Ocean City residents divided over Wonderland Pier’s future

The future of Wonderland Pier has divided Ocean City residents since Mita, owner of ICONA Resorts, proposed replacing the former amusement park with a $150 million, seven-story, 252-room luxury hotel with retail space after the park permanently closed in October 2024.

Supporters have argued that redevelopment is necessary to revive the north end of the boardwalk, attract visitors and prevent further deterioration of the property.

Many business owners spoke in support of the designation, citing a lack of traffic closer to 600 Boardwalk due to limited development and a negative impact on the business community.
Dozens of residents and business owners attend Ocean City Council meeting where the council will vote on 600 Boardwalk rehabilitation. (Rebecca Acevedo for WHYY)

Opponents have argued that a hotel of that scale would permanently change the character of Ocean City’s family-oriented boardwalk and surrounding neighborhoods.

Ocean City 2050, a community group opposing Mita’s proposal, urged residents to reject the rehabilitation designation before Thursday’s meeting.

The organization argued City Council should instead follow recommendations from its Boardwalk Subcommittee and continue negotiations with the property owner through the city’s existing planning and zoning process.

On its website, the group said that granting rehabilitation status before completing additional market studies and public discussions would reduce the city’s leverage in shaping future redevelopment.

“While we question how prime oceanfront boardwalk property qualifies as ‘in need of rehabilitation,’ our more fundamental concern is strategic. The Boardwalk Subcommittee just completed a careful, community-driven process. That work should guide what comes next, not a developer-driven designation,” said Bill Merritt, president and director of Ocean City 2050. “If this Council chooses rehabilitation now, it will reaffirm the perception that private financial interests are driving the outcome, not what’s best for Ocean City.”

Many were also concerned that the vote was rushed through before newly elected council members begin their term on July 1. Voters elected Sean Barnes, Jim Kelly and Tony Polcini to the city’s three at-large City Council seats in May. Kelly is the only new member of the council.

Many residents urged the council to postpone the vote until the newly elected members took office, citing Kelly’s election as a reason to wait. Kelly himself presented during the comment section of the meeting.
Councilmember-elect Jim Kelly spoke against voting for rehabilitation at the June 25, 2026 council meeting until the new council was seated.( Rebecca Acevedo for WHYY)

“A decision of this magnitude and significance should not be made in a lame duck session, less than one week before newly elected officials take office,” said Jim Kelly.  “Doing so threatens our city’s democratic legitimacy and the continuity of governance. This matter was a key issue in our May election, and voters elected me to represent them. In that regard, decisions related to our boardwalk should allow for my full participation after I am sworn in.”

Wonderland Pier reviews reach different conclusions

Thursday’s vote comes after months of public debate and multiple reviews of the property.

In January, the Planning Board split 4 to 4 on whether the property should receive the rehabilitation designation, leaving the measure without the majority needed to advance.

Earlier this month, the Boardwalk Subcommittee appointed by Council President Terry Crowley Jr. released recommendations calling for the site to restore economic activity that was lost after Wonderland Pier closed, while preserving the boardwalk’s character.

Rather than endorse a specific project, the committee recommended allowing conditional mixed-use development. Under that approach, proposals would be reviewed individually to determine whether they meet zoning standards, align with the city’s master plan and serve the public interest.

The report envisioned a high-quality resort integrated into the boardwalk that could include hotel rooms, restaurants open to the public, event space, retail and family-oriented attractions. It called for preserving the boardwalk as a unified entertainment destination, with attractions remaining the primary draw for visitors. It also suggested that any future hotel should be smaller than Mita’s proposal and designed to better fit the surrounding neighborhood.

Many in attendance questioned the urgency for a vote, only a few weeks after the subcommittee presented its recommendation and support for the findings, urging City Council to follow the framework or face litigation.