Three possibilities with council on Wonderland site
Originally published by the Ocean City Sentinel
by Bill Merritt
To the Editor:
More than one month since City Council adopted its June 25 resolution declaring the Wonderland site an “Area in Need of Rehabilitation",” official communication from the city has been almost nonexistent.
As a result, the public has to piece together conflicting comments made by the city and developer to the press, and is left to wonder if the city will keep its word and truly seek a compromise, or if it was just a mirage all along.
In voting for rehabilitation, City Council made some strong commitments to the public. They promised the public that it was not a vote for a big hotel. That they would undertake impact studies before making a decision (studies which the developer himself had once promised, but failed to deliver). That the public would remain engaged, but the Boardwalk Subcommittee's recommendations would be its "guiding light," as Council Vice President Dave Winslow said. And that the city would have more power, not less, through this process.
Maybe this will all come true. And, if so, both the city and the developer are implying in the press they will negotiate something smaller, and with more entertainment.
While we hope that council is genuinely interested to keep all its promises, we remain cautious.
For one, council already failed the first real test of its commitment to follow its subcommittee report: whether to use rehabilitation status to rezone 600 Boardwalk. The report said no; council said yes, in a hurried vote.
We are also concerned because there are already conflicting signals from the city and developer: The developer says he could be ready to move forward within 35 days. Council President Terry Crowley Jr. suggests the process will take longer, with more studies to be done. As has often been the case in this matter, we can't decide whom to believe — if anyone.
The city needed a legal path where it believed the public would be shut out: no standing to challenge the project as illegal spot zoning; no ability to file a public protest petition that would trigger a supermajority vote for approval; no right to argue that the project is inconsistent with the master plan.
We remain cautious for another reason: it's unclear why the city, only now, is beginning negotiations, when it could have started them years ago. Most of the possible explanations are worrisome.
One possibility is that council was wrongly advised by the city solicitor that it could not negotiate until a rehabilitation declaration was made. If that was the legal advice, it was malpractice, and could reflect the possible financial conflicts of the city solicitor in this matter. City policy routinely has council negotiate before granting such status, precisely so they know what project is being contemplated, whether there is public support for it, and what planning tools will actually be needed.
A second possibility is that the developer refused to negotiate until he secured rehabilitation status first — effectively holding the city for ransom until it secured this right. If that's what happened, why would the city give in? Paying a ransom only invites the next demand, and it sets a terrible precedent for every negotiation that follows.
The third possibility — and by far the worst, but also the most plausible — is that the city never intended to negotiate at all, and will not now.
Instead, it intends to give the developer everything he wants.
But, to do so, the city needed a legal path where it believed the public would be shut out: no standing to challenge the project as illegal spot zoning; no ability to file a public protest petition that would trigger a supermajority vote for approval; no right to argue that the project is inconsistent with the master plan.
And that is what the city believes a rehab designation does.
That may very well be why the city worked so hard (with vote after vote after vote until it got the vote it wanted) to gain this status, and why the developer insisted on it: to sideline the public.
Whether rehabilitation status delivers this ability is a separate question, and we don't think it does. But the city believing it intended to negotiate at all, and intended it will not now.
Instead, it intends to give the developer everything he wants.
But, to do so, the city needed a legal path where it believed the public would be shut out: no standing to challenge the project as illegal spot zoning; no ability to file a public protest petition that would trigger a supermajority vote for approval; no right to argue that the project is inconsistent with the master plan.
And that is what the city believes a rehab designation does.
That may very well be why the city worked so hard (with vote after vote after vote until it got the vote it wanted) to gain this status, and why the developer insisted on it: to sideline the public.
Whether rehabilitation status delivers this ability is a separate question, and we don't think it does. But the city believing it does may be enough to explain the timing. And that may be exactly why the city worked so hard to garner this status — so it could put forward a project residents don't want, because the financial connection to the developer has grown too strong, and the rights of the public have grown too weak.
The next few weeks will tell us their true intentions. Let's hope for better angels. But we are prepared for the worst.
Bill Merritt
Ocean City 2050
