Cape May Redevelopment Zone Issue Surfaces at Annual Reorganization

CAPE MAY – The City of Cape May’s investigation into a potential redevelopment zone continued to stoke controversy during public comment at the annual reorganization meeting Jan. 2. 
A highlight of that meeting is the mayor’s State of the City Address. Toward the end of Mayor Clarence “Chuck” Lear’s address was a thinly-veiled call for reasoned consideration of the city’s potential redevelopment plans. 
Saying that the effort was an area in need of “builders of arks” more than “predictors of rain,” Lear was asking citizens to look with an impartial eye at the prospects for redevelopment of a critical area in the heart of the city’s business district.
What Lear was reacting to were public comments that have raised concerns about the redevelopment effort, portraying them as a ploy for by-passing zoning and historic preservation safeguards to reward a specific developer who wishes to place an indoor parking garage on the grounds of the current Acme parking lot.
Thus far, those who have raised concerns at council meetings have been met with no comment from council members.
The effort to potentially establish a redevelopment zone has proceeded according to state statutes with the first public hearing scheduled for Jan. 9.
Opponents say that the process is a front for a specific outcome which the council will not acknowledge.
Christine Miller went so far as to call it a “secret plan” meant to aid local businessman Curtis Bashaw in ways that are detrimental to the city’s character and its finances.
What was new at the Jan. 2 meeting were comments by Council member Beatrice Pessagno. At the end of Miller’s public comment, Pessagno said, “This council person knows very little about the city’s plans.”
Pessagno claimed that she had been left out of meetings “with the developer,” clearly implying that meetings with a developer have taken place with other members of the council.
During her comments, Miller went so far as to predict approval of a general redevelopment plan on a 3-2 vote with Pessagno and Roger Furlin failing to stop the measure. Furlin had no comment.
Pessagno’s remarks show that dissension in some quarters is growing about the redevelopment issue.
Lear continues to maintain that it would be improper for him or the council to speak openly before the recommendation from the Planning Board.
For opponents of the effort, the public hearing at the Planning Board meeting will be a critical opportunity for open discussion. The formal discussion is likely to focus on the Determination of Need Report and whether or not the area meets the requirements of a redevelopment zone.
The issue generating much of the concern for opponents of the plan, on the other hand, is how a redevelopment zone would be used; and whether a specific plan exists which the public is not being told about as the redevelopment authority, in general, is being considered.
Only a few individuals have given voice to concerns at council meetings so far.
To contact Vince Conti, email vconti@cmcherald.com.