They want court to vacate City Council vote calling Wonderland property ‘area in need of rehabilitation’
OCEAN CITY — The Ocean City 2050 advocacy group and others filed a complaint Monday 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.
Ocean City 2050 was joined by the Plaza Place Civic Association, Beach Watch Condominium Association, Inc., Fairness in Taxes, Harold Atkinson Jr. and William Merritt.
After a nearly three-hour meeting filled with public comment June 25 at the Music Pier, City Council voted 5-2 to approve designating the 600 Boardwalk property, home of the former amusement park that closed in mid-October 2024, as “an area in need of rehabilitation.”
That designation, requested by property owner Eustace Mita, came after citizens packed meetings for more than a year, many in opposition to Mita’s plans for a 252-room, seven-story hotel atop ground-level parking on the site.
In August 2025, council voted against sending the property to the Planning Board for its recommendation on whether it qualified as “an area in need of rehabilitation,” but reversed itself in December and did forward it to planners. For their part, planners let the designation die after a contentious meeting in January 2026 during which the vote ended in a 4-4 tie. Council resurrected the issue at its June meeting and voted to do the designation themselves.
The lawsuit this week claims the council vote violates the public’s confidence in elected and appointed city officials, that “actual and perceived” conflicts of interest also harm public confidence, that council failed to faithfully perform its duties in the public interest, and that the action is “a result of city official’s conflicts that infected the process to designate Wonderland Pier as an ANR (“ANR designation”).
Moreover, the legal action claims the city did not have the “requisite evidential basis” to make the designation, the action is “unsupported by the facts, flawed as a matter of law, and the product of insider dealing and financial conflict rather than considered judgment.”
In a press release issued by the groups, representatives of the varied organizations waded in with their opinions about the lawsuit.
“Public officials have a duty to act solely in the public interest,” said Bill Merritt of Ocean City 2050. “Residents have every right to expect that major land use decisions are driven by sound planning and the public good, not by financial relationships or predetermined outcomes. By asking to have the rehabilitation determination voided, this lawsuit seeks to safeguard lawful rights and protections, while ensuring that the government operates transparently and free from financial and ethical conflicts.”
“The coalition sees the Wonderland decision as reflecting a broader and troubling pattern in Ocean City in which the city attempts to move major projects forward by favoring developers and weakening the planning protections that give residents a meaningful voice,” said Dave Breeden of Fairness in Taxes. “Examples include the Glen Cove Marina, the proposed 125-foot cell tower at 33rd Street and Bay Avenue, and the proposed dog kennel in the Haven Street neighborhood. Residents are increasingly suffering the brunt of improper and/or unlawful decisions by the city that fundamentally reshape their community to its detriment.”
Jack Gutenkunst of Plaza Place Civic Association said the lawsuit was necessary.
“Council’s Wonderland rehabilitation designation is deeply flawed and seeks to improperly strip away important planning protections that residents have long relied upon, including safeguards against spot zoning, requirements for consistency with the city’s Master Plan, and the ability to formally protest certain zoning changes. Without these protections, the city could authorize a hotel of any size or shape, and citizens would have little or no ability to stop it, despite the adverse impact it may have on their neighborhoods.”
“This suit does not in any way prevent positive and productive progress toward reaching an agreement for the right project at 600 Boardwalk,” said Howie Atkinson of the Beach Watch Association. “Rather, it seeks to set a precedent that makes sure residents and community groups have a meaningful voice in the redevelopment process before critical irreversible decisions are made.”
In the press release, the groups attacked Mayor Jay Gillian, said he has financial ties to Mita through his sale of the property to the developer. They cited a 10-year consulting agreement that was to pay the mayor $2 million in consulting fees and that Gillian and his wife borrowed $1 million from the Mita family trust, secured by a mortgage on their personal residence. They noted city solicitor Dorothy McCrosson, who acted as Gillian’s personal attorney, signed the borrowing documents. That, they said, should force McCrosson and the mayor to recuse themselves from the entire process.
At the June 25 meeting, McCrosson did recuse herself. Council hired attorney John A. Ridgway to represent it on the rehab designation.
“The lawsuit is one part of a larger effort to restore public confidence in Ocean City’s decision-making and ensure that residents’ rights are treated as essential protections that strengthen good government,” Merritt wrote in the release. “Ocean City can support redevelopment, investment and economic growth without abandoning ethical government, sound planning or meaningful public participation.”
At the Aug. 6 City Council meeting (see related story), council voted 4-3 to table two resolutions about the Boardwalk Subcommittee’s report on boardwalk zoning and the Wonderland Pier property. Councilmen who voted for tabling the measure cited pending litigation they expected from Ocean City 2050.
Jim Kelly, a former member of Ocean City 2050 who was elected to City Council in May, authored the resolutions.
The city does not comment on pending litigation.
– By DAVID NAHAN/Sentinel staff