Understanding Conflicts of Interest in Local Government (Part 2)
A Four-Part Series on Ethics, Influence, and the Future of Public Trust in Ocean City, New Jersey
In this four-part series, we talk about conflicts of interest and recusal, with an emphasis on small towns. The first part covered the background of conflicts of interest and recusal, generally. This part discusses those concepts from the standpoint of land use decisions in towns like Ocean City. The last two parts will cover what happens when conflicts are ignored, and when they become too pervasive.
Conflicts of Interest in Land Use Decisions in Small Towns
Overview
In a small town like Ocean City, where land is scarce and expensive, land use decisions are among the most consequential—and conflict-prone—actions local governments can take. Zoning variances, redevelopment approvals, and planning board recommendations are not mere formalities. They determine the long-term character of the city, influence neighborhood economies, and shape residents' quality of life.
These decisions attract powerful local interests: deep-pocketed developers, politically connected attorneys, and influential consultants. Even subtle conflicts of interest can significantly erode public trust and skew outcomes.
Multiple Players, Uneven Influence
Land use decisions involve numerous actors. Planning Boards and Zoning Boards vote on site plans, variances, and redevelopment proposals. City Council adopts zoning ordinances, redevelopment plans, and financial agreements. The mayor, although not voting directly, wields significant influence over the process through control over administrative staff, timing, and presentation.
Much of this critical work happens out of public view—in private meetings, internal briefings, and informal conversations—making it difficult for residents to understand how decisions are made or influenced.
“In a town where everyone knows everyone, conflicts can rear their ugly head in the most seemingly innocent of settings.”
A Mayor’s Outsized Influence
A crucial but often overlooked factor in land use decisions is the mayor’s substantial influence. While the mayor may not directly cast votes, their control over city staff, access to information, and the ability to shape how issues are framed and presented to City Council can profoundly affect outcomes.
Ocean City operates under a strong-mayor system. The mayor oversees daily administration, supervises city staff, and influences public messaging and council agendas.
Critically, the mayor nominates a majority of the Planning Board members. Over multiple terms, a mayor can appoint dozens of board members, influencing the city’s planning philosophy and policies for decades.
Long tenure without term limits compounds this issue. While institutional knowledge is valuable, extended service by the same individuals risks creating an insular, entrenched environment. Board members may become more loyal to political alliances or philosophies than responsive to community concerns.
Council members also typically rely on reports and recommendations prepared by city staff. If the information provided is incomplete, biased, or selectively emphasizes certain facts over others—intentionally or not—it can lead council members, even those without personal conflicts, to make decisions based on flawed or skewed data.
For example, if traffic studies provided by staff fail to fully account for peak seasonal usage or omit environmental impact concerns raised by independent experts, council members might approve projects without fully understanding potential consequences. Similarly, if staff reports downplay resident opposition or minimize negative impacts on local businesses, a well-intentioned vote can inadvertently support a controversial project.
This dynamic underscores the importance of transparent, unbiased information. Without it, even the most conscientious council members are at risk of making decisions influenced unknowingly by hidden agendas or insufficient context.
The Developer’s Advantage in Small Towns
Developers in smaller communities often wield outsized influence. Their longstanding presence means their professional and personal networks are deep. It’s common for developers' friends, former employees, or business partners to hold positions in city government or on influential boards.
These relationships, typically undisclosed and rarely tracked, subtly shape decision-making processes. Even when officials recuse themselves from formal votes, informal interactions—such as conversations at social events or private communications—can significantly impact outcomes.
Weak Financial Disclosure Rules
New Jersey requires municipal officials to file annual Financial Disclosure Statements (FDS), but these disclosures are limited:
Sources of income over $2,000
Property holdings within the municipality
Business affiliations
Public positions held
Crucially, private loans from developers or interested parties need not be disclosed unless they generate income or ownership interest. An official can legally omit reporting personal financial ties to developers whose projects they oversee.
The lack of robust financial transparency exacerbates public distrust, especially where business and governance heavily overlap.
The Domino Effect: Conflict Becomes Precedent
Perhaps the greatest risk of conflicted land use decisions is their cumulative impact. Once approved, decisions influenced by conflict become legal and political precedents, normalizing what might otherwise be controversial.
One questionable approval paves the way for subsequent ones. What starts as an isolated exception quickly becomes a standard practice. This domino effect quietly reshapes city policy and physical landscape under the guise of consistency rather than conflict.
“One tower becomes two. One zoning change becomes a new standard. The question isn’t just whether the first decision was fair—it’s whether the next five are.”
Why It Matters
Land use decisions fundamentally shape Ocean City’s future. They determine what gets built, how dense areas are developed, and who ultimately benefits. When these decisions occur amid hidden loyalties, inadequate transparency, and informal influence, it undermines public trust and equitable governance.
Ensuring fairness in zoning decisions isn’t only about preventing wrongdoing—it’s about safeguarding democracy, community engagement, and fair treatment of all residents, not just the well-connected few.
In Part Three, we’ll examine what happens when conflicts of interest are ignored, and the inevitable lawsuits and public controversies begin.