‘Rehabilitation’ May Be The Latest Ploy to Push Through Massive Redevelopment - March 11, 2025

At a recent Downtown Merchants Association meeting a new word appeared, designed to further confuse and mislead the public related to the future of our Boardwalk.  The word…“Rehabilitation.” 

For months, Wonderland’s owner, Eustice Mita, pushed the idea that Wonderland was “blighted” and needed “Redevelopment”—a designation that allows zoning overrides and even authorizes eminent domain. 

That argument failed miserably, for the obvious reason that Wonderland is not blighted and residents were offended at its boardwalk being equated to a slum. Faced with an obvious lawsuit, a new tactic seems to have emerged: instead of full-scale blight, we are hearing a suggestion for a designation of “in need of Rehabilitation” (in other words, “blight-lite!” ) — to jam this project through. 

Why the change? “Redevelopment” demands proof that the Wonderland property is causing actual harm to the public, which is preposterous. “Rehabilitation,” on the other hand, drops the actual harm requirement. But, it still requires showing that the property has substantially deteriorated. That’s right: the plan hinges on proving that Wonderland was allowed to fall into substantial decay by Mita. (Quite a claim when you remember that our mayor was the owner and operator of this property, and that our children were enjoying its giant rides just a few months ago.)

And the next move? Use that alleged self-inflicted “decay” to give a handout to Mita by bypassing zoning laws and forcing through a massive, financially risky high-rise hotel at the expense of Ocean City’s culture and economic well-being—despite Mita having bought the property knowing hotels were forbidden on the Boardwalk, with zoning requirements specifically in place to preserve that culture! (It’s worth noting this is the same person that proposed virtually the same hotel on another not-zoned-for-hotels lot in another beach town, thus undermining any claim this is a site-specific hardship he’s trying to solve). 

Imagine if a single-family homeowner let their house fall into disrepair and then tried to claim it “needed rehabilitation” to justify building a high-rise apartment complex where it’s not allowed without going through the required zoning processes (where it would certainly get rejected). That’s exactly what this is … just on a much larger scale. 

So, let’s parse this a bit more.  First question: can Mita even use “rehabilitation” as a path to skirt the usual zoning procedures? Highly unlikely, for a couple reasons. Rehabilitation is defined as “an undertaking, by means of extensive repair, reconstruction or renovation of existing structures, with or without the introduction of new construction…” (Chapter 12A. NJ Housing & Development Law, Section 40A:12A-3.) Think of it like having your knee rehabilitated. At the end, it’s still a knee. It’s not a foot.

Here, Mita would be trying to “rehab” an amusement park by turning it into a hotel. To do this, he wants to avoid zoning laws and get a tax break. That won’t fly. The result? A very likely lawsuit. 

Second, even if Mita could shoe-horn his way into the statute, he would not be able to avoid the usual zoning process. The right to override local laws and create a zoning overlay is limited to redevelopment areas. So, just like any other owner, Mita would still need to use the typical municipal processes for a zoning change … which in this case is a zoning change for just his parcel. This would be radically different from the zoning for neighboring properties, inconsistent with the master plan, and would be just for Mita.  This is also known as“illegal spot zoning.” Here comes lawsuit number 2. 

Third, Mita would also have to show that the park is in substantial disrepair.  But the Mayor is on record over the summer saying how much he invested in the pier and what good shape it was in.  We assume that was an accurate statement as it would also be consistent with why he was allowing people to ride the rides as recently as October. The result? Lawsuit number 3.

The law shouldn’t be bent - or broken - for everyday residents, and it also shouldn’t be for politically connected developers.. 

Furthermore, there is good reason to believe that the New Jersey courts will be skeptical of this effort, as they have become increasingly concerned about how cities are using redevelopment to push through projects beyond those  contemplated by the statute. That risk would be abundant here. 

If Mita were allowed to use rehabilitation to push through his project, this would do even more damage to the Boardwalk, as it would lower the legal threshold for building a resort, and thus making it easy for others to cave to the financial incentives huge developers will offer. The result? More resorts/hotels will follow.  Goodbye rides and amusements.  Hello Miami Beach.  

Ocean City has a clear and fair process for major development decisions, especially ones that would significantly alter the direction of the city. It’s called the Master Plan. If Mita wants to build his high-rise and push this town in a brand new direction of his liking, he should follow the same process as everyone else. Better still, the City should get off the sidelines and announce that either (a) it has no intention of changing the Boardwalk zoning to allow a resort (which is what the council members actually committed to on camera to the people during the Council debate in April 2024), or (b) if they want to consider a change, they will do so only through a comprehensive Master Plan process which they intend to start.  Finally, the city should make it clear that letting properties rot does not deliver dividends. Frankly, it should come with a penalty.