$362 million in tax revenue is a lot of money by any measure.
But to a resident of the tax revenue-starved city of Camden—the poorest city in New Jersey, ravaged by crime and drug trafficking, where the per capita income is just over $13,600, abandoned housing is ubiquitous, most roads resemble potholed washboards, and educational under-achievement is rampant—that money is a measure of the contrasting quality of life enjoyed in the proximate suburbs. A recent decision in Norcross v. Murphy has laid bare serious problems in the award and administration of tax incentives relative to Camden.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
