Her campaign makes the case for continuing Mayor Devanney’s direction. Where are the commitments on PILOTs, debt, development, and infrastructure?

Disclosure: I am a candidate for Berkeley Heights Township Council. This article is my assessment of the candidates’ published positions.

Where can a Berkeley Heights resident go to find a clear, organized explanation of what Susan Poage would actually do as mayor?

I have not found a dedicated campaign website laying out her platform. She has campaign social media pages, and her four TAPinto responses provide information about her experience and priorities. But after reading those responses, I am still looking for specific commitments on some of the township’s biggest decisions.

Poage emphasizes her years on Council, her budgeting experience, and her relationship with Mayor Devanney. She explicitly advocates continuity and a seamless transition.

That tells residents whose direction she intends to continue. It tells them considerably less about what they could hold her accountable for delivering.

PILOTs: Will She Require Money for the Schools?

In her PILOT response, Poage presents PILOTs as a tool that can help municipalities secure redevelopment and affordable housing. Her response leaves them available for future projects.

But what limits would she impose?

What financial evidence would persuade her that a developer actually needs a tax break? What would cause her to reject an application? What conditions would she require for Terrace II?

Most importantly, when directly asked whether she would support requiring a portion of PILOT revenue to go to the Board of Education, she promises to invite the BOE into discussions and analyze existing developments together.

She never answers whether she would require the money.

A meeting is a process. Residents still need to know the policy.

Her suggestion to reconsider school attendance boundaries may address how students are distributed among schools. It does not itself provide additional school funding.

Debt: Support for Financing, Without a Stated Limit

Poage does discuss financing. She supports using low-interest Infrastructure Bank loans for major improvements and describes borrowing when necessary as part of responsible budgeting.

But a favorable interest rate does not answer how much debt the township should take on.

How much additional borrowing would she accept? What would her repayment strategy be? Which projects would she postpone if their combined cost exceeded what residents could reasonably afford?

Her four responses provide no clear borrowing limit or debt-reduction target.

Residents deserve to know how she would decide what Berkeley Heights can afford, especially when several expensive projects compete for funding.

Sewer and Flooding: Clear Priorities, Unclear Deliverables

Poage gives infrastructure substantial attention. She discusses road paving, drainage, green infrastructure, and improvements to the wastewater treatment plant.

The unanswered questions concern execution.

For the wastewater system, which improvements would she prioritize during her term? What would they cost? What measurable improvements should residents expect?

For flooding and stormwater drainage, which projects would come first? What completion dates would she pursue? How would residents know whether the work reduced their risk?

Wastewater treatment and stormwater drainage are distinct challenges. Each deserves a clear explanation of the work required, the funding, and the expected results.

Saying the township will continue investing does not establish what a Poage administration would finish—or how taxpayers should judge whether the spending worked.

Experience Also Brings Accountability

Poage’s proposed monthly committee connecting township officials with local business hubs is a specific proposal. Her support for grants, walkability, and cooperation identifies genuine priorities.

But residents deserve more than priorities almost any candidate could endorse. They deserve decisions, financial limits, deadlines, and results they can measure.

Poage emphasizes her involvement in seven budget cycles. That experience raises a fair question: why are the improvements in coordination and analysis she now proposes still promises for a future administration?

If closer collaboration with the BOE is necessary to evaluate PILOT impacts, what has prevented that work during her existing tenure? What would she change as mayor to make it happen?

Continuity With What—and Toward What?

Poage’s campaign gives residents a clear reason to expect continuity with Mayor Devanney. It gives them far fewer specifics about what would actually change.

Which current policies would she reconsider? Which decisions would she handle differently? What limits would she place on future redevelopment? What would she do that Foster or deLuna would not?

Her campaign explains why she believes she is ready to become mayor. It is much less specific about what residents could hold her accountable for delivering once she gets there.

Before Election Day, residents deserve a platform that answers four basic questions:

What will you do? What will you refuse to do? What will it cost? And how will we know whether you succeeded?

Scope: This commentary evaluates Poage’s four 2026 TAPinto candidate responses. Her joint campaign Facebook page is another place residents can look for campaign updates.

Compare Foster, Poage, and deLuna on development, PILOTs, debt, and infrastructure.