Resident response to the Philadelphia Inquirer Article
This response was written by Denise Coyne, who was quoted several times in the Oct 13th Article.
The main takeaway from this situation is how our community, regardless of political affiliations, has
come together to fight for what we believe is right for Gloucester Township. We have sought the truth
together, and we have worked together to inform others about the sewer sale. Sharing the truth is much easier than
convincing people of half-truths or biased propaganda. If the proposed sale is voted down, it will be an
extraordinary accomplishment—a shining example of what can be achieved when we work together as a
community.
Dissolution of the former MUA
Tom Cardis seems to suggest the dissolution of the MUA (Municipal Utilities Authority) was a decision
made by the authority itself. This raises an important question: Why would the MUA decide to dissolve
itself? It was well run, efficient and had repair and replacement fund to handle infrastructure
emergencies. We were assured by the administration and council that this decision was made to save
money. However, when directly asked, Mr. Cardis was unable to provide specific information about how
much money was saved. We were also told that the dissolution would “preserve” the sewer utility in the
township. Then, less than a year later, without any prior public discussion by the Council or the
administration, the sale of the sewer utility appeared on the agenda. Is this what transparency looks
like?
Claim of where the debt came from
Mr. Cardis claims that our township’s $65 million debt stems from investments in infrastructure, public
safety, and roads, which require long-term financing. However, infrastructure investment is standard for
any town, and many municipalities manage their finances without falling into such deep debt. If our
financial situation is truly as dire as stated, perhaps we should reconsider the $10 to $15 million
allocated for recreational projects and other non-essential initiatives.
Additionally, we have been told that selling the utility will lower property taxes for residents. Yet, similar
promises were made when the MUA was dissolved, and now we hear that rates will increase unless the
utility is sold. Where are the savings that were previously promised? If the administration’s goal is to
reduce taxes, why haven’t any concrete financial projections been presented to show how this will
happen? While there are already plans for how to spend the $143 million expected from the sale, there
seems to be no figures on how this will translate to tax relief in our tax bills. What decrease do they
project for the 32% of our overall bill they control?
Our best option?
Mr. Cardis insists that selling the utility is the best option for the township, but what alternative
solutions have been explored? None have been publicly discussed. Fiscal responsibility should not only
be about selling our assets—it should also include electing leaders who are capable of managing
taxpayer funds more efficiently.
Council & Administration are attempting to politicize, not us
Lastly, accusing those who oppose the sale of politicizing the issue feels disingenuous, especially when
prominent council members and an assemblyman have publicly supported the sale. It’s also worth
noting that if the sale is approved, it is expected to be finalized in 2025—the same year Mayor Dave
Mayor is up for re-election. While this may be a coincidence, it is reasonable for residents to question
whether the timing is part of a broader strategy. The public has the right to question decisions that
affect the community and should receive clear, honest answers—not dismissals of legitimate concerns.
How do I go about getting signs for my house, my neighbor, and my daughter’s .