FAQs about Ocean City NJ’s “Big Mistake”

Dec. 2025: Responding to a potential Re-Vote on the Wonderland Pier

Hotel supporters are spreading false information that sending Wonderland rehab to the Planning Board would allow the experts to study zoning options. The truth is that the Board would NOT review zoning, they would only review the conditions of the property.
What recently happened with the Seaspray condos is an example of exactly how rehab works: the Planning Board’s report was simply a review of whether it met the criteria for rehabilitation. Nothing about what should be done with the site or its zoning. After rehab was approved, the public saw one plan — the developer’s — negotiated privately and shared just two days before the vote.
Rehab doesn’t explore options or provide helpful information. It ends the public process and moves decisions behind closed doors. The Boardwalk Subcommittee, on the other hand, includes four Planning Board members along with diverse community voices, and is the best process to review zoning options quickly and with expert opinions.
Read the Planning Board’s findings on Seaspray for more information.

This decision was already made, after lengthy debate and significant public outcry. It was decided that the most fair, equitable, and thoughtful approach would be for an updated Master Plan that would look at the whole Boardwalk, including amusement piers, retail blocks, residential areas, and open spaces, to guide how it all fits together. Why? We are dealing with a comprehensive Boardwalk zoning question; so we should use a comprehensive zoning tool — the master plan — to answer it. One Boardwalk developer shouldn’t get a private process and special rules that the rest of the town will have to live with for decades.

Continuing with the Master Plan and Council Subcommittee is the right approach to protect the Boardwalk, the neighbourhoods around it, and the integrity of Ocean City’s planning process.
1. We are not dealing with a “property condition” question. We are dealing with a zoning question. The city is on the correct path; the Boardwalk subcommittee is actively evaluating the facts and circumstances around the entire Boardwalk, and will provide specific recommendations on zoning. This is a process that looks forward and will answer the important question before us in a timely manner.
  Importantly, the Subcommittee’s findings will be sent to the planning board for incorporation into the master plan. So, we are not against Planning Board involvement; we just want to ask them the right questions and give them the right information.
2. It would move the decision to a less public and visible process: Sending this to the Planning Board shifts away from the Master Plan’s open, inclusive, and transparent process into a private, backroom process that reduces community input and is much more likely to benefit the developer. Residents would see a near-final deal only after it’s already been shaped behind closed doors.
  
  Just look at the Sea Spray project. While we support the project and believe Council did a great job of working with the developer, the average resident in town didn’t actually see the renderings and all the zoning changes until two days before the vote. Do you want that same process on something as critical as Wonderland?
3. It sets a dangerous precedent: Granting a special exemption to one owner signals to others that they could do the same. This opens the very real possibility that high-rises could replace small, family-friendly businesses all the way down the Boardwalk, fundamentally changing its character and family-friendly appeal.
4. The property does not meet the statutory definition for rehabilitation. The shortcomings cited in the developer’s rehabilitation study do not represent the types of pervasive substandard property conditions that would merit designating it an area in need of rehabilitation. This represents typical maintenance for Shore properties and should not be the basis for government handouts.
5. It rewards neglect and is unfair to responsible owners: One of the reasons the developer is claiming his property deserves rehabilitation designation is that it has fallen into disrepair. But it did so, under his watch!! A rehabilitation designation here would implicitly reward neglect (and in fact, such “demolition by neglect” is specifically prohibited in other cities). Other owners who maintain their buildings would receive no special benefits, undermining fairness citywide. It also encourages other owners to follow the same playbook: let their properties fall into disrepair, then ask for rehab and permission to build more high-rises on the boardwalk, citing Wonderland as the precedent.
6. It would not provide any relevant information: The Planning Board’s rehabilitation review would only provide a very narrow factual determination: whether the property meets statutory criteria for a special designation. It would not provide insights on what should be allowed on the property, nor would it generate any new information on height, traffic, infrastructure, environmental impact, storm safety, infrastructure, or economics.
  
  In other words, sending this issue to the Planning Board doesn’t give the Council more information; it just makes it easier for them to apply a rehab status to the property and move negotiations to a private process, which is exactly what the developer is hoping for.
7. It is Slower. Master Plan reexaminations can be completed in a year. That means by this time next year, we can have an updated zoning map, and projects can be measured against that. A conforming project at Wonderland can begin by late 2026 or early 2027.
  
  The rehabilitation process will take 6 to 9 months to get a redevelopment plan, but that is almost certain to be the subject of litigation. That will take another year or more to complete. So, no project will start until late 2027 or early 2028.
8. We have not given the Master Plan process time to produce results. City Council made this critical decision just two months ago. The Subcommittee is just beginning its work. Let that proceed for a few months, and then City Council can assess the quality and timeliness of the work. If, as expected, it is solid work, the city can let that proceed. If it needs adjustment, the city can do that, on an informed basis.
We’ve heard some misleading language from some of our city’s leaders, but this claim is particularly disingenuous. Referring the issue to the planning board does not create new options. Nor does it encourage special expert opinion that couldn't be given to the Council, the Mayor, or the subcommittee directly.
Instead, it puts momentum behind one option — a high rise — that the developer has been desiring for months.
The rehabilitation discussions happen privately between the city and the developer, meaning this process creates far more opportunity for behind-the-scenes influence than an open master plan process. If someone wanted to create a pathway for backroom bargaining, this is exactly how they’d do it.
Further, Council doesn’t need a rehabilitation designation to negotiate. The city can negotiate under existing authority through zoning amendments, site plan conditions, infrastructure requirements, and conditional approvals, all of which occur within a transparent public framework.
Absolutely not. Even if the rehabilitation designation were approved, construction would take years. And because the City has mishandled key steps of the process, legal challenges are highly likely— meaning delays are almost guaranteed.
Fast-tracking a flawed process only guarantees a slow outcome.
We completely agree, we need fast solutions to address this area! Equally true however, just because the area needs help doesn’t mean a high-rise is the answer. The solution shouldn’t come at the expense of zoning, fairness to other businesses, or the character of Ocean City.
There are ready-to-explore, lower-risk paths to activate the area quickly—paths several Council members, including Dave Winslow and Sean Barnes, already support. These can advance in weeks or months, not years, and they don’t require handing special rehabilitation exemptions to a single developer.
With strong local leadership, we can activate the area responsibly while the broader Boardwalk planning process continues, without locking Ocean City into a legally vulnerable, privately negotiated deal.
There are a few important reasons:
- Scale: The proposed building would tower over neighbouring structures, casting shadows on residents, nearby properties, and the Boardwalk itself. There are a few other tall structures on the Boardwalk, but all were built before current zoning guidelines, and most are significantly set back. In fact, our current zoning laws were written to prevent more high rises like the one built in 1973 not too far from 600 Boardwalk.
- Precedent: Allowing one owner on the Boardwalk to bypass zoning sets a truly dangerous example. Other Boardwalk property owners will hope for the same leeway (and resulting financial windfall), and soon all the family-friendly small stores and businesses that bring charm to our Boardwalk could easily be replaced with one high-rise after another.
- Parking: A 252-room hotel will create severe parking shortages, especially during peak tourist season. Parking is already a major issue in OC; a resort would make it even more difficult for locals and tourists alike.
  
  Mita has stated that he will provide 375 parking spaces for 252 hotel rooms. By his own estimate, that’s one space per room, leaving 123 spaces for staff, visitors, and event guests. However, other hotels in town report that guests typically require 1.4 spaces per room, as many guests arrive and leave separately. Mita has stated he’ll have 1 parking spot per guest, which isn’t enough for either guests or staff.
- Neighbourhood impact: A resort-style hotel is designed to keep guests inside, not bring foot traffic to nearby shops or attractions. The hotel will not bring the foot traffic down the Boardwalk that’s so critical to nearby businesses.
- Practical issues: The project would create serious overcrowding at the already small local beach, parking problems, and environmental concerns (none of which have yet been assessed).
- It’s Not A Draw. The boardwalk needs entertainment. Only 15% of the current venues on the boardwalk offer entertainment. Additionally, the Boardwalk thrives on businesses that push people up and down the boardwalk. A resort captures them; that’s the business model. While it may be a great facility somewhere else in town, it is the wrong type of asset on the Boardwalk.

FAQ: Rehabilitation Designation vs. Master Plan in Ocean City

A rehabilitation designation is a limited legal tool under New Jersey law. If a property meets conditions of aging infrastructure or need for reinvestment, the designation allows the city to offer financial incentives like tax abatements or phased assessments. But it does not decide what can be built or how a site may be used.
A master plan is the city’s comprehensive land-use blueprint. It is broad in scope, covers the entire city, including its entire Boardwalk, sets zoning rules, and answers big-picture questions, for example: Should Wonderland Pier remain amusement-oriented? Should residential or hotel uses be permitted? How do we balance development with open space and public access? It is comprehensive while a rehabilitation designation is narrow and financial.
The master plan addresses zoning. It sets permitted uses along the Boardwalk, the scale of buildings, setbacks, density, and design guidelines. If Ocean City wants to limit height, protect amusement uses, or require active ground-floor retail, that happens through the master plan, as then implemented by Council through zoning ordinances..

A rehabilitation designation does not change zoning. Nor does it provide any information to inform that decision. If Wonderland were designated “in need of rehabilitation,” the zoning on the site would remain unchanged. Any actual changes in use, height, or density would still require a separate rezoning process.
At first glance, a rehabilitation designation may seem faster—City Council could adopt it in just a few weeks. But that is misleading. Rehabilitation doesn’t change zoning, so a separate, months-long rezoning process would still be required, before any final decisions about the site’s future. On top of that, rehabilitation designations are often challenged in court, which can delay projects for years.
A master plan takes more time upfront with studies, planning board hearings, and public participation. But once complete, it becomes the legal foundation for zoning changes across the Boardwalk. Courts generally uphold master plans, making legal challenges rare—unlike rehabilitation designations, which are often contested.
Other towns have moved quickly. Edisto Beach in South Carolina implemented its master plan in 18 months, from community input to final adoption. Laguna Beach in California implemented its Facilities Master Plan in 1 year. In practice, a master plan is the faster path to a clear, durable decision on Wonderland’s future, because it avoids the risk of piecemeal rezoning and costly litigation and delays.
The master plan. It looks at the entire Boardwalk as a whole— amusement piers, retail blocks, residential areas, and open space, not just Wonderland.
When Ocean City updates its master plan, it can consider how amusement piers, retail blocks, residential stretches, and open spaces all fit together. It can ask: How do we preserve the character of the Boardwalk? Where should family entertainment be concentrated? Should some blocks lean toward residential while others emphasize tourism and activity? This corridor-wide view ensures the Boardwalk evolves in a balanced and intentional way.

A rehabilitation designation, by contrast, is site-specific . If applied to Wonderland, it would only cover that property. It would not consider how the decision fits into the larger puzzle of the Boardwalk’s identity or long-term future.
A master plan is equitable because it determines rules across the boardwalk. If Wonderland were rezoned through a master plan process, other Boardwalk properties would be evaluated under the same framework. This builds fairness and avoids the perception of special deals.

A rehabilitation designation applies only to the designated site. If Wonderland alone received special tax relief or incentives, its neighbors would not—even if they faced similar challenges. This can create inequity and the appearance of favoritism, undermining public trust.
A master plan is designed to foster open discussion, and requires residents, business owners, and developers all getting a seat at the table. Planning board hearings allow stakeholders to argue for preserving amusements, expanding open space, or introducing new uses like lodging or digital entertainment. The process invites debate, compromise, and consensus-building.

A rehabilitation designation is handled more administratively, with limited public involvement. A consultant prepares a report, and Council refers to the Planning Board which reviews the report and makes a recommendation as to whether the site is an area in need of rehabilitation. Council holds a vote, and that matter—the rehabilitation designation—is largely settled. Because it does not address zoning or use, there is little room—or legal requirement—for public input on the fundamental question of what the site should become.
A master plan is highly defensible. Courts generally defer to municipalities that follow the statutory process of adopting a master plan through studies, public input, and planning board action. Unless the process is egregiously flawed, or reflects the output of conflicts of interest, courts rarely overturn master plans.

A rehabilitation designation is much more vulnerable. Because it is a threshold legal finding, challengers often argue that the statutory conditions (such as age of housing stock or infrastructure deficiencies) were not actually met. A number of rehabilitation designations in New Jersey have been struck down in court, creating uncertainty and delays for both cities and developers.
The master plan creates long-term certainty. Developers, merchants, and residents all benefit from knowing the rules are clear, predictable, and broadly applied. If the master plan says Wonderland should remain amusement-oriented but allow for modern attractions, then investors can move forward with confidence. Likewise, if the plan allows a certain type of lodging or sets a clear height limit, the rules are settled and defensible.

A rehabilitation designation does not bring such certainty, leaving zoning questions unanswered. Investors may hesitate to commit capital if they are unsure whether rezoning will succeed, or whether litigation will derail the process. In the meantime, speculation can drive prices up as developers gamble on more favorable decisions. Residents, too, are left uncertain about what the future holds.
A master plan is the right place to decide whether a hotel belongs on the Boardwalk, and if so, under what conditions. Through the master plan process, the city can weigh community input, examine impacts on traffic and parking, set rules for height and design, and determine whether lodging strengthens or weakens the Boardwalk’s character. Both supporters and opponents could offer evidence of how the hotel could benefit the Boardwalk and those against the hotel could offer their own evidence.
If Ocean City decides that hotels should be permitted, the master plan provides the legal foundation for changing zoning to allow them—either at Wonderland or elsewhere along the corridor.
A rehabilitation designation cannot do this. The designation has nothing to do with land use or zoning. Even if Wonderland were declared “in need of rehabilitation,” that designation would not give the owner the right to build a hotel. Zoning would remain unchanged, meaning the developer would still have to come back later and seek rezoning. At most, rehabilitation creates some tax advantages, but it cannot answer the core question: should a high-rise hotel be allowed on the Boardwalk?

OCEAN CITY COUNCIL MEMBER PROMISES

While running for their positions, every member of council publicly stated that they would be against a high-rise hotel on the OC boardwalk.
- Terry Crowley: “I’d be a no on that. … not on the boardwalk.”Pete Madden: “I am not in favor of high-rise hotels….[It] is not permitted in the Boardwalk zone.”
- Keith Hartzell: “If it’s not broke don’t fix it. The boardwalk is one of our crown jewels.
- Sean Barnes, “Absolutely not. That’s an easy one.”
  Tony Polcini: “I am not for the addition of high-rise hotels along our Boardwalk or skyline.”
- Jody Levchuk, “Something like [Mita’s 2022 proposal] is an absolute hard no.”
- Dave Winslow: “While I’m on Council I would never approve any changes such as that.”Item description
However, since then, many members of Council—including President Terry Crowley and Vice President Pete Madden—have refused to affirm their promises made to residents, and instead appear to be moving ahead with plans for a high-rise hotel behind closed doors, without a coherent plan or vision for the boardwalk, and despite local opposition.
That’s why it’s critical that OC residents contact City Council and urge them to keep their promise. To find out how to get involved, click HERE. To read full quotes and attributions from the Council, click HERE.

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.

Frequently Asked Questions: The Ocean City Community Survey

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.

FAQs about Ocean City NJ’s “Big Mistake”

Dec. 2025: Responding to a potential Re-Vote on the Wonderland Pier

FAQ: What Would a Rehab Referral to the Planning Board Actually Do?

1. Why Is a Revote on the Wonderland Pier a Big Mistake?

2. Why do you oppose City Council sending the question of whether the 600 Boardwalk parcel needs rehabilitation to the Planning Board?

3. Is it true that turning this over to the planning board is just a way of getting more information and evaluating options?

4. Won’t Mita’s proposed hotel be the fastest solution for the Northern end of the Boardwalk?

5. The northern end of the Boardwalk is suffering; how can we just let it sit there empty?

6. Why are so many opposed to Mita’s hotel? What’s the big deal?

FAQ: Rehabilitation Designation vs. Master Plan in Ocean City

1. How are a rehabilitation designation and a master plan different?

2. Which process deals with zoning?

3. Which process would lead to a faster decision on the future of the Wonderland site, considering rezoning and litigation risk?

4. Which process is focused on the entire Boardwalk?

5. Which process creates equity among Boardwalk property owners?

6. Which process facilitates discussion between developers, citizens, and the city?

7. Which process is less likely to be challenged in court?

8. Which process creates the greatest investment certainty for the Boardwalk?

9. Can a hotel be addressed in a master plan versus in a rehabilitation designation?

OCEAN CITY COUNCIL MEMBER PROMISES

Is it true that all seven council members publicly pledged to oppose a high-rise hotel on the Ocean City boardwalk? And if so, are they standing by that commitment now?

What is Rutgers University’s Eagleton Center for Public Interest Polling (ECPIP)?

When did you engage them?

What’s the difference between a census and a survey—and which one was this? Was it random?

Why wasn’t I contacted?

If I, or people I know, didn’t get called—how can this survey be valid?

Is Rutgers biased toward your position?

Does opposition or support for the hotel follow partisan lines?

Do the people conducting the survey try to steer responses?

Isn’t this just a paid opinion?

Does the report include a margin of error?

Frequently Asked Questions: The Ocean City Community Survey

TOP Questions ABOUT A BETTER IDEA

1. Aren’t you telling Mr. Mita what to do with his land?

2. Wouldn't even a smaller hotel require a zoning change?

3. I thought you said a hotel was a big mistake. Now you're suggesting one?

4. This seems great on paper, but isn’t this idea just a pipe dream? Is there any funding lined up?

5. Why don’t you buy the property if you believe in the proposal so much?

6. How will Wonderland Commons address traffic and parking?

7. Isn’t the Ocean City business community in favor of Mita’s hotel?

8. Is Mita’s proposed hotel really a high-rise? Is that an exaggeration?

9. Didn’t Ocean City already ban high-rises?

10. I’ve heard some people calling Mita's hotel a “mid-rise.” Why?

The Big Picture Questions

1. What is the "Big Mistake"?

2. Why is 600 Boardwalk such an important property?

3. Why would a high-rise resort hurt the Boardwalk?

4. Could a high-rise resort negatively impact local businesses?

5. What role do day-trippers play in the local economy, and how might a resort affect them?

6. What might be the broader impact on Boardwalk activity?

7. Are there other potential impacts of a large-scale hotel development?

8. Doesn’t Ocean City need new investment and development?

9. Is this project economically feasible?

10. Is it true that all 7 council members publicly pledged to oppose a high-rise hotel on the Ocean City boardwalk? And if so, are they standing by that commitment now?

11. What’s the better use for former Wonderland site?

12. Who is behind this website?

What are the alternatives to mita’s plan?

What is the “Better Idea” for the Wonderland Pier site?

Who would build the project?

What’s included in the development agreement?

Will this cost the taxpayers money?

Why is there a lodging component?

Why include a small amusement park?

What is the Digital Entertainment Center?

Would this plan require a zoning change?

What does “public-private partnership” really mean?

How would this be maintained over time?

How would the project be financed?

What is the timeline for development?

How can the community stay involved?

Addressing common arguments in support of the high-rise resort

1. Isn’t it a property owner’s right to build what they want?

2. But zoning laws can be changed. Why shouldn’t this be a simple adjustment between the city and the developer?

3. Wouldn’t a resort at 600 Boardwalk create jobs and boost the economy?

4. Hasn’t Ocean City gone decades without new hotels? Don’t we need more?

5. Isn’t the opposition to this project just a vocal minority?

6. Is this really about resisting any change to Ocean City?

7. The developer says amusement parks are outdated, and kids just want screens. Is that true?

8. Are opponents just trying to bring back the old Wonderland?

9. If the resort is blocked, won’t the empty site become an eyesore?