Mita believes only merchants matter in Ocean City
Originally published in the Ocean City Sentinel
by Jim Tweed
To the Editor:
Every Ocean City taxpayer and resident should read what Eustice Mita had to say about those who opposed his luxury hotel. It was published in the July 8 edition of the Sentinel. He speaks of how little he thinks people “contribute” to the community who are not members of the Chamber of Commerce, Asbury Avenue or Boardwalk merchants organizations.
Apparently, he's unfamiliar or disregards the many other civic associations, clubs and volunteer organizations in this town where citizens offer their time, talent and money to make Ocean City a desirable place to live.
Mr. Mita makes it clear he thinks “revenue generators” are the number one “contributors.” How about the taxpayers? How about residents who live here and don't commute to run their businesses? How about the neighborhoods that will be directly impacted, and the rest of the city that cares about the cultural identity of Ocean City? If they express reasonable concerns, they're nothing more than “haters” and “complainers” to him. But don't feel offended, because his bitterness is predictable. He didn't get what he wanted, when he wanted it.
Mr. Mita says he wants “to do what's right for Ocean City.” That sounds reassuring. But, so far, he's been acting like: “what's right for me is right for Ocean City.” He talks about a “silent majority” who are in favor of his luxury hotel. What silent majority? They've certainly not been “silent.” And if they were a majority, Sean Barnes and Jim Kelly would have lost their elections instead of being the top two in voting for City Council.
But if Mr. Mita talks mostly to people who agree with him, it's easy to understand how he would adopt that impression.
Mr. Mita makes it clear he thinks “revenue generators” are the number one “contributors.” How about the taxpayers?
Now that City Council has given up, why should he compromise anything? Council President Terry Crowley Jr. created the subcommittee. Councilman Dave Winslow led it. They both voted against the recommendation of their own subcommittee to proceed through the normal zoning process. Why would Mr. Mita compromise with a council that acts like it does not respect itself?
Another question: For the past year the boardwalk merchants have demanded “action now” because the north end of the boardwalk was struggling. If the normal zoning process had been followed from the beginning, it would be done by now. Yet everything they did had the effect of making the process longer. They are not stupid. What's underneath their persistence? I did not want to believe they really wanted the same opportunity to let their businesses deteriorate so they, too, could get a rehabilitation zone designation. Then “take the money from a developer and run.” But now it seems to be the only explanation left. And they never offered a factual explanation of how adding luxury hotel rooms at the end of the boardwalk will save their businesses. They sounded like their opinion was a fact and never responded specifically to the reasonable concerns expressed.
And it doesn't end. We've known from the beginning a “Rehabilitation Zone” designation will draw a legal challenge. Why do they continue to choose to make the process longer?
Final question. How long do you think it will take for Mr. Mita's luxury hotel to turn into luxury condos? I hope I'm wrong. But it's been reported many times that hotel rooms have been struggling too. All the above questions will be answered. Eventually.
Jim Tweed
Ocean City
