Situated on the east side of the Boardwalk at South Division Street, the property has been home to different businesses and enterprises since at least 1912 and for the last several decades has been home to a Dumser’s Dairyland ice cream parlor. It is one of just a few buildings on the east side of the Boardwalk.
The ownership of the land on which the historic building sits was called into question last year after a 50-year agreement reached in 1966 between the heirs of the original owner, Nathan Rapoport, and the Town of Ocean City expired. The building is owned by Nathans Associates, which includes the heirs of Rapoport, and has been leased to Dumser’s for several decades.
In 1966, Rapoport reached an agreement with the town to tear down the existing structure and erect a new and improved building with a commercial interest, now Dumser’s, on the Boardwalk level with living quarters above on the second floor. The agreement expired in 1991 and Rapoport’s heirs, now Nathans Associates, exercised its option for another 25 years.
More
12 comments:
There's really nothing the Mayor can say to justify tearing down this historic place. Greed is the only answer here.
Meehan get off the D*** already
The illegal immigrants need more room to set up camp in the inlet, what a dumbass you are Meehan
I agree there is nothing the mayor can say to justify what amounts to the city being imbeciles. That is one of the few iconic building left. Shows the class level of them. The upper class who are refined and dignified seek to preserve. Those of a low station seek to destroy icons.
So much for history, which rarely wins over greed.
Thanks, Rick, what replaces it, a strip joint with a shoot-up room in the back?
FAMILY resort, right.
This is an icon, a true historic building and it's in good shape...there is NO excuse for the Mayor to do this. It's an ignorant decision...follow the money.
The city is greedy. It's one of the iconic buildings. Leave it be!
That was the agreement... it was set to end. Why should it continue? So Nathan & Assoc can receive a ton of rent from Dumsers? Why should Dumsers get an exception to stay? So they can line their pockets with more gold at the rate of $5 per milkshake? That was the agreement, thus forget it. Walk to the next Dumsers....
Anonymous said...
That was the agreement... it was set to end. Why should it continue? So Nathan & Assoc can receive a ton of rent from Dumsers? Why should Dumsers get an exception to stay? So they can line their pockets with more gold at the rate of $5 per milkshake? That was the agreement, thus forget it. Walk to the next Dumsers....
August 19, 2017 at 6:32 PM
AWWW, you tight wad cheapskate don't wanna pay fer ur milkshake. I have an idea, go down Lolly Pop Lane and make your own.
Matt James you RINO POS! How many other RINO's are on the town council?
Historic. Just 75 years not that old.
Tons of homes in Salisbury that old. Should they all be preserved?
Why did the owners not negotiate. Instead they went to court and tried to claim presto chango land ownership. It does not work that way and the Court saw through their raw greed. How is it people do not see the greed on their side? They are the ones who had no valid case.
How would you like it if you rented a house. The lease ended and the Tenant said the house is now mine. I repainted it and fixed it up. Not so much I am sure.
The building was built with foreknowledge of the limited length of the lease. This was known the entire time. This is far more a case of attempted theft of the land.
Post a Comment