Is City Council going to change its mind Thursday evening over the future of the former Wonderland Pier amusement park site?
In spite of what seemed a definitive vote in August and subsequent support for a comprehensive study on that property, this is a resolution that just won’t die.
Critics allege shady backroom dealing and betrayals when it comes to what will replace the amusement park that lay fallow all of last summer, but they’ve made those allegations ever since Eustace Mita proposed building an eight-story hotel there a year ago.
Were that truly the case, there would have been a deal months ago that put that boardwalk project on the fast track. Instead, it was turned down in August. However, that only ratcheted up the level of intrigue since then.
It doesn’t have to be chalked up to backroom deals, but to very public pressure that keeps piling onto City Council members from the warring sides.
Low-intensity pressure actually began in 2021 when Mita bought the property to save it from bankruptcy and leased it back so Jay Gillian could continue running his amusement park. Gillian decided in August 2024 it would close for good in October of that year because it was no longer financially viable to have two amusement parks in the resort.
Concerns about the site’s future stemmed from the fact the new owner is a luxury home builder who has multiple upscale hotels in Cape May County. That started speculation immediately about the potential future of the big boardwalk property and fears of high-rise hotels that would turn Ocean City, N.J., into Ocean City, Md., with its wall of hotels fronting the ocean.
The intensity grew when Mita went public late last fall to unveil his Icona at Wonderland, a $135-150 million, 252-room upscale hotel and retail complex with 375 parking spaces beneath it.
The community has split into passionate factions. Most in the business community believe the hotel would be a salvation for the northern part of the boardwalk and cite the many businesses that have suffered since the closure of the amusement park.
They are countered by those who believe the hotel would destroy the charm of the boardwalk and harm the surrounding neighborhood.
The resolution turned down in August and that is back for a repeat performance is about referring the 600 Boardwalk parcel to the city’s Planning Board to determine if it is a property in need of rehabilitation. That is something Mita wants, even though the planners’ recommendation is not for a specific project. It would be a key step, however, because that property is zoned only for amusements.
This all came to a head at the contentious, long, loud public meeting in August when council, after listening to scores of citizens, voted 6-1 against the referral, informally deciding the best approach was for the city to review the Master Plan for an all-encompassing approach to future development on the boardwalk and beyond.
A dejected Mita said after the meeting that he was done and putting the property up for sale for $25 million. Soon after he said he already had two offers, both from entities interested in building expensive housing there. He noted this week the offers have sweetened, but he will still await what happens at council Thursday.
In September, council Vice President Pete Madden, the lone vote in favor of referral in August, asked council to reconsider, arguing whatever was done to replace the amusement park was going to need a decision from the Planning Board.
Madden’s move was ill-advised because he brought it up under pending business, with no prior notice to citizens, surprising some of his fellow council members and hotel opponents who thought the issue was dead.
Council mulled it over, then tabled Madden’s attempt.
Once brought up for a vote, declined. Second time brought up for a vote, tabled.
In October, business leaders showed up en masse and asked council to reconsider their decision. They didn’t, but council President Terry Crowley Jr. appointed a special subcommittee on the future of the boardwalk. That meant trying to speed up what could have been a slower-moving Master Plan review, but in line with what council members talked about back in August.
Everything looked settled.
Surprise. At the Nov. 20 meeting, Councilman Jody Levchuk announced he wanted council to vote on the referral again. Unlike Madden, he made a long pitch about why he changed his mind (mostly worries about businesses being hurt), but smartly was up front in saying he planned to ask two other council members to join him to put the resolution on the agenda. That way, Levchuk said, there was fair warning to supporters and critics alike, so they could be prepared for it ahead of time.
Councilman Tony Polcini, who like Levchuk had voted against the referral in August, echoed Levchuk’s concerns and said he would support the resolution. Madden was the third to get it on the agenda for the Dec. 4 meeting.
Is there a fourth? It takes three votes to get on the agenda but four for approval.
Councilmen Keith Hartzell and Sean Barnes have been consistent in opposition to the referral. In September, Councilman Dave Winslow, chairman of the boardwalk subcommittee, said he was open to the idea of sending it to the Planning Board but inevitably voted with everyone but Madden to table it. (Levchuk wasn’t at that meeting.) Crowley has not been verbose on the issue, taking his stand mainly in his votes.
The subcommittee has barely had two months to get going on its quest, so the question on everyone’s mind Thursday will be this: what’s the rationale to short-circuit that now and go back in the other direction?
Expect a contentious meeting at 6 p.m. at the Music Pier, a venue change made for the expected large crowd.
