FAQs about Ocean City NJ’s “Big Mistake”

Frequently Asked Questions: The Ocean City Community Survey

Below are the answers to some of the most common questions that have come up regarding the recent Ocean City Community Survey conducted by the Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling at Rutgers University-New Brunswick. (Read the survey press release.)

  • The Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling is part of Rutgers University, New Jersey’s flagship public university. Eagleton is one of the most respected nonpartisan polling institutions in the country, known for its scientific rigor and public credibility. ECPIP was established in 1971 and is the first and longest continuously running university-based statewide public polling operation in the United States.

    ECPIP’s mission is to provide scientifically sound, non-partisan information about public opinion. ECPIP conducts research for all levels of government and nonprofit organizations with a public interest mission, as well as academic researchers. ECPIP is a proud member of the American Association for Public Opinion Research’s Transparency Initiative and follows current best practices in accordance with the professional survey research industry. 

    To read more about ECPIP and view all press releases and published research, please visit eagletonpoll.rutgers.edu. 

  • We began working with ECPIP in Spring 2025, and the Ocean City survey was conducted in June 2025. They independently designed, administered, and analyzed the survey in accordance with current best practices in the survey research industry.

  • Random probability surveys are an efficient way to survey large populations in which the selection of the participant is determined by random chance.  For small populations, a census—collecting data from every individual—is generally preferred when high accuracy and a comprehensive understanding of the entire group are paramount, as it eliminates sampling error.

    To conduct the census, the target population was Ocean City registered voters estimated at approximately 9100+ verified on a list of voters. 

  • Even with full outreach, not all contact information is available or current. Among those listed registered voters, 75 percent had a phone number, including both landline and cell numbers; some voters had more than one phone number available, making for 14,000 available phone numbers. Recruitment was directed to all registered voters for whom a phone number was available.  Although multiple attempts were made for each voter, not all potential participants chose to respond.

    When conducting a census or sample of a population, we must ensure the design takes coverage error into consideration when fielding decisions are made. Coverage error exists in survey research when the respondents in a sampling frame (a list of all voters with phone numbers) are different from the target population (ALL registered voters in Ocean City). When we compared the sample frame to the target population of all registered voters, we had phone numbers, both landline and cell, for 75 percent of all voters.  From an industry perspective, this is a reliable sample frame, and this is the sample frame to whom the survey was sent.

    The data were not weighted since the survey was a census in which everyone in the sample frame had an opportunity to participate.  Data quality can still be influenced by other types of non-sampling errors, such as non-response and coverage errors. In all survey research, the potential for bias may occur when some folks refuse to talk to pollsters or complete the survey. One of the statistical tests ECPIP conducts to determine whether responders to a survey are different from non-responders is the chi square test of difference.  Based upon this test, ECPIP found that those registered voters who responded to the survey were NOT statistically different from the census of all registered voters in Ocean City measured by which ward the voter lived in.

  • For the census, Rutgers assembled a large list of phone numbers for residents, using various public and other databases to which it has access.  Approximately, 75 percent of approximately 9,200 registered voters had a landline or cell phone number.  This list of registered voters were recruited for the survey.

    Even with multiple attempts through text messages and live calling, not everyone agreed to take the survey. That’s normal in any public opinion research—some people just don’t pick up or aren’t interested in participating.

    Before Rutgers closed its survey, they used a common statistical method to check whether the people who did respond were different in any significant way from the full voter list—for example, were certain wards over- or under-represented? The answer was no. The respondents were representative of Ocean City voters as a whole.

    So, while it’s true that only a small percentage of residents ultimately participated in the survey, that’s expected in this kind of research. Response rates for public opinion polls across the survey research industry are typically 1-2%. Think about presidential polls. Some can reach out to 1,000 people and then provide a prediction for over 100M voters based on that data. 

    Here, the outreach was broad, the participation rates met accepted levels for public opinion research, and the results were statistically sound. Indeed, the fact that responders were not different from non-responders is a good indicator that the results fairly represent the sentiment of the city.

  • No. ECPIP researchers are members of the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) in which its members agree to abide by the AAPOR Code of Professional Ethics and Practices by upholding the highest standards for the profession. The AAPOR Code describes the obligations all research professionals have to uphold the credibility of survey and public opinion research. ECPIP is also a charter member of the American Association for Public Opinion Research’s Transparency Initiative. In any research services they provide to any entity, ECPIP must abide by these codes of conduct and employ the utmost objectivity and scientific rigor in their study design, data collection, and analysis efforts.

  • No, as evidenced by the nearly 80 percent of people who favor amusements over high rises on the boardwalk. Also, in our many discussions with OC residents, we have not found that the issue breaks down by party; it’s non-partisan.

  • No. The survey was conducted using professionally designed, nonpartisan, neutrally worded questions, reviewed for bias and clarity.  Also, the majority of the survey was conducted online as respondents were given a link to follow to complete the survey.  Some preferred to respond via live phone interview.  As required by federal law and Rutgers policy, its researchers must complete and maintain certification in conducting human subjects research, which includes survey research. All members of the ECPIP research team have received certification that includes courses in ethics, research, meeting regulatory requirements, responsible conduct of research, research administration and other topics pertinent to the interests of member organizations, individual learners, and society. 

  • Ocean City 2050 paid ECPIP for their professional services—just like any state agency, municipality or nonprofit would pay for a legal study or architectural analysis. We had no influence over the outcome. We wanted to know what residents truly thought on this issue. Rutgers’ reputation depends on its independence. 

  • A margin of error calculates the random error that occurs when you do not survey the entire population, but rather just a sample. Since Rutgers conducted a census, there is no sampling error to calculate since all registered voters for whom a phone number was available were given the opportunity to take the survey by landline or text to their cell. 

    Further, while margin of error is the most well-known kind of error, it is not the only kind. The gold standard in methodology also includes coverage error and non-response error. Both of these errors may bias the results if the design does not attempt to mitigate against them. 


    Coverage error exists in survey research when the respondents in a sampling frame (a list of all voters with phone numbers) are different from the target population (ALL registered voters in Ocean City). When Rutgers compared the sample frame to the target population of all registered voters, they had phone numbers, both landline and cell, for 75 percent of all voters.  From an industry perspective, this is a reliable sample frame, and this is the sample frame to whom the survey was sent.

TOP Questions ABOUT A BETTER IDEA

  • Mr. Mita owns the land. He doesn’t own the zoning. He can build anything the current zoning allows: retail, amusements, arcades. Not a high-rise hotel. 

    Zoning laws apply to everyone. They exist to protect Ocean City’s residents and community. And when someone asks for a zoning change—and in this case a major change—it becomes a public matter. As such, the public should voice their opinions, their objections and offer alternate ideas. Public input like this isn’t unusual—it’s expected, and it’s a fundamental right.

    That is why the OC Chamber of Commerce conditioned their support on community engagement and consensus. This is our attempt to engage and find a compromise that works for everyone. We are not telling him what to do.  We are just offering a better idea that may drive a consensus.

  • Yes, but a modest one. Wonderland Commons includes a smaller, low-rise hotel or other lodging on the back end of the property, towards Wayne Avenue, not the boardwalk side. Unlike his proposal, which requires significant zoning changes for the entire property for use and height, our zoning change would be limited just to use, would only apply to the back portion, protecting Boardwalk frontage, and would keep the height restrictions for the entire parcel. In addition, contrary to Mita’s plan, the Wonderland Commons proposal would not need to use redevelopment or rehabilitation as a means of securing a zoning change.  

    Our change would be consistent with previous “Off Boardwalk” zoning, which allowed for small, low-rise hotels—just like Beach Watch and Ocean 7 across the street. Importantly, this change in zoning would be contingent upon the owner working with the city and other subdevelopers to bring the entire Wonderland Commons vision to life. In this manner, the zoning change is being made to help drive a significant public benefit, not simply a private right.  

  • The slogan is “Big Hotel, Big Mistake.” This is still true: A BIG, high-rise hotel on the OC boardwalk is all wrong for our community, for all the reasons we’ve listed. No hotel would still be the ideal outcome.

    But we also believed that, to resolve this issue, the conversation needed to be something other than a back-and-forth between two rigid positions: a huge hotel or no hotel.  

    Wonderland Commons is a compromise proposal that can benefit everybody. It’s a multi-use entertainment venue with a small, low-rise, low-risk lodging facility away from the boardwalk, that won’t set a dangerous or repeatable precedent, and has a much smaller traffic and parking footprint than a 252-room, high-rise hotel right that looms over the beach and neighboring properties. 

  • A significant amount of financing has already been pledged.

    The digital entertainment part is backed by an OC businessman He has a great vision for the future of amusements and wants to make that a reality in Ocean City.

    The amusements and public spaces would use a public-private model, similar to how The Flanders was originally financed. Ocean City has a long history of making creative partnerships like this work, and there is a significant opportunity to raise charitable funds for both. In fact, we have identified approximately. $2M for the amusement park and playground.

    For the hotel/lodging component, the developer has already said he has financing for a $140 million, 252-room resort, so we know he has the capability for this low-scale unit. Plus, a smaller lodging facility is right in his wheelhouse, as most of his other Icona properties are less than 60 rooms each.

    The whole point is to create a plan that’s financeable, realistic, and beneficial for both the city and the landowner, without draining taxpayer money.

  • An $18 million offer—double what Mr. Mita paid—was already made by a local investor, and he turned it down. He is not a motivated seller, so it makes little sense to pursue that path.

    Instead, a new path was developed in which he participates in developing something all will support and he will profit.  Wonderland Commons is about finding a community-backed compromise, that’s economically sound. It’s a win-win.

  • Wonderland Commons is designed to reduce traffic and parking headaches compared to a 252-room hotel. Our plan spreads out foot traffic, uses smaller-scale structures, and dramatically minimizes the car traffic and parking requirements. It has parking under the lodging structure that can also be expanded in a number of ways. The idea is to blend into the neighborhood and keep congestion under control—unlike the high-rise proposal, which would strain streets, parking lots, and public safety resources all summer long.

  • Mita presented his resort hotel proposal to a small segment of the Boardwalk Merchants and Downtown Merchants group, and representatives from the OC Chamber of Commerce. The boardwalk merchants voted in favor with fewer than 22 participants, and the downtown group had around 65% of votes in support. This is no way representative of the entire Ocean City business community.

    But even more importantly, in both cases, Mita offered the participants a binary choice—his resort, or leaving the site empty. Opposing viewpoints were not given equal opportunity to be heard. It’s not surprising where these folks would vote given only these alternatives. It’s also not clear whether these business owners have been influenced by real estate developers hoping that zoning laws will be overturned so that additional high-rise hotels can be built along the boardwalk, which would be a windfall for a small minority of landlords.

    The Wonderland Commons proposal, which includes entertainment, dining, public spaces and retail draws, creates incentives for greater pedestrian foot traffic, benefiting all businesses on the boardwalk. Mita’s hotel, by comparison, which is structured as a resort where all food and entertainment are on site, is designed to keep people within its own walls.

    We think the benefits of the Wonderland Commons plan greatly outweigh those of a closed resort, and it’s likely many boardwalk business owners would agree if given the option to vote on this viable alternative.

  • It is a high-rise. According to New Jersey building code, a high-rise is any structure over six stories or 60 feet. The current proposal exceeds that threshold. It also exceeds the high-rise standards set by the National Fire Protection Association and International Building Code.

    Further, the proposed hotel would be out of place on Ocean City’s boardwalk. Most buildings along the Ocean City boardwalk, and throughout the city, are—intentionally—two to three stories tall. The hotel would be significantly taller than any other neighboring structures - more than four times the size of anything nearby. In that context, the proposal doesn’t belong, either visually or structurally. Ocean City banned high-rises on the boardwalk for a reason.

  • Yes. Ocean City made a deliberate policy decision years ago to restrict high-rise construction. The goal was to maintain the city's small-town scale, protect ocean views, and preserve the character of the boardwalk and surrounding neighborhoods.

    While some taller buildings do exist, they were built before those zoning changes. Ocean City learned from these mistakes, which is why they are no longer permitted. Since then, the city has enforced height limits to ensure future development aligns with the community’s long-term vision.

  • That’s deliberate spin. Calling it a “mid-rise” gives cover to elected officials who’ve publicly promised to oppose high-rise, especially on the boardwalk. It’s a way to dodge their own campaign commitments without technically breaking them.

    Let’s be clear: every sitting council member went on record opposing a high-rise on the boardwalk in the lead-up to the last election. That wave of opposition was triggered by Mita’s earlier proposal for a 350-room hotel just one block north of Wonderland—a project so out of step with Ocean City’s values that it was dead on arrival.

    This new proposal may have fewer rooms (around 250) but it’s the same height and would place similar pressure on Ocean City’s limited infrastructure. The scale, impact, and threat to the boardwalk’s character remain unchanged.

    A different label doesn’t make it a different building.

The Big Picture Questions

  • The Big Mistake refers to the idea currently being proposed by developer Eustace Mita to construct a high-rise, full-service resort on the site of the former Wonderland amusement park at 600 Boardwalk in Ocean City. Why is it a big mistake? Because a high-rise, exclusive resort would decrease critical boardwalk traffic, would tower over the adjacent historic two-story neighborhood, would add to OC’s parking problems, overwhelm the local surf beach, and fail to draw crucial day-trippers into the city. Any approval of high-rise resort at this location is also certain to be challenged in court. This will result in added cost and uncertainty as this issue is litigated in New Jersey courts over a number of years, all of which can be avoided by respecting the longstanding and successful zoning designation for this key portion of the Boardwalk.

  • Ocean City is renowned for its family-friendly atmosphere, with the boardwalk serving as a key attraction that supports local businesses, encourages foot traffic, and defines the town's identity. 

    
600 Boardwalk occupies one of the most significant parcels on the boardwalk. It serves as the northern anchor, much like how a Macy’s or Neiman Marcus may operate as an anchor at the end of a mall. In fact, the old Wonderland amusement park made up 15% of the entire boardwalk frontage, represented 50% of the rides, and 100% of the venues dedicated to small children. 


    Given its size, location, and key function, it’s critical that its development aligns with Ocean City’s well-established character and enhances public use of the Boardwalk. The biggest mistake would be damaging the vitality of the Boardwalk and our town’s highly valued reputation as “America’s Favorite Family Resort.” Our goal should be simple: Make the Ocean City boardwalk even better!


  • A high-rise hotel at this location would harm the vibrancy of the Boardwalk and significantly hurt Ocean City’s economy, culture, and quality of life, all while primarily benefiting only the hotel developer and other property owners along the boardwalk who would try to follow its lead and also convert to high-rise hotels.

    Resorts generally operate with a self-contained business model, offering dining, entertainment, and amenities that are designed to retain guests onsite. The allure and charm of Ocean City’s Boardwalk, and the successes of local businesses, rely on high foot traffic and customer turnover.


    Among many other concerns about the resort’s impact, resort guests would be less likely to explore local shops, restaurants, and amusements—reducing the flow of visitors who traditionally support the wider Boardwalk, and Ocean City.

  • Yes, a wide range of local businesses will be negatively impacted by a high-rise resort.

    Market data suggests that Ocean City already has a surplus of available accommodations, including hotels and short-term rental homes. A new resort would likely pull customers away from existing lodging options—many of which are more integrated into the local economy—and concentrate spending within the resort itself.

    That shift would likely reduce business for the Boardwalk’s shops, amusements, and restaurants. In a nutshell, a resort doesn’t create new revenue; it simply shifts existing revenue to itself.

  • Day visitors are a vital part of Ocean City’s economy, especially as the cost of overnight stays rises. These visitors are typically drawn by public attractions like the beach and Boardwalk.


    Unlike amusement parks or entertainment venues that serve the general public, a private resort would not offer experiences that appeal to day-trippers. Replacing a public space like Wonderland with a private facility would make Ocean City less appealing for casual visitors, and reduce overall foot traffic.


  • Wonderland was a major attraction, particularly for families with young children, and drew between 3,000–5,000 people to the Boardwalk each evening during peak season. Its loss represents a significant reduction in amusement space and family-oriented entertainment.

    A resort, even if fully occupied, would serve fewer people and primarily direct their activity inward. This could lead to a substantial reduction in overall foot traffic—potentially affecting many Boardwalk businesses, especially those at the northern end that previously benefited from proximity to Wonderland.

    If not replaced with something that serves a similar public function, the ripple effects could be far-reaching.

  • The proposed resort would rise nearly nine stories—far taller than the surrounding historic neighborhood of Plaza Place, where most homes are two stories. This could affect the neighborhood’s character and potentially create issues related to shadows, parking shortages, beach crowding, and traffic congestion.

    There also have been no impact studies undertaken related to potential sewage or water issues, environmental impacts, or beach usage.



    It’s also worth noting that running a profitable 9-story hotel without also serving alcohol would be extremely challenging. Mita has been quoted as saying that Ocean City will eventually have to change its dry status.

  • Yes! But growth needs to be aligned with the town’s character and long-term sustainability. The question isn’t whether to build, but what kind of development best serves the community as a whole.

  • Large seaside projects in New Jersey face numerous financial challenges. First is permitting, given the sensitive and vulnerable areas where the projects are located. Financing is another major issue. Because of the seasonal economy, larger projects have faced financing challenges because their financial return has to be achieved in only three months of each year. The Soleil in Ocean City is a great example of this: it was permitted over 20 years ago and never built. A similar 10-story high rise in Seaside Heights is another example. Smaller hotels in that city have been successful, but the larger ones remain in the planning stages.

  • While running for their positions, every member of council publicly stated that they would be against a high-rise hotel on the OC boardwalk.

    Here’s what five members said at the May 2024 Candidate Debate when asked if they would support a high-rise hotel on OC's boardwalk (listen for yourself here):

    • Sean Barnes: “Absolutely not. That’s an easy one.”

    • Terry Crowley: “I’d be a no on that… not on the boardwalk.”

    • Keith Hartzel: “ To have any kind of boardwalk development with hotels would take away from the businesses.” 

    • Jody Levchuk: “Something like that is an absolute hard no.”

    • Dave Winslow: “While I’m on council I would never approve any changes such as that.”

    Here’s what two said when running for council in 2022

    • Pete Madden: “I am not in favor of high-rise hotels… [It] is not permitted in the Boardwalk zone. (Read the article here)

    • Tony Polcini: “I am not for the addition of high-rise hotels along our Boardwalk or skyline.” (Read the article here)

    More recently, however, both Madden and Polcini have expressed more openness toward Mita’s proposed hotel, raising questions about whether they will uphold their original campaign commitments. At the same time, they’ve noted that any final decision should follow a thorough vetting process to ensure it aligns with Ocean City’s values and has the backing of its residents. (Read more here.)

    It’s important for all the council people to know that OC residents are watching their actions closely, and we expect them to act in the community’s best interests, and uphold what they promised voters. Their decision will shape the future of the boardwalk—and the trust of this community.

  • Many believe the best use for the 600 Boardwalk property would be something that complements Ocean City’s unique character—possibly an updated amusement or entertainment venue that draws visitors, especially families, and supports local businesses. It’s important to note that under current zoning, hotel resorts are not permitted on this site.


  • Views expressed on this website are supported by a wide range of local residents of Ocean City from different walks of life and backgrounds who believe that a high-rise hotel on the Boardwalk will cause irreparable harm to Ocean City and our future. Some of these groups and individuals include: Ocean City 2050, Save Wonderland, Plaza Place, Friends of OCNJ History and Culture, and Concerned Citizens of Glen Cove. The Big Mistake campaign is organized by a coalition of local advocacy and community groups.

What are the alternatives to mita’s plan?

  • It’s a community-centered alternative to the proposed high-rise resort. The plan reimagines the site as a mixed-use town commons—featuring a public green, retail with lodging above, a small amusement park, a digital entertainment center, walking paths, and a signature boardwalk-facing carousel building with rooftop park space.

  • Eustace Mita is the current owner of the property and a highly experienced developer with a track record of successful hospitality. He could be designated as the master developer through a formal development agreement with the City. His involvement ensures that the project can be executed with quality, speed, and community awareness. He would secure profit from lodging sales, project management fees, and property leases, among other things.

  • The development agreement would include:

    • A commitment to the Better Idea plan

    • Terms for long-term subleases to operators of the amusement park, digital entertainment center, retail, and dining spaces

    • A public-private design committee to guide the look and feel of the project

    • Opportunities for public input at key stages

    This structure creates transparency, accountability, and a path for collaboration—not litigation.

  • The goal is to structure the project so that private investment funds most of the development. Lease revenues could even help offset future taxes. Early components like the playground and carousel would benefit from philanthropic grants, some of which are already in place. The City would likely have to contribute some capital to the project, but we would expect that contribution to be on par with other contributions the city typically makes, like its investment in the 34th street playground. And this would be a very strategic investment for the city to make, give the economic impact on the city.

  • It’s one of the two economic engines of the site, alongside the digital entertainment center. It also brings life to the commons, creating a vibrant, lived-in feel. Importantly,  the lodging is low-rise and positioned on a small portion of the property, in the rear, protecting the integrity of the boardwalk and consistent with that portion of the site’s previous, long-standing zoning.

  • If we are going to continue to be “America’s Favorite Family Resort,” small kids need their own place to play. That’s what Wonderland provided, and that is what we need.  The scaled-down park would feature traditional rides, not thrill rides—with a nostalgic, boutique feel designed to complement the boardwalk. Plus, it’s designed to be economically sustainable.

  • Our research and own experience as residents here tells us the mid- to late-teen set need something to do. This tech-forward, digital entertainment space is part educational, part immersive fun, and appealing to this age group It features virtual reality, interactive exhibits, projection-based games, and creative environments. It’s designed to be Ocean City’s top rainy-day destination and a year-round attraction.

  • Yes — but only for the rear portion of the site. Previously the back parcel had been zoned as “off-Boardwalk,” where lodging was permitted. Under the Better Idea plan, we propose reinstating that use through a targeted zoning change. In exchange, the city would receive substantial public benefits: a new green space, a carousel building, family attractions, and year-round entertainment.

  • It means collaboration. While Mr. Mita owns the land, the City helps shape the project through a formal development agreement. Private partners fund and operate specific components. Everyone works toward a common vision that serves both public and private interests.  Successful developments like this can be seen at the Wharf in Washington DC and the Navy Pier in Chicago.

  • Maintenance would be built into lease agreements. Private operators manage their own areas, while common spaces could be handled by a shared public-private management association. The goal is to ensure quality care without burdening the city budget.

  • Through a combination of private investment, philanthropic grants, and revenue-generating uses like lodging and the digital entertainment center. The city wouldn’t shoulder a significant portion of the cost—but it would help shape the structure.

  • The plan can be phased. The playground and green space could lead the way, followed by the carousel building, digital entertainment center, lodging, and retail. This phased approach allows for early wins and ongoing public input.

  • Through public meetings, a formal advisory board, and regular updates. This is not a behind-closed-doors plan—it’s a people-first, transparent proposal for a better future.

Addressing common arguments in support of the high-rise resort

  • Property rights are always subject to local zoning laws, which outline what can and cannot be built in certain areas.

    When the current owner purchased 600 Boardwalk, he did so knowing that the zoning did not permit hotels. Asking to build a resort means requesting a zoning change—not an automatic right.


    A helpful analogy: If you buy a house in a neighborhood zoned for two-story homes, you can't assume you'll be allowed to build a skyscraper there, or to transform your garage into a nightclub. Zoning laws are intended to protect the character and balance of a community.



  • Zoning changes aren’t private deals—they affect the entire community. That’s why public input is required by law.

    In this case, the property lies in the ON-BD (On Boardwalk) zone, which is designed to support businesses that attract public foot traffic—such as restaurants, shops, amusements, and other accessible venues.
 These uses are intended to bring people in, not keep them inside. A resort functions very differently.

  • Construction jobs would be created no matter what is built at the site. The key question is whether the long-term use of the property supports a healthy and sustainable local economy. A public-facing attraction—rather than a private resort—would generate broader economic benefits.

  • Actually, Ocean City has seen new hotel development in recent years, including two hotels that opened in the past two years. In addition, vacation rentals have grown substantially, with many new duplexes and triplexes serving as short-term lodging.


    There is currently no evidence of a shortage of available rooms. Hotels support tourism, but they are not typically the reason people choose to visit.

  • Public feedback has shown significant and organized opposition to the resort. Multiple town halls have been held, with the majority of attendees voicing concerns. Letters to local newspapers and public comments at City Council meetings have also largely opposed the project.


    Several local organizations—including SaveWonderland, Friends of OCNJ History & Culture, Plaza Place Association, Ocean City 2050, and the Concerned Citizens of Glen Cove—have taken public stances against the proposal. No known local groups have formed in support of it.

  • No. Most residents understand that change is inevitable—and often welcome. The key is ensuring that change is thoughtful, in line with community values, and supports the long-term health of the city. Many opponents of the resort are advocating not for inaction, but for a different kind of project that offers more public benefit.

  • Many families - and children! - continue to enjoy in-person entertainment and shared experiences. Nearby venues like Playland and Storybook Land continue to do well—especially when well-maintained and updated.

    Wonderland’s decline appears to have been driven more by a lack of investment than by a lack of interest.


  • No. While many appreciate the role Wonderland once played, the goal isn’t to rebuild the past. Instead, the hope is to develop something new and exciting that still serves the same vital functions—offering public, family-friendly entertainment that enhances the Boardwalk experience.

  • That depends on how the city manages it. The city has the authority to enforce its building maintenance code and ensure the property remains safe and presentable. In fact, local residents have already proposed temporary ideas for activating the space with public uses while long-term planning continues. So far, those ideas have not been adopted.


    There is also concern among some residents about whether the city has been sufficiently impartial in its handling of the site—particularly in light of past or current business ties between the mayor and the developer. 

Even if the site for a high rise hotel were approved today, the owner has said it would take at least two years to build.

What others are asking…

  • No! This a common misconception. As of now, there is no formal approval for the proposed resort. In fact, a detailed plan has not yet been officially submitted to the city. There is still time for residents to engage, ask questions, and share their perspectives—whether at public meetings, in local media, or in conversations with neighbors and officials.


  • Yes—there were two small-scale votes held by local merchant groups. The Boardwalk merchants voted in favor with fewer than 22 participants, and the Downtown group had around 65% of votes in support.

    While these votes provide some insight, they represent a small portion of the community compared to the city’s 15,000 year-round residents and the over 150,000 people who live in Ocean City during the summer.

    
It’s also important to note that in both cases, the choice presented was essentially “a resort or nothing,” and opposing viewpoints were not given equal opportunity to be heard. It’s also not clear whether these business owners have been influenced by real estate developers hoping that zoning laws will be overturned so that additional high-rise hotels can be built along the boardwalk, which would be a windfall for a small minority of landlords.

  • A high-rise hotel at this location would harm the vibrancy of the Boardwalk and significantly hurt Ocean City’s economy, culture, and quality of life, all while primarily benefiting only the hotel developer and other property owners along the boardwalk who would try to follow its lead and also convert to high-rise hotels.

    Resorts generally operate with a self-contained business model, offering dining, entertainment, and amenities that are designed to retain guests onsite. The allure and charm of Ocean City’s Boardwalk, and the successes of local businesses, rely on high foot traffic and customer turnover.


    Among many other concerns about the resort’s impact, resort guests would be less likely to explore local shops, restaurants, and amusements—reducing the flow of visitors who traditionally support the wider Boardwalk, and Ocean City.

  • While planning and zoning boards play an important role, they are composed primarily of mayoral appointees. Concerns have been raised about potential conflicts of interest, including financial ties between city leadership and the developer, and the presence of board members with real estate affiliations.


    This is why public engagement is essential—especially for a high-impact decision like this. The process should be transparent, inclusive, and accountable. That means holding meetings when residents can attend, broadcasting them online, providing advance notice, allowing adequate time for public comment, and ensuring that all viewpoints are considered.


    Recent examples have shown how citizen involvement can shape outcomes. Public opposition has helped prevent zoning decisions that might not have aligned with the town’s long-term interests. Civic participation is not just a right—it’s part of how the town stays true to its values.


  • The developer has expressed interest in having the Wonderland site designated as an “area in need of redevelopment.” Under New Jersey law, that label allows for zoning changes and may provide tax incentives. But to qualify, the site must be legally considered “blighted”—meaning it must be in very poor condition and actively harming the community.


    Many residents argue that the Wonderland site does not meet that standard, and have indicated that any such designation would likely result in legal challenges. There is concern that declaring the site “blighted” could set a precedent that other Boardwalk property owners might also seek to exploit, leading to unintended consequences for the rest of the town.


    Redevelopment is a drastic option that can also have other unexpected consequences. When the Soleil Hotel property was declared a redevelopment site by the City, for example, New Jersey courts ruled ruled that the plan adopted by the city was effectively broad enough to encompass condominiums even though that was not what the city intended. This decision ultimately could not be undone. We can’t risk something like that happening on the Boardwalk.

  • Rehabilitation is a separate legal designation with a lower threshold than redevelopment. It can offer more limited tax breaks for improving existing structures. However, this path still requires legal justification. Turning an amusement park into a resort may not qualify as “rehabilitation,” and zoning restrictions would still apply. Legal challenges could follow here as well.


  • Yes, that’s a real concern. The developer has reportedly suggested to other Boardwalk owners that if his project is approved, theirs could be too. That could fundamentally change the character of the Boardwalk.


    There’s also a legal risk: If the city allows a zoning change for one site, it may be harder to deny future requests elsewhere. Even if officials say they won’t allow additional resorts, once one is approved, others could follow. That’s why many believe the precedent set here is critically important.


  • The master plan is a city’s comprehensive blueprint for land use, development, and community goals. It’s updated periodically to reflect changes in demographics, infrastructure, tourism, and local priorities. The master plan includes recommendations for zoning, transportation, housing, public spaces, and more.


    Many residents feel that if the city wants to reconsider the zoning at 600 Boardwalk—or anywhere along the Boardwalk—it should do so through a full master plan process. That way, the discussion is broad, data-informed, and includes public input. It’s a more thoughtful, transparent way to shape the city’s future rather than making case-by-case exceptions.


  • The master plan would help determine what types of development are appropriate citywide, including at 600 Boardwalk. If the plan ultimately supports resort use, then a hotel could move forward—subject to any new zoning requirements. If not, the developer would need to propose something that fits within the updated zoning or consider selling the land.


  • Not necessarily. In fact, any attempt to rezone the site outside of the master plan process would likely face strong opposition and legal challenges, which could take years to resolve. A comprehensive master plan—done properly—could actually be quicker and more effective in creating a durable, broadly supported solution.
A cautionary tale is the Soleil project, which was granted redevelopment status decades ago but still remains undeveloped after more than 20 years.

  • It’s true that everyone has interests—whether they’re homeowners, business owners, or developers. But having a personal stake doesn’t invalidate an opinion. The same skepticism applied to opponents should apply to proponents as well.
The key is to gather all the relevant facts, listen to different perspectives, and make informed decisions. Diverse viewpoints can help ensure that important details aren’t missed.

In Case You Don’t Know Much About Wonderland…

  • Wonderland Pier opened in the mid-1960s, though its roots trace back to the Fun Deck, an amusement attraction that operated in the same general area starting in the 1930s.

  • Wonderland occupied the northern end of the Ocean City Boardwalk, between 6th and 7th Streets. It's often confused with Playland’s Castaway Cove, which is located between 10th and 11th Streets and continues to operate independently.

  • Wonderland Pier was opened by Roy Gillian—former mayor of Ocean City and father of the current mayor—in 1965.


  • The original park opened with about 10 rides. Over the decades, it expanded to include many classic attractions, such as a Tilt-a-Whirl, log flume, bumper cars, and two ferris wheels—the second of which was installed in the early 2000s and became one of Ocean City’s most recognizable landmarks. The carousel, built in 1926, and a 1940s-era fire truck ride were among its most historic and beloved features.


  • The property is owned by Eustace Mita, CEO of Icona Resorts—a company that operates luxury resort properties in Wildwood Crest, Avalon, and Cape May.

  • The previous owner, Jay Gillian, experienced financial difficulties. As reported by the Philadelphia Inquirer, Gillian was in danger of defaulting on multiple obligations. In 2021, Mita acquired the Wonderland property—reportedly for $8 to $10 million—and leased the amusement park back to Gillian. According to public records, Mita also holds or held other financial interests tied to Gillian’s properties, including a reported $1 million mortgage on Gillian’s home.


  • Mita’s company, Icona Resorts, has developed and operates upscale resort properties along the Jersey Shore. Some of these projects have faced local opposition and raised concerns related to zoning, scale, and community impact. Further detail on his development track record is available in this article.

  • The most publicized version of the proposal includes a nearly 9-story luxury resort. Early discussions indicated that Mita was seeking to have the property declared “blighted” in order to bypass existing zoning and qualify for redevelopment benefits under New Jersey law. More recently, there have been references to pursuing other designations—such as “rehabilitation” or direct zoning changes—to allow the resort to move forward.