“Ocean City Council Must Stay on the Path It Has Chosen”

Originally published in Ocean City Sentinel
by Bill Merritt

To the Editor:

Back in August, Ocean City made one of the wisest decisions in recent memory: it chose to step back, take a breath, and launch a comprehensive Boardwalk-wide planning process. A citizens-government subcommittee was created to gather facts, analyze them, and craft long-term solutions—not just for Wonderland, but for the entire Boardwalk district. It was, frankly, a master stroke of good governance.

Yet despite that clarity of purpose, the developer continues to push for a revote on rehabilitation status. And surprisingly, at least three councilmembers—two who originally supported the master-plan route, and one who actually sits on the Boardwalk subcommittee—are now echoing that call. 

Their reasons are difficult to pin down, but seem to boil down to two claims:

(1) the city would have “more control” under redevelopment, and

(2) it would be faster.

Both arguments collapse under scrutiny.

First, the City has tremendous control under any path. Zoning, planning, permitting, and public process all remain firmly in the City’s hands. 

And let’s apply a little common sense: do we honestly think the developer is pushing for the path that gives the City more control over him? Of course not. He prefers rehabilitation because the process is conducted largely behind the scenes, where influence, leverage, and financial ties can quietly shape outcomes. That is the opposite of public-centered planning.

Second, timing. The master plan re-examination is faster. Planning has already begun work on several components. An updated Boardwalk plan could be completed by late summer, followed shortly by a modernized zoning ordinance. That means shovels conceivably in the ground in late 2026, or early 2027. 

The rehabilitation process, by contrast, drags on for at least 18 months—six months to produce a redevelopment plan, followed by a year (or more) of litigation challenges. Shovels don’t move until late 2027 or 2028, and that assumes the litigation fails. It could be years longer if the litigation is successful.

But the biggest difference between the two processes isn’t speed or power—it’s the role of the public.

Rehabilitation begins by looking backward: cataloging the conditions of Wonderland and, inevitably, assigning blame. And because someone who contributed to those conditions cannot legally benefit from them, it sets up an adversarial process from the start. 

After that, everything moves into the dark. The City negotiates a deal with the developer—literally behind closed doors—and reveals the finished product to the public with just days to react. Residents are not invited to shape it—only to accept or reject it.

The subcommittee/master-plan approach is the opposite. It is cooperative, transparent, and forward-looking. It brings residents, businesses, and officials to the same table. It gives the public multiple opportunities to weigh in, refine ideas, and build consensus. Instead of being handed a fully baked cake and told to “like it,” citizens get to help make it. And it does not preclude a hotel being ultimately built.  It just makes sure that such a choice is the right choice, for the people.

That is how good policy—lasting policy—is created.

As a community, we can also work in the short term to protect the north end merchants by sponsoring nightly entertainment options that would help draw visitors, young and old, to this end of the boardwalk.  This collaborative process would not only be helpful to the shop owners, but would also drive more community cohesiveness—something the rehabilitation path has ripped apart.

In short: rehabilitation is conflict-driven and backwards-facing. The master-plan process is collaborative and future-focused. Ocean City already chose the right road. Now we need to stay on it.

Bill Merritt
Ocean City