A Plan to Conserve and Support a Camden Asset

The Current Situation

The Central Waterfront District Redevelopment Plan recently approved by the Planning Board threatens the vitality and long-term prospects for one of the City’s most significant job-producing engines. The current “redevelopment” proposal suggests placing residential and mixed-use development next to the current industrial area, while rezoning the heart of that industrial/port area to permit further such development. This action can only have a negative impact and destroy the job-producing Port District over time. This plan uses the wrong approach and the wrong reasons to tackle the wrong “problem”.

The Port District is more than just the Central Waterfront and Southern Waterfront areas as defined by City Planning – it is a geographic and economic entity that affects the surrounding neighborhoods and that shapes the economic fabric of Camden. The Port District may be an area in need of redevelopment, but not in the way that the City envisions. The City redevelopment problem statement that the Port District is a languishing, deteriorating, or under-utilized area is wrong.

Indeed, it is just the opposite – the Port District is a vital and thriving economic engine in the heart of Camden, providing jobs, ratables, tax revenues, and economic opportunity to a City much in need of these assets. Recent research and studies show that there are 168 businesses in the immediate Port District and that some 385 businesses across the City are directly involved with Port District activities. Approximately 2,400 jobs are located in the Port District – one job in six in the private sector. These 2,400 jobs generate $97 million in local income each year.

These 2,400 jobs have an average salary of $39,000. This Port District income figure is OVER 50% GREATER than the Median Family Income figure for the City. The graph below compares five Port District jobs and their wages (from the New Jersey Department of Labor Market Information Wage Survey) with five representative jobs from the broader economy.

In addition, Camden Port District jobs generate 20,775 jobs in the region, and these jobs in turn create $202.7 million in regional income. Also, the Port District generates an estimated $12 million in state and local tax revenue.

The Port District has over $250,000,000 in capital investment among its businesses. This includes recent investment of over $65 million by St. Lawrence Cement, and the construction of a $5.0 million refrigerated warehouse by Del Monte in addition to the earlier $21 million facility investment. Georgia-Pacific has spent over $14 million in renovations and upgrades to its facilities in recent years, and State Metals has recently made capital investments in its business at a cost of approximately $2 million. Comarco, a Port District business, spent approximately $2.5 million for expansion several years ago, and the Camden International Commodity Terminal invested $1 million in 2003 to acquire additional warehouse space, rather than lease it. The South Jersey Port Corporation itself has constructed over $40 million in new buildings in the past decade, spent $30 million for a new pier, and is acquiring a new $8 million crane to improve pier-side operations this year.

The outlook for the Port, and the Port District, is excellent. In addition to setting new records for tonnage handled and ship-days in port, the volume of cargo handled by the port last year moved it from 75th largest to 72nd largest volume in the United States. A record year is anticipated for 2005, and information from a US Army Corps of Engineers study indicates that more records are likely. That study projects that the volume of imports through the Camden Port will almost double over the next twenty-five years.

This ever-increasing volume means more jobs and more business activity for the Port District and for Camden.

Finally, it should be noted that even the Division of Planning redevelopment study itself highlights the fact that the industrial part of the Port District is far from moribund. Only 8 of 252 (3.2%) industrial properties are vacant according to the study, while 46 of 206 (22.3%) of residential properties in the Port District are vacant. None of the 37 industrial buildings is listed as being in “Poor” condition. This is in contrast to the 34 of 206 (16.5%) residential structures that are in “Poor” condition. In short, the industrial properties may not be pretty, but they are viable, in use, and are productive.
The Wrong Approach

The encroachment or intrusion of unbuffered residential development next to the Port district and re-zoning the heart of the District to permit non-industrial uses sends the wrong message to Port District businesses, to their customers, and to potential Camden investors. Creating incompatible or conflicting uses in close proximity invites problems, and will likely lead to movement to restrict business hours, limit and confine traffic flows and otherwise regulate business operations. In this atmosphere, firms will not seek to expand, but will take their jobs and investment and go elsewhere. Those firms that do stay will find that they are not able to attract support services or related operations to the Port District because of zoning and cost issues. Indeed, the latter issues will preclude such firms from expanding, as property will not be zoned correctly for their uses or be prohibitively priced for industrial uses.

At the same time, firms that rely directly upon port activity will find their positions undermined by this action. International companies watch encroachment and land conversion closely in evaluating potential shipping destinations and facility locations. Any hint of interruption or limitation of port or business activities will lead international shippers to seek other destinations or operating locations. Stability and dependability are essential in the shipping business and other ports, such as Philadelphia, Baltimore, or Charleston, SC, will seize upon any rumor of change or limitation to obtain Camden’s traffic.

Moreover, there is adequate space elsewhere in Camden to locate riverfront residential development, locations that make more sense from a market perspective and which do not destroy jobs. For example, north of the Ben Franklin Bridge, there are acres of untapped space that offer excellent waterfront access and views and fewer impediments to development than the Port District. The space there is flat, easily accessible, borders on some existing neighborhoods, and is complimentary and compatible with the plans being put forward for development in Pennsauken and on Petty’s Island.

Thus, the “problem” is not that the Port District is dragging Camden down and standing in the way of development, revitalization, and prosperity, requiring a transformation that includes market rate housing and commercial development. Permitting residential and commercial/retail development in the Port District will only serve to undermine this valuable asset and stifle the economic vitality of the Port District. Moreover, non-industrial development clouds the Port District’s future, dampens investment prospects, and creates conflicts and problems by placing incompatible uses in close proximity. Excellent and adequate alternative locations for this residential and mixed-use development exist elsewhere in Camden.

In short, an irreplaceable and thriving economic engine in the heart of Camden will be strangled for the uncertain promise of residential development that will not generate even the current level of jobs and economic opportunity for the City’s residents.


An Uncommon Response to A Familiar Problem
Camden is not alone in facing a challenge to maintaining its Port District. Many other deep-water ports in the United States are facing “condo creep” in which typically high-end residential development and open space uses are gradually absorbing de-industrialized pier, warehouse, and factory areas. Long denied access to the waterfront, well-to-do riverfront condo owners have clamored for, and gotten, parks, walkways, and riverfront condominiums, offices, and shopping. The situation has not been unique to the older cities of the Northeast – it has occurred in the South, on the West Coast, and in the Great Lakes as well.

However, the redevelopment plan now proposed by the City is an uncommon response to this situation. In the last decade, many waterfront districts have slowly started to re-industrialize, as has occurred in Camden, and the value, indeed, necessity of, deep-water ports and industrial land has been recognized. Many port cities have faced the challenge of losing their port/industrial areas and are now protecting, even expanding their port districts and industrial land bases – not consolidating or eliminating them. A few cases in point:

Baltimore – conducted a land use study that recommended the preservation of the deep-water port areas of the city and the industrial space required for port-related users. Indeed, the study identified the need for 412 acres of land for industrial and port-related uses by 2011. The city has seen a steady demand for port and port-industrial space for jobs being pushed out of the New York – New Jersey market.

Baltimore is fortunate in that many of the areas of contact between port-industrial (blue, grey, and pink), park (green), and residential (red) areas are naturally buffered by bands of lighter industrial and warehouse uses.

Brooklyn – while designating many waterfront areas for residential and park uses, the Planning Commission has retained the industrial/maritime zoning for much of the Brooklyn Waterfront and recommended significant investment in industrial and maritime redevelopment/development projects. Note the significant industrial area (beige) that is the former Navy Yard and how it is integrated into the Greenway program.

Charleston, SC – despite a now landlocked port area, the city and State invested millions in dredging operations for the current port and are committed to spending $500 million for a new port-industrial area complex.

Tacoma, WA – the city is adding new berthing and piers within sight of its extensive downtown redevelopment effort, creating buffer zones and transitional zoning at points of contact between the two uses.

Philadelphia – the city is studying which waterfront districts to preserve for industrial and maritime uses as it proceeds to implement a waterfront redevelopment plan. The city is assessing how much industrial land it will need and in which locations it should reserve land for industrial uses. The map below shows the degree of detail the Philadelphia Planning Commission employed in analyzing industrial and port/port-related land uses. Green areas are transportation activities, red are wholesale, and manufacturing areas are blue in this map.

These are but a few examples of cases in which waterfront redevelopment is proceeding and residential, park, entertainment, and commercial projects are giving the public access to waterfront areas. Each of these plans, however, acknowledges the importance of both port and industrial operations and makes provision for these vital, job creating, economic activities.

Contrary to the plan now under review, it is the Alliance’s position that the City should focus on industrial development, job creation, and industrial land use in the Camden Port District that will benefit the City, not harm it.

A PLAN TO PRESERVE AND SUPPORT THE ECONOMIC VITALITY OF THE CAMDEN PORT DISTRICT

The Alliance does not have any objection to, or comment on the C-C Center City Flexible Development zoning that applies to the area between Martin Luther King Boulevard and Clinton Street, to the north of the current industrial area. This use is in place and does not conflict with industrial uses as now configured.

Recommendation #1 - Leave the current I-2 zoning in place for the area defined in the Division of Planning Redevelopment Study and Plan. Do not change the zoning for the area between Second Street/Locust Street and Third Street to R-2, Residential, as proposed. The map below shows the area, the Industrial zone indicated in purple.

Source: Division of Planning Study

The I-2 designation permits the types of activities that are inherent to the Port District at this time - that is, heavy manufacturing, the handling of goods, warehousing, transportation, foundry and forge work, and the types of repair and support operations (trucking yards) necessary for port and industrial operations.

However, despite this zoning, there are some residential structures and some commercial uses in this part of the Port District, based upon historic uses. The residential uses are in the blocks east of Locust and south of Line Street. Also, there are significant numbers of vacant lots and vacant residential structures. These latter uses (or lack of use) evolved as structures were abandoned, burned, or demolished over time. Again, these vacant lands are in the blocks between Locust and Third. The following map shows these aspects of use.

This map shows vacant properties in black and single family residential uses in yellow. Those familiar with the Port District will recognize that the large purple areas in the southern portion of the District are industrial sites. Many of the residential structures in the Port District are not occupied and some of the occupied residential structures are in dilapidated condition. Some of the vacant lots, such as shown below at Spruce and Pine, appear ready for redevelopment.

Proper buffering requires creative use of vacant lots between Second and Third Streets.

Recommendation # 2 – Using the powers of the Redevelopment Authority, relocate the occupied residential properties, north of Kaighn between Locust and Third, making these sites available for industrial redevelopment. The area between Line Street and Kaighn Avenue in particular should be targeted for industrial development. As noted in testimony before the Planning Board, the Port District suffers from a shortage of storage space, and the volume of goods arriving in the port is only expected to increase. Thus, there is an identified demand for warehouse and storage space that could be constructed on these sites. Also, a developer could construct flex space structures on these sites, targeting wholesale operations, light assembly, and special trades contractors, each of whom requires high ceilings, loading docks, parking space, and/or outside storage space. Such operations typically also prefer good highway access, which the Port District offers, and do not wish to be located in or near residential areas, an attribute this area provides. Thus, without using any more land than already zoned, the City could provide space for expanded port and industrial land uses.

Further, this action will make the land uses in the Port District consistent with the zoning of the area and eliminate potential conflicts between residential and industrial uses. In addition, this will improve public safety by eliminating the dangers created by on street parking and children playing in an industrial zone. The historic residential area between Kaighn and Atlantic is subject to local redevelopment efforts and the residents there are aware of the nature of living near an industrial area.

The commercial uses already existing in the Port District should be left in place as they represent on-going businesses (and jobs), some of which provide goods and services to port industrial companies

The plan takes into consideration the presence of the historic Macedonia Church located in close proximity to the targeted buffer area. It is critical for the business community, the existing residential community (many of whom work in the Port District), and the City to structure a compatible land use scenario designed to meet the needs of all parties concerned in a way that creates opportunity, and preserves and enhances quality of life.

A number of specific recommendations serve to flesh out the broader construct.

Recommendation # 3 – Close off the east-west streets entering the Port District between Line and Kaighn. Many of these streets are narrow, one-way roadways. Closing them will serve to direct truck traffic into the Port District through key, designated arteries, reducing or eliminating this traffic from the residential streets to the east of the area. At the same time, this closure will preclude children, joggers and others from casually entering this high traffic and work-oriented area.

Recommendation # 4 – Widen Locust Street between Pine and Kaighn. Widening Locust Street to make it more viable for truck traffic and use the area between Third and Locust, without the cross streets for industrial development. Since Locust to Third is approximately 500 feet and Locust to Line is approximately 1,750 feet. There are about 20 acres in that tract, if it is all used. Even with a reasonable setback from Third Street there would be significant space for development “turning its back” on Third Street. A fence with trees or hedges inside the fence would provide security on the Third Street side of the tract. Alternatively, this coverage could be located atop a mound that would block sight and sound per the City Master Plan (Section VI-page 20). Outdoor storage, parking, or truck maneuver space would then come before the building. This buffering would accommodate the existing PSE&G operations on Second Street and not call for any new access across the Second to Locust block.

Recommendation # 5 – To the extent possible, channel development on the west side of Third Avenue toward retail, commercial, open space, or parking uses. Using this tactic will limit the number of residents in the redeveloped Lanning Square and Bergen Square areas who will directly face the sight, noise, and light from the Port District operations. Retail outlets, restaurants, personal service establishments with office space on the second floor could be interspersed with parking for these facilities and small parks to provide a buffer without creating a closed-in look to Third Street. This type of development will also benefit the existing redevelopment plans for the neighborhood along Third Street and Kaighn Avenue. The map below indicates the areas recommended for the types of development described above.

This Plan Benefits All Parties
First and foremost, this plan saves 2,400 good paying jobs in the City of Camden. The businesses and workers operating in the Port District can plan for the future, knowing that they can continue to operate without inappropriate restriction or conflict.

Second, these firms can expand as they need or want in an area that is close to their current operations, and which is designated specifically for their heavy industrial uses. Investment and growth will not be clouded or limited by land use conflicts. Users of the port facilities can make long-range plans and assure customers that they are “here to stay”.

Third, Port District establishments can capitalize upon the growth opportunities that are forecast for them, and the City will have a “home” for new, relocating, or expanding industrial companies. Though no industrial land use survey has been conducted in Camden, there is some indication that port activity, requiring additional storage facilities, will continue to grow, and local businesses have been adding to their staffing and making capital investments, even during the recent recession.

This plan will reduce or eliminate the potential conflicts that can develop because of inappropriate and incompatible land uses. This plan will remove residential uses from an otherwise industrial area. Proper planning and buffering will separate the two uses to the extent possible, benefiting the quality of life of residents in the adjacent neighborhoods while improving public safety by limiting access to and residential use of the Port District.

Focusing riverfront residential development north of the Ben Franklin Bridge will integrate development of that area with existing development and planned residential growth along Camden’s northern border, with that of Pennsauken and specifically with the development of Petty’s Island. Residents will have access to the river and the scenic vistas without jeopardizing an irreplaceable port, a growing industrial center, and the family-sustaining jobs that go with them. Directing development to these areas will capitalize upon existing development trends, take advantage of existing park and entertainment venues, and make appropriate development use of currently inactive industrial areas and properties already under public control

The map below shows the riverfront census tracts and neighborhoods. A careful examination of these districts confirms the residential character and availability of development opportunities north of the Ben Franklin.

This Plan Builds Upon and Implements Existing Principles
The recommendations set forth above fully reflect the intent and goals of the City of Camden Master Plan (2003). The Executive Summary of that document states, “Industrial land use proposals are geared toward maintaining existing industrial businesses, providing development areas for urban industrial parks and capitalizing upon the Port of Camden as a potential generator of additional private industrial development activity”. These points are each specifically addressed in the recommendations made above.

Further, “Port related industrial uses are proposed to contain the Port of Camden shipping and cargo processing facilities along the Delaware River in the Central Waterfront and Waterfront South neighborhoods. Surplus and underutilized SJPC property in the proposed port related industrial land use district is recommended to be released for private redevelopment as industrial and port related business activities.” And, “Improving the port's infrastructure system and encouraging private industrial development on surplus port lands will expand jobs and business growth."

The Master Plan section on Achieving a Dynamic Economy recommends project activity for the Port District that specifically mentions:
1) Redevelop the port-related industrial zone south of Clinton and
generally west of Third with landscape buffers,
2) Develop new industrial sites to capitalize on port activities, and
3) Integrate port distribution with new industrial facilities ….

This plan also coordinates with the current plans for the Waterfront South area (part of the Port District) which also focuses on expanding the City’s economic base, creating jobs, and increasing tax revenues, while preserving port facilities, and providing industrial land for Camden businesses. This proposal sets forth these same objectives.
Finally, this plan calls for focusing riverfront residential development in areas that are feasible for development, are close to current and proposed residential and mixed-use development, and which can tie to larger scale regional riverfront plans – without threatening good paying jobs or the local economy.

The Waterfront Alliance to Save the Port District comprises businesses currently operating in the proposed redevelopment area, employees of port-related businesses, concerned citizens, residents, and others committed to maintaining a viable, working waterfront that contributes to Camden's economic revitalization.

Most of the business in the Alliance would be forced to either close or relocate if the plan now under consideration is adopted and ratified by City Council.

For more information, please call the Alliance representative,
Joanne Williams, at 215-569-8360.