What We’re Watching in Ocean City: New Study, Litigation Update, Planning & Zoning Board Notices & More

This past week brought new questions about who will shape Ocean City’s future—and how those decisions will be made. Residents called for long-term strategic planning, questions emerged about a $95,000 study, and public pushback appears to have prompted the City to reverse a troubling change in meeting notice. Former Council President Pete Madden also weighed in on 600 Boardwalk—raising the question of what has actually delayed progress and what must happen next, while Councilman Keith Hartzell made clear that the future of the site should be shaped by the City, not by one developer. Read more below….

Who Will Decide the Future of Wonderland?

Two pieces in the Ocean City Sentinel raised important—and connected—questions about Ocean City’s future.

In a recent letter to the editor, OC resident Jim Tweed argued that the City needs a long-term strategic plan instead of continuing to react to individual development proposals without adequate groundwork or a broader vision.

Editor David Nahan also reported on a call for greater accountability around 600 Boardwalk and the importance of the Boardwalk Subcommittee’s recommendations for future planning.

Together, they raise a central question: Will the future of the former Wonderland site be shaped by one developer’s proposal, or by a transparent, community-driven plan for what Ocean City wants the Boardwalk to become?

As Councilman Keith Hartzell recently said in OCNJ Daily, what happens at 600 Boardwalk should be the City’s plan, not a developer’s plan. We hope everyone can agree on that.

A New Survey Raises More Questions

It was also recently reported that the Tourism Commission and Chamber of Commerce have commissioned a $95,000 survey to help plan Ocean City’s future.

Gathering reliable information is a welcome step. But a survey is only one part of the broader planning process Ocean City needs. Important questions remain about how the survey was authorized, who will shape its work, and whether the complete findings will be made public. We’ll share more as we learn more.

Litigation Update

As expected, there has been little movement in the case while the City retained new litigation counsel. As Jim Tweed noted in his recent letter—and another resident echoed at the Council meeting—the City’s legal representation has raised serious concerns. The City Solicitor’s role helped create the circumstances that led to the lawsuit, while special counsel John Ridgway neither helped prevent the dispute nor appeared equipped to litigate it. The result: The City is now hiring yet another attorney.

Pete Madden Says It’s Time to Move Forward. We Agree - Kinda

Former Council President Pete Madden recently called for an end to the fighting over 600 Boardwalk and urged the City to move forward. We agree—but blaming the lawsuit for nearly two-year delay twists the truth and rewrites the timeline.

Wonderland closed in 2024; the lawsuit was filed only weeks ago. In between, the City pursued a special rehabilitation process for one developer rather than requiring him to follow the normal zoning process. Council first rejected that approach 6–1, with Madden casting the lone vote in favor, and the Planning Board later declined to recommend it.

Under Madden’s Council leadership, calls for a Master Plan review, independent studies, and greater public involvement went unanswered. He actively advocated for the rehabilitation designation, supported the high-rise hotel, and also criticized the Subcommittee that ultimately produced a broader framework for the Boardwalk’s future.

The lawsuit did not create the legal vulnerabilities or potential conflicts now being litigated. Those arose from the process the City chose to follow, one steered by Pete. Progress will come when transparency, independent analysis, public participation, and lawful government are treated as the foundation for a durable solution—not as obstacles to it.

Residents Push Back—and the City Backpedals, a Bit

Residents raised concerns after the Planning and Zoning Board announced changes that would make public involvement more difficult, including removing important application materials from the City’s website and reducing advance notice of meeting agendas from 10 days to 48 hours.

After residents questioned the changes, the most recent Zoning Board agenda was once again posted 10 days in advance. That is encouraging—and another reminder that speaking up makes a difference. But we continue to be concerned that critical planning documents will be more difficult to access if not posted online. Public access and adequate notice are essential to a fair land-use process.

We will continue pressing the City to preserve online access, adequate notice, and residents’ opportunity to be heard. (Read more in our Facebook post here.)