According to the article Christie was unable to take over the schools in Camden, and took over the police force in 2013. Blaming him for not fixing the problems of Camden in less than a year is a little silly.
Complaining that NJ didn't force Hoboken to subsidize Newark is silly - San Fransisco and Toronto didn't subsidize Camden either, but I don't see you blaming them.
In a single comment you've managed to deploy all the dismissive language anti-government folks use to derail meaningful discussion.
Complaining:
Pointing out problems isn't complaining.
Subsidize:
Investing and subsidizing aren't the same thing. When the arena was built in Newark I am sure some state help was involved, the end result has been an attraction that brings hockey fans to Newark who otherwise would have no reason to be there and patronize businesses.
I am not sure where SF and Toronto factor into what goes on in NJ.
Blaming:
You mean as opposed to the poor citizens taking responsibility and rebuilding the city?
"...derail meaningful discussion..." Oh. Who's being dismissive, Kay?
You refuse to address the parent's arguments on their own terms, purposefully reading them in as obdurate a manner as possible, completely failing to engage them, and then blame the parent's "dismissive language". They are meaningful discussion.
My mistake, the original article suggested Christie could not take control:
But a big reason that Christie hit Camden's police unions so hard was simply that he could. He'd wanted to go after New Jersey urban schools...But a series of state Supreme Court rulings...
Complaining that NJ didn't force Hoboken to subsidize Newark is silly - San Fransisco and Toronto didn't subsidize Camden either, but I don't see you blaming them.