By Edmund Tom Maciejewski | Candidate for Berkeley Heights Township Council

Susan Poage and John Foster promise careful scrutiny of PILOT tax breaks if elected mayor. Foster wants financial analysis and proof that assistance is necessary. Poage wants discussions with the Board of Education.

Those are responsibilities of the offices they already hold. Why are they presenting them as reasons for a promotion?

Neither candidate makes the straightforward commitment: “I will vote NO on a PILOT for Terrace II.”

On June 30, both voted for Terrace II’s redevelopment agreement, which expressly depends on approval of a future PILOT. Their vote did not grant the tax exemption, but it supported an arrangement built around obtaining one. Before promising scrutiny tomorrow, they should explain what evidence justified that decision.

100 Locust shows why these questions matter. The township’s original projections offered an attractive deal for the developer and Town Hall: the developer would pay less than conventional taxes, while the municipality would collect more. But a deal that benefits the developer and Town Hall does not necessarily benefit the residents and businesses paying regular property taxes.

Experts reviewed the project and concluded it could not proceed without a PILOT. But the public presentation does not provide enough supporting evidence for residents to independently judge that conclusion.

A cautious estimate of today’s potential rental income exceeds the forecast used to justify 100 Locust’s tax break. That does not prove what was achievable in 2017, but it makes a public comparison of the forecasts with actual rents, costs and profits essential. Residents deserve to know whether such a long subsidy was necessary.

Having a financial study is not enough. Residents deserve to know whether its predictions held up and whether the developer actually needed the help. If audited results show the subsidy is no longer necessary, I believe the tax break should end immediately and regular property taxes should resume.

The same planner who helped justify 100 Locust’s PILOT still advises the township. Both Poage and Foster voted to retain his firm this year. They should demand that public accounting before relying on similar advice again.

Poage describes it as unfortunate that “local leaders at the time” took the position they did about school impacts. She was one of those leaders. In July 2020, she moved and voted for the Berkeley Crossing II tax exemption. The minutes record that I personally spoke against it. Residents’ objections are hardly new.

Her own answer says additional students were anticipated from PILOT developments. The school-funding question was foreseeable. Moving school attendance boundaries may change where children attend; it does not create a school share of PILOT revenue.

Asked whether future agreements should require money for the schools, neither candidate gives an unequivocal yes. Foster would examine options. Poage would hold discussions. These vague answers leave residents guessing how either candidate would actually vote. Would they reject a PILOT that leaves the schools without an agreed share? Neither makes that commitment.

Before Election Day, they should explain why Terrace II needs a tax break and whether they will reject a PILOT without an agreed school allocation.

My public-records requests remain pending. Residents should not have to wait for those replies to hear the evidence behind their elected officials’ decisions.

I have consistently opposed overdevelopment and new PILOTs in Berkeley Heights. In my view, the township has accepted too much development and offered developers special tax treatment too readily. Based on their documented decisions and their answers now, my grade for both Poage and Foster on PILOTs and development oversight is an F.

They are asking for greater authority. They first owe taxpayers clear answers.