Advocacy group Ocean City 2050 plans to challenge the city’s decision to designate the former Wonderland property as an area in need of rehabilitation, arguing the move bypasses the traditional planning process, weakens the city’s negotiating position and raises concerns about transparency and ethics.
The announcement comes less than two weeks after City Council voted 5-2 on June 25 to approve the rehabilitation designation for 600 Boardwalk. Ocean City 2050 said the designation was flawed “strategically, procedurally, ethically, logically and morally,” according to a statement released following the vote.
Ocean City 2050 spokesman Bill Merritt said the organization intends to file suit within the 45-day period allowed under New Jersey law for challenging municipal actions.
The lawsuit has not yet been submitted to the court, though Merritt said the group plans to announce when it is.
According to Merritt, the legal challenge will focus on whether the property meets the statutory requirements for an area in need of rehabilitation, whether the city’s repeated votes on the issue made the process arbitrary, and whether unresolved conflict-of-interest concerns affected the decision.
Beyond those legal arguments, Merritt said the organization’s broader concern is preserving the public’s role in shaping redevelopment of one of Ocean City’s most prominent properties.
“Under normal zoning processes, the public has a lot of protection,” Merritt said. “What happens in rehabilitation is all of those protections get stripped away. The public has almost no protection, and that’s the biggest issue we have.”
He said Ocean City 2050 wants any rezoning of the property to follow the city’s traditional planning process, beginning with updates to the master plan before changes are made to zoning ordinances.
“That’s the normal process, and that’s what the city was doing,” Merritt said. “Then all of a sudden, it decided to divert off that path, and we think that was a mistake.”
Concerns over the planning process
Much of Ocean City 2050’s criticism centers on the recommendations of the Boardwalk Subcommittee, which spent months gathering public input and released its report in June.
The group contends the report called for using traditional planning tools rather than a rehabilitation designation to guide future redevelopment.
Merritt said the expectation was that the report would be forwarded to the Planning Board to help update the city’s master plan before any zoning changes were considered.
“That’s what we all anticipated would happen,” he said. “In fact, that’s what the subcommittee report said would happen. Then all of a sudden, they rushed this rehab vote, which takes you down a different path.”
In its statement, Ocean City 2050 questioned why council members who had supported the subcommittee’s recommendations later voted in favor of the rehabilitation designation.
‘Strongest bargaining chip’
Ocean City 2050 also argues that the city weakened its negotiating position with developer Eustace Mita by approving the rehabilitation designation before reaching an agreement on what should ultimately be built on the property.
“The vote surrendered the city’s strongest bargaining chip to the developer and got nothing in return,” the group’s statement said.
Merritt compared the situation to the redevelopment of the former Seaspray property, where he said the city first negotiated the project before selecting the planning tools needed to implement it.
“What are we building first?” Merritt said. “Then once you decide what you’re building, then you reach into the toolbox and grab the right tool. They’re doing it backwards here.”
Merritt acknowledged that several council members have described the rehabilitation designation as simply another planning tool that does not guarantee approval of any specific project.
“I agree that it gives them tools,” he said. “But you don’t go down that path unless you know what tools you want.”
Not opposed to redevelopment
Merritt emphasized that Ocean City 2050 is not opposed to redevelopment or the possibility of a hotel at the former Wonderland site.
“If it’s a smaller hotel [with] some new entertainment functions there, and those entertainment functions are available to the public because it’s a public boardwalk, that’s great,” he said. “Everybody will be happy.”
He said the organization supports redevelopment that expands entertainment opportunities while respecting surrounding neighborhoods and preserving the character of the Boardwalk.
“We’re not anti-hotels. We’re not anti-development. We’re not anti-change,” Merritt said. “We’re fine with change. It’s just what kind of change is being promoted.”
Conflict-of-interest concerns
The advocacy group also raised concerns about what it described as unresolved conflicts of interest involving city officials.
In its statement, Ocean City 2050 alleged there were unanswered questions involving members of City Council and Mayor Jay Gillian’s financial relationships with the property’s developer. The group criticized the council for rejecting a motion by Councilmen Sean Barnes and Keith Hartzell to postpone the vote for two weeks while those issues could be reviewed.
Merritt said Ocean City 2050 believes those concerns should have been investigated before the City Council acted.
“If there are these bona fide financial conflicts, or even alleged financial conflicts, and if those conflicts can taint a vote, then it would seem that council would want to have their lawyer or some lawyer investigate those conflicts,” Merritt said.
Ocean City 2050 also criticized the decision to move forward before newly elected council members were sworn into office, arguing there was no pressing reason to vote when negotiations with the developer could have continued regardless of the rehabilitation designation.
What happens next
Merritt said the group’s preferred outcome is not simply winning a lawsuit but ensuring redevelopment follows what it considers the proper planning process.
“I think if the lawsuit is successful, the designation is undone and the city is back on the path of a master plan amendment, the property being rezoned in some appropriate way, and there’s public protection around that rezoning process,” he said.
He added that legal action could become unnecessary if the city ultimately reaches a redevelopment plan that reflects community priorities.
“If the right thing gets done at that property, then the lawsuit may become unnecessary,” Merritt said. “Sometimes it’s not crucial how it gets done. It’s more important what gets done.”
Shore Local reached out to City Council President Terry Crowley and Vice President Dave Winslow, but they did not immediately respond to request for comment.
