John Foster emphasizes Council leadership and careful review. Susan Poage offers continuity with Mayor Devanney. George deLuna makes the clearest case for a different direction.
Disclosure: I am a candidate for Berkeley Heights Township Council. This article is my assessment of the candidates’ published positions.
Berkeley Heights has three candidates for mayor in the November 3, 2026 election: John Foster, Susan Poage, and George deLuna. What would each actually do with the job?
I have examined their four rounds of TAPinto candidate responses, along with deLuna’s published campaign website. My conclusion is that voters can identify meaningful differences in direction, but still need clearer commitments about spending, PILOTs, development, sewer infrastructure, and flooding.
Read the individual assessments:
- John Foster: Where Can Residents Find His Plan for Berkeley Heights?
- Susan Poage: What, Exactly, Is She Promising Berkeley Heights?
- George deLuna Offers a Different Direction for Berkeley Heights
How the Three Candidates Compare
Swipe or scroll across the table to read every column.
| Issue | John Foster | Susan Poage | George deLuna |
|---|---|---|---|
| Governing direction | Emphasizes Council experience, careful management, and review of proposals. | Explicitly offers continuity with Devanney and completion of work underway. | Challenges the current approach and offers leadership from outside the current Council. |
| Development | Supports thoughtful investment, planning, clearer permitting, and review of infrastructure impacts. | Supports managed growth, downtown activity, and coordination with business hubs. | States a preference for fewer new multifamily buildings and examination of alternatives. |
| PILOTs and schools | Accepts PILOTs as a possible tool, with financial and school-impact review; no definite school allocation in these answers. | Keeps PILOTs available and proposes BOE discussions; no definite required school allocation in these answers. | Also leaves PILOTs available, while advocating a school share comparable to regular property taxes. |
| Debt and spending | Calls for responsible budgeting without a specific borrowing limit in the questionnaire. | Supports grants and low-interest infrastructure financing without a stated borrowing limit. | Emphasizes savings and affordability without a detailed municipal borrowing policy. |
| Infrastructure | Recognizes infrastructure and flooding concerns; these answers lack a specific delivery program. | Gives sewer, drainage, roads, and infrastructure financing substantial attention; costs and completion commitments need more detail. | Website names drainage, paving, utility coordination, and tracking residents’ concerns; sewer and flood project plans need more detail. |
Experience and Continuity, or a Change in Direction?
Foster and Poage are current councilmembers. Their experience matters, and residents should examine what they have done with the authority they already hold.
Poage makes the continuity argument most explicitly. She presents herself as the person prepared to carry the Devanney administration’s work forward. Voters who favor that direction can identify what she is offering. They should still ask what she would finish, when, and at what cost.
Foster emphasizes his Council leadership, listening, and thoughtful decisions. His process proposals deserve acknowledgment. The unanswered question is what major choices would distinguish his administration from the government he already helps lead.
DeLuna offers the clearest stated break with the prevailing approach: fewer multifamily buildings, closer scrutiny of spending and development, and stronger attention to taxpayers and everyday services. His campaign website gives residents a central place to read those priorities. Turning that direction into completed work would still require specific proposals and Council support.
PILOTs: Three Candidates Who Leave the Door Open
None of these three candidates categorically rejects every future PILOT in the materials reviewed.
The differences concern the conditions they discuss. Foster emphasizes financial comparisons, school impacts, and whether assistance is necessary. Poage emphasizes collaboration with the Board of Education. DeLuna advocates a school share comparable to regular property taxes.
Those are distinct approaches, but each candidate should state what would cause him or her to reject a proposed agreement, including a Terrace II PILOT. Would school funding be a condition of support? What evidence must be public before approval?
Consultation and review matter. Residents also need an approval standard.
Debt, Sewer Infrastructure, and Flooding Need Delivery Commitments
These candidates give infrastructure different levels of attention. It would be inaccurate to say they all ignore it.
Poage discusses financing and wastewater improvements. Foster identifies infrastructure concerns and Flooding Task Force involvement. DeLuna’s website lists practical service priorities and a way to follow residents’ reports through to an answer.
The common gap is a clear account of priorities, costs, schedules, and results. Wastewater treatment and stormwater drainage are distinct challenges; a plan for one does not establish a plan for the other.
Likewise, spending efficiency, grants, or a favorable loan rate do not by themselves establish a municipal debt policy. What borrowing would each support? What would each defer? How would residents see the effect on future budgets?
What Residents Should Ask Before Choosing a Mayor
My assessment is that deLuna gives voters seeking change the clearest stated alternative, while Poage most clearly offers continuity and Foster emphasizes experience and careful review. That difference is worth understanding.
Every candidate should answer the same practical questions:
- What would you do first, and what would you change?
- What development or PILOT proposal would you refuse to support?
- What would you borrow, and how would it be repaid?
- Which sewer and flooding projects would you prioritize?
- What could residents point to at the end of your term as proof that your approach worked?
Experience should raise expectations. A change in leadership should come with a plan. Residents deserve enough detail to judge both.
This comparison summarizes the three linked opinion articles and the campaign materials identified in them. It assesses the positions available in those materials as of October 24, 2026; it does not claim to inventory every campaign statement.
Read Foster’s assessment, Poage’s assessment, and deLuna’s assessment.
Join the conversation
Comments are open to Berkeley Heights residents and neighbors. Sign in with your email — no password, just a one-time link. Keep it civil and local; comments are moderated, and personal attacks are removed.
Prefer email, or having trouble loading comments? Send your question or source to tom@tomfortown.com.