Special Counsel’s Hiring Raises Red Flag

CAPE MAY – The seemingly uncontroversial step of hiring a special land use attorney became controversial in Cape May. That was because of the insertion of six words in the resolution presented at the June 4 City Council meeting. 
The city is considering a possible redevelopment plan for the Beach Drive block that housed the former Beach Theatre, along with some adjacent properties and possibly associated properties across the street to the east of Convention Hall.
Most citizens who have spoken on the issue of redevelopment at past meetings agree that this is a block in need of attention. The resolution resulted in another split vote on council and saw some residents rise to speak against it before the vote.
The resolution allowed for the use of a special counsel and it spelled out the areas that the special counsel would advise the city about. Here was the rub.
The resolution did not limit the use of the special counsel to the specific block in question. Rather it denoted that block and then added what some saw as the offending words “but need not be limited to.”
For anyone reading the resolution, the city was hiring someone with specialized expertise to advise on land use law to establish a redevelopment zone in the Beach Theatre block.
The city also was holding open the possibility that other redevelopment opportunities might arise and give enough breath to the resolution so the city’s use of the special counsel would not be unduly limited.
That is one reading, but there was another.
Christine Miller rose to speak against the resolution because she feared that what she saw in the language was purposeful ambiguity aimed at allowing the city council to once again float earlier redevelopment plans that had been defeated in a raucous planning board meeting packed with concerned citizens.
Both council members Beatrice Pessagno and Roger Furlin urged the council to limit this resolution to the Beach Theatre block and to return to council if opportunities in the future opened up other potential areas for the special counsel to work on. 
Furlin was absent for the vote but sent a letter that expressed his concerns.
The issue is one of trust. It signaled that a segment of the city’s population – how large is unclear – want to keep a very close eye on any efforts by this council to explore redevelopment areas.
The recent opposition to a redeployment zone in the municipal block that also contains the Washington Common shops was replete with accusations of secret plans and behind-closed-door deals with a local developer.
Regardless of the truth of those accusations, the distrust they engendered is real and surfaces when any redevelopment effort is discussed.
In the case of the June 4 meeting, nothing more was on the table than a resolution to employ a special counsel to provide expert advice to city officials.
Regardless, Miller for one argued that Deputy Mayor Shaine Meier’s reelection in November should rest on his vote.
The resolution passed 3-1 with Pessagno as the no vote. Furlin’s communication made it clear that he probably would have voted no as well had he been present.
The special counsel can be used. The problem goes beyond the issue of the counsel, the potential redevelopment of the Beach Theatre block or even redevelopment in general. 
The problem facing the mayor and other city officials is how to restore some sense of consensus in the community so that municipal issues can be openly discussed without concern for what is not being shared.
To contact Vince Conti, email vconti@cmcherald.com.