OCEAN CITY — Days after Ocean City decided to continue to pursue public ownership of an historic Boardwalk building, Mayor Rick Meehan fired off a strongly-worded statement defending the town’s position in the case.
On Tuesday, after enduring the latest public backlash on the town’s motion for reconsideration filed with the Court of Special Appeals, Meehan issued a statement defending the ongoing appeal.
“There has been a lot of discussion and opposition to the council’s action concerning the land at 601 South Atlantic Avenue,” the statement reads. “Although ongoing litigation prevented us from speaking openly, I believe it is important to clarify our position.”
For many, the town’s attempt to claim rightful ownership of the property appears to be an affront against Dumser’s, the iconic ice cream parlor that has occupied the space for decades. However, Meehan re-asserted in his statement the town’s legal action is directed at Nathan Rapoport’s heirs and not Dumser’s, which is essentially just a tenant at the property.
“The truth is, despite the perception and persuasion by Nathans Associates, our actions have never been against Dumser’s,” he said. “Our case is with Nathans Associates, who is charging and collecting rent from Dumser’s for land that belongs to the public.”
To be sure, the case is complicated and hinges somewhat on the original plats and surveys of the downtown area dating back to the end of the 19th century. Nathans Associates is essentially evoking the doctrine of adverse possession. The doctrine basically asserts if an entity has possessed the property for 20 years or more, or in this case well over 100 years, the burden is on the defendant to establish it is located within the public easement.
In 2017, the Worcester County Circuit Court ruled the town had successfully established the property was located in the public easement and, as a result, Nathans Associates were enjoined from any future use of the property and were required to abandon and remove the existing building within a prescribed timeline. Nathans Associates then appealed the Circuit Court ruling to the state Court of Special Appeals, which in late December issued an opinion reversing the lower court’s ruling after ruling the town had not successfully proven the iconic Dumser’s property lies within the town’s dedicated public easement.
Ownership of the property was called into question in 2016 after the second of two 25-year agreements between the town of Ocean City and the heirs of the original owner, Nathan Rapaport, who first built the structure back in 1905, expired.
In his statement released on Tuesday, Meehan asserted once the second of two agreements between the town and Nathan Rapoport expired in 2016, his heirs were essentially “squatting” on land that should rightfully be returned to the town of Ocean City.
“Nathan Rapoport himself believed this when he entered into a Use of Land agreement with the town of Ocean City in 1966, which provided him with the ability to leave his building on public property for 50 years,” he said. “Mr. Rapoport honored this agreement until his death, however, his heirs have failed to honor this agreement and instead have continued to collect rent from Dumser’s for the past two years without having a right to use the land.”
Meehan’s statement opines the Nathan heirs have been successful in swaying public opinion against the town for its attempts to reclaim the property. Again, the statement reiterates the town’s actions are not against Dumser’s, but rather against the Nathan Associates, and leaves the door open for a new lease for Dumser’s should the motion for reconsideration, or perhaps an appeal to the higher Court of Appeals, be successful.
“Despite the deceptions of the heirs of Mr. Rapoport, our actions have never been against Dumser’s,” the mayor reiterated. “In fact, the council has shown no desire to displace Dumser’s. Once this matter is resolved, the town will be in a position to negotiate an agreement with Dumser’s that will be beneficial for them as well as the taxpayers of Ocean City.”
From the beginning, the town has not expressed an intended purpose for the attempt to take ownership of the property, which has largely contributed to the public outcry. However, Meehan’s statement issued on Tuesday asserts the town’s ownership of the property would mean the rents paid the by the tenant, in this case Dumser’s, would revert to the town’s taxpayers.
“This would mean that the money they are currently paying to the heirs of Mr. Rapoport would instead by rightfully returned to the taxpayers,” he said. “This money, for example, could be used to offset the costs of additional police officers, paramedics or lifeguards.”
It’s important to note Dumser’s does not own the property, but merely rents the building from the Nathans Associates, with whom the Timmons family has had a personal and business relationship for decades. The mayor’s statement suggests a new lease with the Timmons family could be negotiated if the case goes in the town’s favor. However, in August 2017, Donald Timmons, patriarch of the Dumser’s family, made it known in no uncertain terms the iconic ice cream business had no inclination to become a tenant of the town if the case went that way, but would rather abandon the location.
“My family and I have decided that it would be morally wrong to turn our backs to the very family that have supported us for all these years,” Timmons said in a statement and letter to the editor. “Having said that, I want to make it clear that there is no circumstance under which we will ever be a tenant of the city. We stand firmly with the Rapoport family. It would be with great regret for us to give up this location since it has become so special to us, but if the appeal is lost, we will.”
Nonetheless, the town remains adamant about pursuing ownership of the historic property for the benefit of its taxpayers. Meehan’s statement attempts encourage a reversal of public opinion in favor of the town’s taxpayers, whom he asserts are the rightful owners of the property.
“Simply, if you own property in Ocean City and are paying taxes, then this rent belongs to you, not the heirs of Mr. Rapoport,” he said. “While they have done a good job of making it look like the town of Ocean City are the bad guys, they are the ones who continue to profit off of land that is owned by the public. But yet, somehow, the town of Ocean City is the ‘greedy’ one. In this case, perception is not reality.”
