OCEAN CITY — The following are some of the comments, mostly paraphrased, by citizens opposing the Ocean City Council resolution to refer the Wonderland Pier property to the Planning Board at the Aug. 21 meeting:
— Howie Atkinson questioned the transparency with the process, saying when the Aug. 14 press release came out about the upcoming vote, it didn’t mention there was a hotel proposal behind it. He said he knew there was a plan in place with a specific destination: A hotel.
He said the Planning Board study would not be neutral and said approving this would lead to more high-rise hotels.
— Jim Kelly told the council about promises they all made that they would oppose high-rise hotels on the boardwalk and referred to a survey done by the Ocean City 2050 advocacy group that showed 78 percent of those responding preferred amusements and entertainment at the Wonderland site compared to hotels, and a petition drive by the Save Wonderland group that garnered more than 5,600 signatures opposing a hotel.
He added that applying the rehabilitation law to the site goes beyond its purpose and that the city would face lawsuits to delay any project for years and that voting yes would be a “betrayal” to people.
“Keep your vote. Make us proud. Vote no.”
— Bill Merritt said if council members voted yes, they would be breaking their promise. He said Playland’s Castaway Cove owners made costly repairs and additions to the park after a devastating fire without a bailout from city government.
The rehabilitation process would be used to “erase” an Ocean City landmark and signal to other boardwalk property owners a means to let their properties decay so they could use the same process.
He called for a comprehensive review of the whole boardwalk because making a change for one developer is indefensible.
— Richard Barth pointed out Cape May faced a similar situation with developer Eustace Mita and welcomed his investment but said he had to follow the rules on a property. This was Ocean City’s chance to affirm the same process.
He said whatever was built should match Ocean City’s character as America’s Greatest Family Resort.
He questioned the process coming about because a developer asked for it, but it was unbelievably powerful that people stood up in Ocean City.
“Prove the cynics wrong. Show everyone here you listened carefully. You can vote no to this study, vote no to high-rises on the boardwalk. This can be a great night in Ocean City.”
— Susan Cracovaner said rushing to judgment on a rehabilitation vote without an updated plan for the future of the entire boardwalk is dangerous and fiscally irresponsible.
She asked to delay the vote until the Master Plan was updated with a community-based, long-range plan for the boardwalk.
— Anthony DiRado said if hotels were profitable in Ocean City, major chains such as Hilton would be here and that the long-dormant Soleil project next to the Flanders is evidence they’re not viable. He said the area isn’t in need of rehabilitation and that the measures would open the door to more condos and the loss of family-friendly rides and entertainment.
“It would amount to spot zoning,” he said” and “betray the trust of voters.”
— Jacob Gutenkunst said there was little in the way of transparency leading to the resolution and a vote on it and the process beyond is a “done deal,” which was testing voters’ trust.
— Dustin Alvino said he was speaking on behalf of a group of investors that are prepared to buy the property from Mita and build something that strengthens the boardwalk and would only require a variance on the back of the property. He suggested something akin to the vision of Wonderland Commons.
— Effie Russell suggested some members may have conflicts of interest and that she was worried and afraid council was going to start a process that would lead to a hotel.
She said a hotel on the boardwalk was secondary only to allowing alcohol sales in the resort. She added the city is already overcrowded with parking problems and that it’s not even fun for visitors who complain they are spending a lot and there isn’t even a beach available during high tide.
— Marie Crawford said a yes vote would be the train leaving the station and would pave the way to a loss of local control. “Taking this relationship further is a bad idea.”
She said she talked to 500 people and only two were in favor of the hotel. “Close the book on this and move on.”
— George Bauer asked council to let their integrity guide their vote and was curious why Mita, a highly successful businessman, would invest millions on a property where zoning was in direct opposition of his goal to build a hotel.
He said he allowed Wonderland to deteriorate and it was his responsibility to maintain it once he bought it.
— Marian Talese said she was strongly opposed to the hotel and that everything that needed to be said had been said.
— Helen Struckman said a petition drive netted more than 5,600 votes against a hotel on the boardwalk and that comments from long-time residents included the fact that attractions and amusements were the lifeblood of the boardwalk and without them Ocean City wouldn’t exist or be America’s Greatest Family Resort.
She feared approving the resolution would be the “death sentence” for the boardwalk and the “magic” would be gone.
Struckman added that Mita talked about rising tides lifting all boats, but “it can also bring a tsunami that would destroy everything in its path.”
— Patrick Gill said 50 years of history with City Council and the Planning Board showed they have consistently confronted the same question about major change on the boardwalk and saw the risks of that. He said the zoning has served the city well and council should follow the guidance.
“Rather than push for a divisive proposal, respect the wisdom of the councils that came before you” and preserve the zoning. “Let’s not undue their foresight.”
— Donna Safer told council if they vote no, the property would not sit neglected because there were multiple people willing to purchase it. She said the property had always been deeded as amusements and the vote would give Mita an incentive to sell to someone who would keep the property as an amusement park.
— Dave Hayes said there was nothing to support the belief the site was in need of rehabilitation and there was not a long pattern of deterioration. He said Mita made a “calculated decision to win the golden lottery ticket to build his hotel.”
— Marie Hayes claimed Mita would get a blank check to get what he wanted, including a liquor license. She said for a decision this important, City Council should have had workshops for citizens.
Hayes said the city was able to stop another high-rise, the Soleil. “No one wants a high-rise on the boardwalk.”
— Nancy Notaro drew laughs from the crowd because after living here for decades she still isn’t considered a local because she didn’t go to Ocean City High School “and wasn’t conceived under the boardwalk.”
She said the city put in height restrictions on the boardwalk so it wouldn’t be another Ocean City, Md., and council should stand by what their forefathers and mothers did.
She suggested the boardwalk zone is to make sure there is a place for family entertainment and building an eight-story hotel would deny neighbors their sunlight and their air.
— Laura Beth Gilman said approving the resolution would set a dangerous precedent. A hotel is the wrong project in the wrong place and would lead the boardwalk to be overbuilt.
— Judith Schalk, who had appeared before City Council in the past to complain about a Mita home project that greatly disrupted her property, said big, fancy hotels are too big for this small town. She advised a project like Wonderland Commons.
– STORY and PHOTOS by DAVID NAHAN/Sentinel staff
