Any good will Ocean City Council gained through the release of the Boardwalk Subcommittee report June 12 was lost two weeks later when it pushed ahead with a vote to declare the former Wonderland Pier property “an area in need of rehabilitation.”
The timing was atrocious.
Although the 5-2 decision demonstrates delaying the vote a few weeks may not have changed the majority outcome, by pushing ahead June 25, it reeks of political machinations.
The new council being seated July 1 may change by only one person, but it is a critical person because of public perception.
Voters citywide elected Jim Kelly, an outspoken critic of Eustace Mita’s big hotel proposal for the former amusement park site. Mita has been the one asking for the rehab designation as key to building his 252-room hotel with seven floors atop ground-level parking at 600 Boardwalk, which is not zoned for hotels.
Finishing his tenure at the end of June is council Vice President Pete Madden, the only councilman who has consistently been outspoken in favor of the hotel. Madden didn’t run for re-election to council, choosing instead an unsuccessful bid for mayor.
Timing the rehab ordinance for the last council meeting in June allowed Madden to vote while blocking Kelly.
That is terrible governance knowing the controversy on what will replace Wonderland has roiled the community for more than 18 months.
In August 2025, council voted against sending the property to the Planning Board for its studied opinion on whether it qualified for the rehab designation. In December 2025, council reversed itself. In January 2026, planners split 4-4, letting the designation die.
In the meanwhile, council’s Boardwalk Subcommittee — of planners, council members and citizens (including Kelly) — worked on a comprehensive study of the entire boardwalk zoning.
After seven months of work, the subcommittee released its 85-page report in a public meeting at the Ocean City Tabernacle.
The buzzword for the Wonderland parcel itself? Compromise. Work with the property owner on redeveloping the site.
The agreed-upon concept was allowing upscale hotel rooms, but not a hotel of Mita’s grand size that overwhelmed the boardwalk or adjoining neighborhood, and putting a much bigger focus on entertainment.
The report appeared to mollify people on both sides as officials talked about starting conversations with Mita to see what they could come up. Mita himself said he was open to listening to ideas.
An apparent next step would have been transparent negotiations between the hotelier and city officials for something “spectacular” for the property (their phrasing) that would reinvigorate that end of the boardwalk that has been suffering since the amusement park went dark in mid-October 2024.
Instead, there was a rushed vote for the rehabilitation designation.
Critics argue the city gave up its main leverage by granting the designation before negotiations began. Councilmen who voted for it argue they will not support any redevelopment project that does not adhere to the guideline recommendation in the subcommittee report, so they still have the power.
So why rush a vote? Why not start negotiating with that card in their vest? Instead, it looks like they capitulated.
It will take time for council to regain trust. That will come only by proving they will be tough negotiators and stick firmly to the report recommendations.
As for the forces that have been lined up against the rehab designation, they’re not off the hook either.
Advocacy groups such as Ocean City 2050, which announced Friday it would sue to reverse the decision, have been threatening to sue from the start and probably would have sued even if council waited until Kelly was seated.
It is hard to conceive of any plan opponents will ever support, never mind the fact they don’t own the property that has been sitting fallow. Continued inaction there is detrimental not just to the businesses suffering on the boardwalk but to the community as a whole.
A few other notes:
— Councilman Jody Levchuk’s outbursts during public comment were way out of line. Levchuk apologized later in the meeting and had the right to rebut inaccurate comments, but not by yelling at the citizens speaking. Council President Terry Crowley Jr. should have rebuked him forcefully and immediately for that. He did not.
— Wes Kazmarck, representing the Boardwalk Merchants Association and Tourism Commission, undermined the Boardwalk Subcommittee on which he served by revealing members would have voted 6-3 in favor of the rehab designation. The subcommittee report specifically did not take a stand on that, a point made clear at the public meeting June 12.
Kazmarck has been front and center advocating for the hotel, for the business community and personally for the rehab designation, but slipping in that vote comment causes the subcommittee work to be called into question.
— Finally, how awful is it to be in an island community where average homes sell for $1 million-plus, the crime rate is low, the tax rate is low, the amenities include miles of beaches, boardwalk and bay front, paid firefighters and EMTs are but a minute away … and the controversy is over a guy wanting to invest $170 million in a boardwalk hotel? It may be the wrong project and wrong investment, but he’s not trying to lay the groundwork for an AI data center, like citizens around Vineland are fighting. So cool the vehement personal attacks and demonization of opponents over this small but important piece of land. That sub-level of discourse tarnishes the island’s reputation as America’s Greatest Family Resort.
