Architectural rendering of proposed "ICONA in Wonderland" resort hotel on the Ocean City Boardwalk.
OCNJDaily.com reported on a Boardwalk Merchants Association (BMA) meeting this week where a vote was cast regarding the controversial high-rise resort proposed for the Ocean City Boardwalk. Before anyone takes this vote as a meaningful endorsement of the project – as hotel developer Eustace Mita would want you to believe – let’s take a closer look at what actually happened.
First, we understand there were about 30 votes. So far, town halls, with hundreds of people in attendance, have been dominated by those against the project. Thousands have joined opposition groups. This was a limited, narrow vote. It does not reflect the will of Ocean City as a whole, nor should it be treated as such.
Second, to our knowledge, no outside opposing views were given the opportunity to speak ahead of the vote. I know that I previously asked for an opportunity to give our view of the project at prior meetings and to discuss alternatives. I have not been allowed to do so.
Third, it was unclear as to what exactly the vote was on. The mayor keeps saying the city can do nothing because there is no project being proposed. So, what were the merchants actually voting on? A concept? Or is the project more solidified than we are being led to believe by the city.
Fourth, by not having opposing views or any alternative choices, the merchants were left without certain facts and faced with an incomplete list of choices, one of which the merchants could assume was to watch the Wonderland property rot into a rusting, rat-infested hulk.
The threat of vacancy and ugliness was amplified by the city’s recent statement that it would not intervene to promote temporary entertainment north of the Music Pier, claiming it could harm merchants to the south. This stance directly contradicts the spirit of the Boardwalk Merchants Association, which exists to advocate for and support policies and activities that benefit all Boardwalk merchants as a whole.
This is all a manufactured dilemma, and it’s not surprising the merchants would vote the way they did, given that an extended, ugly vacancy was a possible outcome. But let’s be clear – this deterioration is not natural. And the refusal to install temporary entertainment seems deliberate. And it may all be strategic; part of a plan to let the property sit, in an unattractive state, so that the owner can later argue that “something must be done” and present his high-rise resort as the only solution.
Fifth, the support of such a small group of merchants doesn't mean that the resort will actually benefit the Boardwalk. Instead, rezoning on the Boardwalk gives other property owners a lucrative exit strategy of their own: the chance to raise their property value, sell to outside developers who want to build generic high-rise properties, and walk away with millions of dollars in their pockets – leaving them rich, but devastating the Boardwalk and destroying the very thing that makes Ocean City an appealing destination: its family-friendly charm.
In the end, this was a limited, narrow vote, shaped by a false sense of urgency and a manufactured crisis and unclear motive. Ocean City’s Council should not give this vote any significant weight in deciding whether to give a bailout to a wealthy developer who bought a property knowing full well it was not zoned for a high-rise hotel. We urgently need attractions and entertainment on the Boardwalk. There are other options that can and should be explored that will allow the property AND our community to thrive together.
Bill Merritt, Ocean City 2050
