Among those suing city, he wants council members to put their positions on the record
OCEAN CITY — Bill Merritt of Ocean City 2050, who is among those suing the city over the Wonderland Pier property, told City Council members they should individually state their positions on what should happen at the former amusement park site.
Speaking before City Council during public comment Sept. 10, Merritt asked council to move forward on its vote on the Boardwalk Subcommittee report, which offers recommendations on zoning and the future of the entire boardwalk.
“Adopting the report and seeking the Planning Board’s input are a pragmatic next step in a process that has not always been so. The Planning Board’s perspective will be valuable,” he told council. “More importantly, this action should give the public some comfort that council is taking the subcommittee’s recommendations seriously as it moves forward in its negotiations with the developer.”
Council approved a vote on the report, without comment, in its consent agenda later in the meeting.
However, Merritt turned his attention to the lack of information on what developer and hotelier Eustace Mita actually is planning at 600 Boardwalk.
In June, council voted to approve the property as “an area in need of rehabilitation,” a step Mita wanted, but simultaneously said they would not support the developer’s original plans that call for building a seven-story hotel atop ground-level parking, with 252 rooms and 10-12 storefronts.
The current On-Boardwalk Zone does not permit hotels.
Mita bought the property in early 2021, then leased it back to longtime amusement park owner/operator Jay Gillian, who ran Wonderland Pier until closing it permanently in mid-October 2024, saying it was no longer financially viable.
The amusement rides have sat silent since then and Mita has opened only the main building facing the boardwalk as an arcade and pizza shop.
The Boardwalk Subcommittee spent about half a year studying the boardwalk before issuing recommendations in early June. Among the recommendations were that hotel rooms could be allowed on the property, but not to the extent Mita wanted. Groups and neighbors of the property have been bitterly fighting a hotel on the site of the scale Mita proposed.
Mita has not revealed any new plans for the property.
In August, Ocean City 2050, an advocacy group, joined by the Plaza Place Civic Association, Beach Watch Condominium Association Inc., Fairness in Taxes, Harold Atkinson Jr. and Merritt, filed a complaint against Ocean City and its City Council, asserting that council declaring the former Wonderland Pier property as an area in need of rehabilitation was done arbitrarily and capriciously.
The complaint, filed in Superior Court in Cape May County, asks the court to vacate the decision.
The struggle over what will go at the Wonderland site has been a see-saw battle ever since the amusement park closed. Council voted in August 2025 against referring the 600 Boardwalk parcel to the Planning Board for its recommendation on whether it qualified for the rehab designation, then reversed course in December. In January 2026, the Planning Board listened to lengthy public comment before letting the rehab designation die in a 4-4 vote.
In June of this year, just weeks after listening to the Boardwalk Subcommittee’s recommendations, City Council voted 5-2 to grant the designation that is now tied up in court.
At last week’s meeting, Merritt first mentioned social media rumors about the Wonderland property, raising fears of a different seven-story hotel before conceding he didn’t know if the rumors were true.
He did tell council the public would be more comfortable knowing what council knew about what might take place.
Merritt said Mayor Gillian has said repeatedly that social media can be dangerous when it’s misinformed and he agreed. “That’s true, but social media can be equally dangerous when the public is uninformed and that’s what’s happening now,” he said.
Merritt asked council to fill the information vacuum before rumor and speculation fill it for them, to find out what Mita is actually proposing and to tell the public.
He said “the public is entitled to know” where each and every council member stands on a variety of issues regarding what could replace the amusement park: whether they agree with the subcommittee’s recommendations, the height of the project, parking, public-facing entertainment and more aspects.
He called on them to reveal at the next council meeting what should and should not happen at 600 Boardwalk.
Boardwalk
Subcommittee
Council adopted resolution 26-256 adopting the subcommittee report “as a resource to inform future boardwalk planning and development and submitting it to the Planning Board for information purposes and its consideration and independent use.”
The resolution notes that the report “provides the city a sound, community-based foundation for meaningful deliberation on the future of the Ocean City boardwalk” and is adopting the report “to inform future boardwalk planning and development.”
Fourth Ward City Councilman Dave Winslow chaired the subcommittee, which presented an 85-page report June 12 during a public meeting at the Ocean City Tabernacle. The nine members of the subcommittee included City Council and Planning Board members and members of the public.
One of its main recommendations was that Mita’s project would not fly as originally presented.
– By DAVID NAHAN/Sentinel staff
