, Camden County officials proposed recently to create a regional police and fire force. Towns and counties sharing municipal services is a promising idea. Why should every municipal entity have expensive services of their own when shared or consolidated services could save money?

In fact, last month, Drexel University professor Richardson Dilworth made the radical proposal that Philadelphia become part of New Jersey, annexing not only Camden but its richer suburban neighbors. The bottom line: like a corporate merger, both cities could consolidate services, eliminate waste and save money.

No one is about to redraw Philadelphia's boundaries, but Camden's troubles and the ripple effect they could have on us all will force us to redraw the boundaries of how we define and govern our cities - and the priority we give to solving their problems. Decades ago, cities were considered expensive snakepits whose problems should be ignored (see: "FORD TO CITY: DROP DEAD"). At least now we realize that the health of the country is tied to the health of its cities. That's why we should all worry about the fate of Camden.