Originally published in the Ocean City Sentinel
by Dave Breeden
To the Editor:
At a recent City Council meeting, former council member Pete Madden spoke on behalf of the Ocean City Chamber of Commerce and urged negotiation over the proposed resort at 600 Boardwalk.
That was encouraging. But it was also a little surprising coming from someone who has been a steadfast supporter of the high-rise proposal, and he gave little indication that he believed compromise was appropriate, or even necessary. We should remember he ran for mayor on this “no compromise” platform, finishing a distant third.
But assuming Pete is truly in favor of negotiation, it seems safe to assume he also accepts that negotiation must involve compromise: finding common ground and working toward a shared solution.
With that in mind, it is worth recalling what the Chamber of Commerce said when it endorsed the resort in May 2025.
The Chamber could not have been clearer: Its support was “contingent upon several key recommendations aimed at ensuring alignment with the character and values of the community.”
Those recommendations included a comprehensive traffic study; ongoing neighborhood input and community consensus; preservation of Ocean City’s traditional character; a commitment from property owner Eustace Mita to act as a responsible neighbor and community partner; cooperation with local businesses to ensure broadly shared economic benefits; and donation of the Ferris wheel to the city.
These were meaningful conditions attached to the Chamber’s endorsement. They made clear that investing money in Ocean City was only part of the equation. Respecting Ocean City mattered too.
I applauded the Chamber’s position in 2025, and I agree with it today. And I assume that when Pete recently spoke for the Chamber, his call for negotiation reflected those same expectations.
Unfortunately, we have seen little evidence that Mita has met them, or frankly even tried.
Mita bought a huge piece of Ocean City history—an amusement park that thrilled families for generations. We are not asking him to bring it back. We are asking him to respect its history and to respect Ocean City’s history and culture.
We have not seen a comprehensive traffic study. We have not seen a meaningful effort to build consensus with the surrounding neighborhood. The designs presented so far look less like Ocean City and more like something borrowed from Disney World and dropped onto the boardwalk. And allowing the Ferris wheel to deteriorate hardly reflects the spirit of the Chamber’s recommendation that it become a gift to the city.
Taken together, this record raises a simple question: Is Mita prepared to make the compromises that the council is seeking, Ocean City residents have been demanding, and the Chamber’s own endorsement—and Pete’s recent reiteration—requires?
Mita must answer that question with action and clarity. Namely:
• Lower the height of this project to something that fits in Ocean City, and then tell us exactly how tall it will be—in feet from a fixed point—not in riddles we are expected to decipher.
• Explain what the public, boardwalk-facing entertainment component will be and how it will drive traffic to and on the boardwalk.
• Develop a unique and inspiring Ocean City design—not a Del Corso Disney knockoff.
• And tell us what your exact plan is for the historic carousel. Hopefully, not the same fate as the Ferris wheel.
Mita bought a huge piece of Ocean City history—an amusement park that thrilled families for generations. We are not asking him to bring it back. We are asking him to respect its history and to respect Ocean City’s history and culture.
Mita has an opportunity to prove that this project can become a partnership rather than an imposition. But compromise cannot mean that Ocean City concedes—while Mita gets his way. Genuine compromise means both sides move. If Mita will not move, there is no common ground to find.
David Breeden
Ocean City
