Good Lord!!!!!

Just let the people build on their property. Why should the taxpayers bail out a few connected people who don't want their view to change. This is absurd. Just let the people build on their lots.

With the current state of finances, can someone please explain to me why this is a good idea? Given OC's housing density over the past 50 years, the idea of "Green Acres" is actually funny. Kind of like closing the barn door after the horse has not only been let out, but has died and was buried. This smells of yet more no-growth, flat-earth thinking that seems to have possessed members of the OC community. This is private property. They have the right to do with it what they wish, within the confines of the city's ordinances and codes. Get the hell out of their business, you have no dog in this race.

bullshit no reason for oc to buy this property... let the people who own it deal with whatever... the people around it bought their property with no guarantee that this would never be built on... too bad for you if your view is obstructed... boo hoo then move

That '"land" wouldn't even be there if it hadn't been for federal beach nourishment projects. There would be no "land" to sell, buy or develop if nature had taken its course. So if the "land" is sold and developed, the federal government should rightly expect compensation for its part in "preserving" that beachfront lot.

If only the OC government had protected ALL the long time homeowners during the building boom & bought ground so our views were not obstructed & we didn't wind up with outside steps within feet of our properties. No way should tax money be spent to save the homeowners from an obscured view. They bought/built their homes with no guarantee the Shilling properties would stay undeveloped. 1.2 million for those lots? Laughable! Perhaps if the City finds 12 million laying around, they will be able to purchase the lots. Too bad for the homeowners that will lose their view, but that is progress in Ocean City.

i looked at a property for sale behind the schilling lots and i refused to pay the inflated price that was being asked for what was being called "beach front", because nobody could guarantee that the schilling lots would never be built on.
all the property owners behind the schilling lots were fully aware of the situation and the ocean city taxpayers should not be held responsible because they will lose part of their view. the ocean city government should not serve as a bail out for these property owners.
i own a property 2 houses from the beach. the property in front of me is a taredown. is ocean city going to buy this property and preserve it as open space so that i will not lose my view?

The fact remains as such, and I quote the article: "Most of the Schilling estate was sold within two or three years of her death with the proceeds going to the charities. But the beachfront properties remained." Hmmm. Wonder why they properties remained?? Because this area is comprised of dunes and beach replenishment! Instead of looking at aeriel views and grumbling that you don't have a beach view, go take a look at the area in question. And if the property does in fact get built on, then the Schilling estate should be back taxed for all the years that they weren't taxed as beachfront property. You can't have it both ways. Everyone commenting here has to admit one thing--the last thing O.C. needs is another vacant luxury property sitting around. Right or wrong????

You said it best yourself--if the property wasn't classified as buildable when they bought it, it shouldn't be classified that way now. The city called it that way then, and it should stand. Instead of being vindictive--flip it around--the Schilling estate knew it wasn't buildable back when they bought it, boo hoo on them....And if you can find more areas for parks in OC, let me know, my children would love to go....

Seems to me that the land sat there for decades and nobody built on it probably because it was under water. The Federal government comes along and replenishes it and then the land gets protection from the state of NJ as protected dunes. Now the state is about to change its mind and say the land is not protected yet it was built up 10 feet by using tax dollars. The state of NJ is broke and can't afford to argue the case. The Schilling estate attorneys seem to be very well funded and will milk this for all it is worth. Can someone explaine how privately owned land is built up and replenished using state and federal tax dollars and sat there for years while all of the other Schilling properties were sold but now the estate wants to sell the land to a developer to build anothe monstrosity of a home that may sit empty and underwater? If OC can secure a grant and combine it with the neighbors offer to keep the dunes in place then I think this option should be considered.

If anyone was able to build on the property, this would have happened during the boom years. The Schilling attorney has skillfully pitted everyone against each other and will take the best offer regardless of the consequences to OC, the neighbors, or the dop who would buy a property on land that would otherwise be under water.

Again the rights of the property owners should come first. The second most important consideration should be the taxpayers whose money should not be used for this under any circumstance. It is a total misuse of taxpayer's money and stinks of corruption. What side deals has Allegretto made to get the property purchased by the city??? We need to know!!!!
Further, the property owners should have equal right to build out their lots to match what has been built on the lots that front the boardwalk on the blocks to the north and to the south. No doubt that its west of the bulkhead and it is a buildable lot.

Seems to me we're making a lot of assumptions here. Was this private land actually built up at the taxpayers expense? Someone needs to confirm that, I doubt it myself. Truth is, that without beach replenishment any of us living remotely close to the beach would be REALLY under water by now. As far as the grant business, the city has NO business partnering with neighbors to buy land. That's not only stupid, but it's probably illegal. It is PRIVATELY owned, they can do what ever they want to do with it, within the confines of the city ordinances and building codes. We can all have opinions, but none of us have a dog in this race, except the owners.

I don't think any of us need to waste one brain cell on this---the property will go to the highest bidder. I agree that a lot of assumptions are being made. The fact remains that this specific property was replenished and protected using tax dollars and now the state wants to wash its hand of the mess. To say that the owners can do what they want within the confines of city ordinances and building codes doesn't hold water b/c we all know that the city will do what brings in the most dollars even if it means changing codes, ordinances, screwing existing homeowners, etc. as we have all seen through the years. We are not talking about "a bare patch of sand" we are talking about protected dunes that were replenished using tax dollars and in my mind therein lies the sticking point. The dunes are protected just as they are east of the boardwalk so I am wondering why these particular dunes were put on private property? Regardless of the homeowners behind the property, I don't think I want another monster house up against the boardwalk that would involve moving the street to accommodate it.

Hey Mr Realtor....I mean Mr Councilman.....I'll help you out with your campaign if you get the city to take care of this for me. Or how about this one.......Mr Realtor.....I mean Mr Councilman I'll give you the listing on my properties if you get the city to take care of this for me. This is how these things work. Smells to the high heavens. Where is the ethics board. Perhaps an investigation should be conducted as to how and why this ever got before city council while there is litigation on the matter going on.

Again, another assumption, unless you, of course, know how these things work first hand.....

I could be wrong but in its simplest form the litigation is to resolve whether or not the land can be used to build a house or houses and whether or not it is still protected and the city filed papers with the state. If the land is deemed buildable then it will be assessed at market value and put up for sale either as one or more parcels. I think there may be a lot of pieces to this that are missing as I am still wondering how the ACOE came to build protected dunes on private property. I think the council is involved in it b/c if the property is ruled to be buildable land, then the council or zoning board,etc. will have to rule on what can be built there. I agree that there is a sense of unfairness in it in that the neighbors have a vested interest in preserving the dunes but they are willing to pony up to buy the land and have increased the offer. Nobody can stop them from making an offer to the Schilling estate. As a resident, I would rather leave the dunes as open space rather than have a monster home or homes on the land. What stinks to the high heavens to me is that the state is trying to wash its hands of the whole thing after the property has been protected for years. As unfair as it may sound, we don't need any more properties butting up against the boardwalk and whose to say over time that once disturbed the land won't be under water again. I'm not sure how these things work either but its always about the money!

To me, this piece of land differs from other beachfront lots, b/c it has had tax payer funded protected dunes and a history of being protected and now the state has suddenly changed its mind. It is a unique situation and the winners will be the blood sucking attorneys, the realtors and the developers assuming the project is completed and sold and whoever else is in on the deal.

Does anyone know what happened to the house at 2101 Wesley Ave.? It shows up in the satellite map at the beach corner, but on a recent visit, the lot was vacant.

One fact not being discussed in the comments is that the property owners behind the lot have been assesed "beach front" taxes for all these years. Schilling only pays about 600 dollars a year in taxes. The owners behind pay around 75,000 for the same amount of land. These guys paid for their " million dollar views" .The taxing authority knew the value of the Schilling land. And the State DEP Laws confirmed they were and are unbuildable. The estate only had them valued at 21,000 a few years ago!

Save the dunes with Green Acres, neighbors' money or whatever. They have been unbuildable for years and should remain so. Too bad previous councils, zoning and planning boards didn't do more to save our crowded island!

As a 30 year plus homeowner in that area..I was told firsthand that nothing coulld be built beyond an existing bulkhead...now there is an invisible line under sand out by the boardwalk. The Schillings divested themselves of all their holdings except this parcel..because when they bothe died, these parcels were under water!! Who would have bought them? They knew up until their death they were not buildable..they never even tried to build. The state of NJ is washing their hands of this mess solely for the reason of money. For the past 5 years they have said no..now that they have to pay for the lots it's easier to let them build..that's what's fishy. They are the ones you need to be angry with..not OC and Greenacres..they are left to deal with this mess. A lot of you making comments just dont know the true facts..the parcels were totally under water until the replenishment and were almoat under water again with the storms this summer and last..water flowed all the way up to the boardwalk steps...had it not been for the dunes..the pool would have been open again!! Stop blaming those homeowners for being selfish view mongers..they have a right to protect their property and they are willing to pay for that.

Yep. Agreed. Now we should all pay attention to the new Master Plan. We must prevent further devastation of our island!