Beach Theatre Foundation to File for Injunction to Stop Demolition

CAPE MAY – The Beach Theatre Foundation, Inc. announced today that it expected shortly to file suit in New Jersey State Superior Court to nullify a litigation settlement reached last week between the City of Cape May and Frank Investments, Inc. allowing demolition of the town’s last movie venue, the Beach Theatre. In a motion to be made for a preliminary injunction, the BTF will claim the settlement was defectively adopted by the City Council and further was illegal because the demolition permit being recognized by the City already had expired under New Jersey’s 2008 Permit Extension Act. The BTF said it was necessary to intervene in the matter to preserve the integrity of the hearing process already underway in the local Zoning Board of Adjustment so that any demolition would occur only as permitted for Historic District property. In its suit, the BTF maintains the Council shirked responsibility to defend the lawsuit, despite having good defenses against it.
Beach Theatre Foundation President, Steve Jackson, commented, “We believe the settlement resolution passed last week by the City Council was both disgraceful and invalid. It was a back room political deal, violating open and transparent government, and illegally honored an invalid demolition permit. The Council’s imprudent surrender struck a grievous blow against the cause of preservation in Cape May, setting back a movement for which Cape May has been famous for 40 years. The action disregards two respected City bodies, our Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Board, both of whom have been urging designation of the Beach Theatre as a historic site for over a year and threatens loss of the City’s National Historic Landmark status, which is now on watch status by the National Park Service. To begin with, the Franks’ lawsuit was improperly commenced, as they already were conducting a ZBA proceeding, had not exhausted administrative remedies with the City, and had no business being in court. Even so, the Permit Extension Act is clear– the Franks’ first demolition permit was not extended, and the City was not prevented from arguing that it had expired just because the City solicitor initially concluded it had not. In short, the City agreed to settle a trivial lawsuit by giving the Franks everything they asked for, and the public should be told why the Council deliberately chose to lose a winnable case.”
Jackson continued, “It’s clear to us the Franks brought their suit because their case in the ZBA was foundering against the weight of scholarship upholding the provenance of the 1950s era Theatre. So, we were shocked at how the Council could have ignored the overwhelming record compiled in the ZBA hearings and input to the Council itself that included scores of experts, witnesses, and citizens and mounds of documentary evidence showing the Theatre merited the recommendation of the two noted boards. Instead of aligning itself with preservation and community values on which the tourism and economic lifeblood of the City depends, the Council served a home run pitch to the Franks, aligning itself with those responsible for the derelict state of the Theatre.”
Jackson concluded, “We hope to pursue our action so that the historic nature of the Theatre is recognized. We understand that, as owners, the Franks have the right to do what they’d like with their property. Our purpose has never been to stop that, but the law requires them to try to market it at a fair price first — hopefully to someone interested in preserving it– before they just knock it down.”