Statement from Ocean City 2050 Following June 25 Council Vote

Last night, Ocean City Council voted to designate 600 Boardwalk as an Area in Need of Rehabilitation. It was the wrong decision — strategically, procedurally, ethically, logically, and morally.

Strategically

The vote surrendered the city’s strongest bargaining chip to the developer and got nothing in return. No competent negotiator does that. The result is a weaker hand for the city, a stronger hand for the developer, and a worse outcome for residents. 

The rationale offered for this strategic blunder was that it protected the city against a use variance being granted to the developer by the zoning board. But in fact, this step made that easier, as the developer can now rely on the City’s declaration that the parcel needs special zoning attention in any such application. 

The right way to protect the city was for Council to negotiate the basic contours of the project with the developer before granting any sort of status. That is exactly how other municipalities typically approach these issues, and also how this City Council successfully approached development of the Seaspray condominiums. Why they abandoned this successful approach here is indefensible.

Procedurally

The vote also directly contradicted the two-week-old Subcommittee Report — which both Councilmen Dave Winslow and Jody Levchuk said they supported — and which called for using traditional planning tools, not rehabilitation designation, to address this site. That was the right path. Neither Levchuk nor Winslow adequately explained their abrupt about-face on this critical issue.

Ethically

The Council was presented with several unresolved conflicts of interest questions concerning Council members, as well as clear evidence of the Mayor Jay Gillian’s financial ties to the developer—confirmation that the Mayor was wrongfully involved in this rehabilitation process.  

In response to that evidence and for a variety of other strong reasons, Councilman Sean Barnes made a reasonable, well-articulated motion, seconded by Councilman Keith Hartzell, to table the matter for just two weeks to investigate the conflict and to protect the City and Council from allegations of wrongdoing. 

Five Council members heard, but ignored these serious ethical concerns and knowingly voted on a record they knew would be tainted. 

That is inexcusable, and now places them in the middle of that conflict.  Whether or not those concerns ultimately prove legally disqualifying, refusing a brief delay unnecessarily undermined public confidence in the process.

Logically

Their stated rationale — that they “needed to get this moving” — collapses under the slightest scrutiny. Without the rehabilitation designation, the city could still firstly, begin negotiations with the developer immediately, and with a stronger hand; and secondly, begin developing a redevelopment plan, since nothing in the law prohibits it. A rehabilitation designation is only required to adopt such a plan as law. Their urgency argument was not a reason to act — it was a false pretext. There was no legitimate reason to move forward, and ample reasons not to.

Morally

Their refusal to defer the vote for two weeks — long enough for the newly elected Council to be seated — was a direct repudiation of the voters of this city. There was no reason to do so.

Compounding these substantive lapses, the meeting was marred by Councilman Levchuk verbally attacking a constituent who rightfully questioned his boardwalk property interests, by Councilman Tony Polcini seemingly embracing that attack and then wrongfully calling out those against the hotel as the only ones making harsh remarks while the matter has resulted at times in harsh remarks from both sides; and then by Council President Terry Crowley allowing the misconduct occur. Crowley also needed to be informed by the legal counsel for a resident group that he was required to take a full vote on the motion to table…not just gather enough votes to kill it. 

It was a bad night for City Council. It was sad night for the city.  And it was a terrible night for good governance. It was a good night for those who wagered that cultivating financial ties to government officials would deliver rich rewards. 

But the Fight Is Not Over…

A number of groups, including OC2050, will be filing suit against the City challenging the rehabilitation designation — citing the Council’s failure to meet the statutory requirements for rehabilitation, its arbitrary decision-making, its willful disregard of known financial conflicts, and its breach of fiduciary duty to the citizens it serves

As residents, we need to protect ourselves against the consequences of this misguided vote, and, at this point, legal action is necessary.

That said, we also recognize that this vote is not the end of the story. And we all want the same outcome: a thriving Boardwalk, a plan the community can support, and completion in a reasonable amount of time.

If Council follows through on its promise of an open, expert-driven planning process, genuinely engages the public, and negotiates from here in the best interests of Ocean City to deliver a product that does what the Subcommittee says — enhances entertainment, respects the neighborhoods, and protects our Boardwalk’s iconic look and feel — we will embrace it. And we are more than ready to help achieve that goal.

We are wary that the first moment City Council had to respect the findings of the Subcommittee’s work, it rejected it. Hopefully that was an aberration, not the trend.