OceanCity2050

09/02/2026

As Council begins discussions with the developer, they should be reminded that the Subcommittee emphasized height is crucial. Case in point: look at the beach shadows coming from this project.

08/31/2026

**Show Up and Stay Involved —This Thurs September 3!**

Join your neighbors this Thursday, Sept 3, at 10 am at City Hall for the public comment portion of the critical OC City Council session to discuss developer negotiations and litigation over the Wonderland's rehabilitation designation.

Before council takes the meeting BEHIND CLOSED DOORS, this is our community's chance to let them know:

1. We encourage them to move forward with appropriate developer discussions, market analysis, considerations of alternatives, and meaningful public input—these valuable steps need to happen now and aren't dependent on the ultimate means by which the project moves forward. (To this end, we object to using rehabilitation and support our city's Master Plan and the City Boardwalk Subcommittee's recommendations).

2. There is no reason to use active litigation as an excuse to keep relevant information from the public. We understand certain needs for privacy. But this is an important public decision, and the public needs to be appropriately informed.

In that regard, Council should address several important questions as this process moves forward:

* Council President Terry Crowley has said, “We have been presented with an initial plan, but nothing has been done with that.” Have substantive discussions with the developer begun?

* Mr. Mita has repeatedly said publicly that he is open to compromise. Has that included a willingness to seriously consider alternatives — including reducing the height and scale of the project to respect the surrounding neighborhood? Does it include protecting the iconic character of the Boardwalk through appropriate Boardwalk-facing entertainment and attractions?

* How will the recommendations of Council’s own Boardwalk Subcommittee factor into these discussions?

* Has the City begun the market analysis and other studies necessary to support any significant change to the Boardwalk?

* When will residents have a meaningful opportunity to participate in the process?

* What is the timetable for negotiations, public input, and any decisions by Council?

What matters following this meeting is what comes next: serious analysis, genuine consideration of alternatives, meaningful compromise, and public involvement before decisions are made.

Please come out to City Hall Thursday, September 3, and make your interest known. The future of the Boardwalk is too important for the public to sit this one out.

The official website of Ocean City, NJ

08/24/2026

Why did a number of Ocean City community groups take the extraordinary step of filing a lawsuit against their own city?
In a new letter to the editor in the Ocean City Sentinel, Dave Breeden of Fairness in Taxes (FIT), one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, explains why he believes the case is about much more than what happens at the former Wonderland site.

“This lawsuit is not about yesterday’s amusement park. It is about tomorrow’s city government.”

Read Breeden’s full letter below on why the plaintiffs believe the issues at stake—public participation, transparency, conflicts of interest, and following the proper planning and zoning process—will have implications for Ocean City long after the future of 600 Boardwalk is decided.

To the Editor:

Filing a lawsuit against your own city is not something anyone wants to do. It is expensive, divisive, and time-consuming. So, when it does happen, it is a sign that something has gone seriously wrong.

That is where Ocean City finds itself today.

When Wonderland closed in 2024, we lost a beloved part of our history. But the city also had a once-in-a-generation opportunity to ask a simple question: What should the next 50 years of the North End of the Boardwalk look like?

Instead, the city focused on a different question: What does one developer want to build?

From that point forward, the process largely revolved around accommodating that proposal.

The city waited. It delayed meaningful planning. It ignored opportunities to engage the public. When it finally created a Boardwalk Subcommittee to develop a comprehensive vision, many of us believed the city had finally gotten on the right path. Residents participated. Experts testified. Months of work produced thoughtful recommendations. The report was broadly well-received by the project’s many stakeholders.

But a majority in city leadership have since turned their back on the report they once lauded, despite many residents, community groups, and fellow Council members urging them not to. It seems, for reasons unexplained, that they’ve dismissed the process and findings of the report—and their promises to us for a lawful, collaborative, and transparent redevelopment process along with it.

Rather than using the Subcommittee’s work to begin building the future of the Boardwalk, the city instead rushed to sidestep Master Plan and zoning protections to wrongfully designate Wonderland as an “area in need of rehabilitation.”

In doing so, the city also sidestepped the traditional zoning process, eliminating many of the public protections designed to ensure transparency, consistency with the Master Plan, and meaningful public participation—all without valid or legal reason. And it yielded power to the developer.

Why?

Here’s what the public knows: The developer seeking these approvals has extensive financial ties to the mayor, which are documented in court records. The public has seen the mayor’s involvement. Our complaint chronicles it. Time and again, residents have raised concerns about conflicts of interest and the appearance that decisions were being influenced by relationships that should have required greater independence and scrutiny. Those concerns have never been addressed.

The New Jersey Ethics Commission says that government does not merely have to avoid actual conflicts of interest. It must also avoid the appearance that public decisions are being shaped by private financial relationships.

This lawsuit asks the Court to restore that principle.

Those bringing this case hope to ensure that redevelopment laws are used for their intended purpose—not as a shortcut around the traditional planning and zoning protections that exist to properly guide growth and safeguard the public. The truth is: we’ve seen a similar pattern of the city skirting process and public input for many years, from the Glen Cove Marina and the proposed 125-foot cell tower at 33rd Street and Bay Avenue to the proposed dog kennel in the Haven Street neighborhood.

This lawsuit is not in opposition to development. We do not oppose a hotel. We do not oppose investment. In fact, we hope the city finally begins the studies, planning, and negotiations its own Subcommittee has recommended. We are for new development —undertaken through the proper legal process and with a place for the community at the table.

After careful consideration, we all came together to file because we believe deeply that the law matters. Process matters. Public participation matters. And public confidence in government matters.

And to be clear: we continue to support positive and productive progress at 600 Boardwalk. This lawsuit does not in any way prevent the city from moving quickly. But it needs to do so lawfully, transparently, and without sacrificing the rights of the people.

Ocean City deserves a government that plans before it acts, that follows the law before it grants special treatment, and that places the interests of its residents above the wishes of any politically connected developer.

This lawsuit is not about yesterday’s amusement park. It is about tomorrow’s city government.

Dave Breeden
Fairness in Taxes
Ocean City

https://ocnjsentinel.com/print-edition/ (page 7)

Ocean City Sentinel ONLINE EDITION

08/14/2026

Have questions about the Wonderland Lawsuit filed earlier this week? Read the latest letter from OC2050 and the other lawsuit defendants below and check out our updated FAQ.

Dear Friends & Supporters:

As we shared earlier this week, Plaza Place Civic Association, Beach Watch Motel Condominium Association, Fairness in Taxes (FIT), and Ocean City 2050 filed suit in Superior Court in the County of Cape May against the City of Ocean City and City Council, seeking to void the Council’s June 25, 2026, designation of the former Gillian’s Wonderland Pier property (600 Boardwalk) as an “Area in Need of Rehabilitation.”

We appreciate the engagement and discussion around the lawsuit since it was announced. We’re glad that the conversation on social media has largely been civil and thoughtful, and we welcome the questions being raised. We’d like to take a moment to highlight our Frequently Asked Questions and address some of the comments we’ve often seen come up.

*First and foremost, this lawsuit is not about stopping development at Wonderland.* It is about protecting the rights of Ocean City residents and challenging a process we believe is unlawfully compromised by significant conflicts of interest, insufficient independent analysis, and the removal of important public protections. Residents should not have to choose between redevelopment and good government. Ocean City deserves both.

We've also heard questions about what happens next. *The good news is that progress can and should continue while the lawsuit moves forward.* The developer can submit his promised downsized hotel proposal. The City can negotiate with him. And the City can and should move forward with the market studies, traffic analysis, environmental and CAFRA review, and other work recommended by the Boardwalk Subcommittee. None of these crucial steps are prevented by this lawsuit.

We also appreciate the comments we have received about the depth of our investigation, its clarity, and the care and thought that went into the complaint. We understand the gravity of this issue, and we spent considerable time gathering documents, information, and researching the law. And keep in mind: *the complaint is just the first part of a legal process*. It lays out the legal basis and claims for the case. We will have additional opportunity to supplement the evidence as we learn more.

Another question that has been raised is whether the lawsuit will impose costs on the city, which taxpayers would need to ultimately pay. If the City chooses to stand by its unlawful actions, then yes, it will. But think about it this way: What if the City routinely stripped away residents’ rights? How will that affect our quality of life? If residents cannot challenge the city because it will cost the city money, then the City could never be sued, and could operate with impunity. That’s not right. In truth, *the City brought this lawsuit on itself by failing to do what it said it would do – conduct a Master Plan review to assess and update the Boardwalk zoning as needed.* They instead bent to the developer and chose a path that they knew would lead to litigation. This is part of a pattern of the City choosing the option preferred by the developer rather than the more transparent path.

Finally, some have asked why residents should care if they don't live near Wonderland or if they are in support of a hotel there. First, the future of our family-friendly Boardwalk hangs in the balance; this impacts everyone who loves Ocean City. And second, *everyone should care because the rights and protections at stake belong to everyone.* If government can weaken important planning protections and diminish the public's voice for one project, it can do so elsewhere in Ocean City. The decision to file did not happen in a vacuum, but rather in part because of a troubling pattern we’ve seen over many years and many projects of the City weakening public protections beyond just Wonderland.

We encourage you to read the full FAQ (link below) share it with your friends and neighbors, and continue asking questions.

Thank you for your continued support,

Jack Gutenkunst
Plaza Place Civic Association

Howie Atkinson
Beach Watch Motel Condominium Association

Dave Breeden
Fairness in Taxes OCNJ

Bill Merritt
Ocean City 2050

As we shared earlier this week, Plaza Place Civic Association, Beach Watch Motel Condominium Association, Fairness in Taxes (FIT), and Ocean City 2050 filed suit in Superior Court in the County of Cape May against the City of Ocean City and City Council, seeking to void the Council’s June 25, 2026...

08/13/2026

We appreciate the engagement around the lawsuit filed by Plaza Place, Ocean City 2050, FIT and Beach Watch regarding Wonderland. While we don’t agree with all of the comments, the discussion has largely been civil and thoughtful. That’s a good thing.

One concern we’ve heard repeatedly is that the lawsuit will stop progress.

We want to be clear: There’s no reason that progress shouldn’t continue. The lawsuit challenges the process the City used to designate Wonderland as an Area in Need of Rehabilitation. It does not prevent the City from undertaking important and necessary work, from market studies to negotiating with the developer.

Instead, progress has stopped due to inaction by City Council and the developer. At the August 6 City Council meeting, Council President Crowley admitted as much, saying the City was waiting for the developer to come forward with a proposal.

In response to the lawsuit, the developer said he intends to move forward and present a proposal for a downsized hotel. It is not clear why the developer, who has had two years to prepare a proposal, has yet to actually submit any official plans to the City or public beyond a rough sketch. Also, it’s now been nearly two months since the supposed “urgent” vote on rehab, and we’re still waiting for forward progress. A downsized hotel proposal would be a good start. Let’s see what it looks like.

In the meantime, there is absolutely nothing preventing the City from doing the other critical work that the Boardwalk Subcommittee said was needed. In fact, much of that work should already be underway. These include the following:

A market survey:
Moving forward on a major change to the Boardwalk without understanding the market is simply negligent. And wasting the summer—when the City could be measuring Boardwalk traffic, talking to visitors, residents and businesses, and developing a real assessment of what the Boardwalk needs—is equally troubling. Summer is when the data is there to be collected.

Understanding CAFRA limits:
This is a difficult area in which to build. Before debating projects that may or may not be feasible, we should understand the actual environmental and regulatory constraints on the property. Otherwise, we risk spending months pursuing something that ultimately cannot be built.

Traffic studies:
Wonderland sits in an extremely congested part of town. Any significant redevelopment will affect traffic, parking, pedestrians and the surrounding residential neighborhoods. We need an independent, City-driven traffic analysis—not one commissioned by a developer—to understand what this location can reasonably accommodate.

Why hasn’t the City started this work?

There is no reason to sit and wait.
Let the developer bring forward his revised proposal. Let’s evaluate it fairly. But at the same time, the City should be gathering the independent information needed to evaluate that proposal—and any other proposal—on the merits.

Progress doesn’t mean rushing toward a predetermined answer. Progress means doing the work necessary to get the answer right.

08/10/2026

Today, a group of concerned citizens and local organizations, including Plaza Place Civic Association, Beach Watch Motel Condominium, Fairness in Taxes, and Ocean City 2050, filed a lawsuit challenging Ocean City’s rehabilitation designation for the former Wonderland site.

We believe it is important for the community to understand why we joined others in taking this difficult but necessary step. We invite you to read the letter, which was also shared with our supporters.

We recognize that this action may raise questions and concerns. Before drawing any conclusions, we encourage you to also review our press release and the complaint itself, which provide additional context on the lawsuit, the issues that led to it, and what we hope to achieve. (Links to filing and press release also in the comments)

JOINT LETTER TO OUR SUPPORTERS

Dear Friends and Supporters,

Today, Plaza Place Civic Association, Beach Watch Motel Condominium, Fairness in Taxes, and Ocean City 2050, filed a lawsuit challenging the city's rehabilitation designation for the former Wonderland site.

This was a decision that was not taken lightly. We did so because this case is about much more than one property, and because so many of our lawful rights are at stake.

Over the past several years, we have watched a troubling pattern emerge in Ocean City. Whether it's the Wonderland property, the Glen Cove Marina, the proposed 125-foot cell tower at 33rd Street and Bay Avenue, or other major projects, the approach has been increasingly the same: The City sides with developers and attempts to bypass long-standing planning protections and reduce the public's rights in decisions that fundamentally reshape our community. The City’s Wonderland rehabilitation designation, for instance, improperly attempts to remove key protections residents count on: safeguards against spot zoning, the requirement that development stay consistent with the City's Master Plan, and residents' right to formally protest certain zoning changes.

Regardless of what you believe should ultimately be built at 600 Boardwalk, every resident should be concerned when government seeks to weaken the very protections and rights that ensure development is transparent, lawful, and accountable.

That is why we filed this lawsuit.

This case is not about stopping progress. We want to see responsible redevelopment at the Wonderland property, and we encourage the City to take immediate steps to begin the Boardwalk Subcommittee's recommendations of market studies, planning work, and negotiations with the developer. Those steps are necessary regardless of this lawsuit or whether a rehabilitation designation exists, and there is nothing about this lawsuit that prevents the City from moving forward with them immediately.

We’re asking the Court to void the rehabilitation designation, because it was approved through a process that was legally flawed, and we believe it was intended to take away critical land use protections for residents. The suit argues that the decision was 1) affected by serious unresolved conflicts of interest and 2) that the City did not provide the factual basis required under New Jersey law to justify the designation.

At its core, this case is about making sure major decisions are made fairly, lawfully, transparently, and with meaningful community participation. The coalition believes Ocean City can welcome investment and redevelopment while also respecting residents' rights, following established planning laws, and maintaining public trust in local government. In fact, that’s what good governance and good growth really looks like.

Thank you for your continued support over the past months. Your emails, attendance at meetings, and willingness to stay engaged have made a real difference. As this case moves forward, we'll continue to keep you informed.

Sincerely,

Jack Gutenkunst
Plaza Place Civic Association

Howie Atkinson
Beach Watch Motel Condominium Association

Dave Breeden
Fairness in Taxes

Bill Merritt
Ocean City 2050

Today, Plaza Place Civic Association, Beach Watch Motel Condominium, Fairness in Taxes, and Ocean City 2050, filed a lawsuit challenging the city's rehabilitation designation for the former Wonderland site. 

08/07/2026

City Council made some shocking admissions last night:

Six weeks after rushing to designate Wonderland an Area in Need of Rehabilitation, City Council now admits it has done nothing to move the process forward since that vote— no negotiations, no studies, no proposal. As Council President Terry Crowley acknowledged: “We are waiting on the developer.”

That raises some pretty basic questions: What was the rush? Why now wait for the developer rather than lead? Why wasn’t the developer ready to submit a proposal, given the supposed urgency?

Sadly, we saw this coming. In June, Council rushed to give the developer a free gift (rehabilitation) that raised the value of his property and took away the rights and protections residents rely on, all while ignoring the significant public requests to slow down and gather more information first. Now they admit that they can’t get the developer to even return their phone calls.

What’s worse is that Council, now responsible for driving this process, not only hasn’t started negotiations, they haven’t even started gathering any of the information they need to negotiate—market analysis, parking and traffic studies, environmental reviews, and more.

As Council Member Dave Winslow, who chaired the Boardwalk Subcommittee, admitted last night, there’s nothing stopping the Mayor’s hand-picked Planning Board from initiating a review of the Subcommittee’s recommendations. And yet, they haven’t started that either. Council Member Winslow doesn’t seem to care.

This is all part of a troubling pattern from City Council: cede power and control to developers, take power away from residents, and fail to demonstrate any real leadership or vision.

We won’t get into the ethics (and legality) of how the Mayor and City Solicitor Dottie McCrosson—both of whom are heavily conflicted— were involved in the meeting last night, but it further reinforces how this process has been flawed and tainted throughout.

Ocean City deserves a City Council that leads thoughtfully, expeditiously, and transparently— and follows the law. Some Council members, namely Keith Hartzell, Sean Barnes, and Jim Kelly, have tried to move forward positively, but have been overruled by their colleagues. Unfortunately, it appears as if the majority of our Council, as currently constituted, fails to live up to these most basic of standards.

Ocean City NJ Council 08 06 2026

08/07/2026

Council once again chose to delay action on the Boardwalk, this time citing a desire for more information about pending litigation.

Here's the truth: The pending lawsuit does not in any way prevent the City from adopting the Subcommittee's report as a resource. The resolutions tonight simply recognized the committee's hard work and committed to considering its recommendations as the City's planning process moves forward. Ocean City spent months developing these broadly supported recommendations. They deserve to be considered—not postponed or set aside. Delaying action only delays the transparent, thoughtful planning process Council itself initiated.

The pending litigation also does not prevent the City from taking the immediate, lawful, transparent planning steps the Subcommittee recommends and the public supports right now, including studies and negotiations.

Yet time and time again, the City Council continues to delay and obfuscate, blaming everyone but themselves, and ultimately deferring every decision to serve the developer and mayor while stripping away the voice and rights of residents. Residents must insist that every City decision follow a lawful, open planning process with meaningful public input. Ocean City deserves promises be kept.

08/05/2026

UPDATED LINK! Your support is requested at tomorrow's 8/6/2026 Council meeting! We wanted to make sure you know about two items on the agenda for the Council meeting this Thursday:

• Resolution 26-235 is asking Council to adopt the Boardwalk Subcommittee’s Final Report as a reference document for future planning decisions on the Boardwalk; and

• Resolution 26-236, which would refer the report to the Planning Board for comment.

We fully support both these resolutions and believe they deserve wide public support. They would incorporate the Subcommittee’s analysis, findings, and recommended next steps into the city’s actual planning process and acknowledge the hard and thoughtful work the joint subcommittee did to guide the important redevelopment of 600 Boardwalk. Read more about both items and why they matter at

We wanted to make sure you know about two items on the agenda for the Council meeting this Thursday Aug. 6: Resolution 26-235 is asking Council to adopt the Boardwalk Subcommittee’s Final Report as a reference document for future planning decisions on the Boardwalk; and Resolution 26-236,

07/29/2026

New from OC2050 President Bill Merritt: "Three possibilities with council on Wonderland site"

More than a month after the rehabilitation vote, Ocean City residents are still waiting for answers. Council made clear promises before approving rehabilitation. Has it followed through?

In this latest Letter to the Editor in this week’s Ocean City Sentinel, Merritt examines the conflicting signals, the unanswered questions, and why the next few weeks could determine whether those promises were real—or simply a means to secure the vote. Read the full piece at

More than one month since City Council adopted its June 25 resolution declaring the Wonderland site an “Area in Need of Rehabilitation",” official communication from the city has been almost nonexistent. As a result, the public has to piece together conflicting comments made by the city and