FAQs about Ocean City NJ’s “Big Mistake”

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.