20160829 Convention Center Survey Reports
MIAMI BEACH CONVENTION CENTER HOTEL
VOTER SURVEY RESULTS
2016
The Miami Beach Convention Center Survey report was prepared by the Florida International University
Metropolitan Center on behalf of the City of Miami Beach and the Miami Beach Mayor’s Ad Hoc Blue
Ribbon Steering Committee on the Convention Center Hotel.
The FIU Metropolitan Center is an applied research and training institute in the Steven J. Green School
of International and Public Affairs. It provides policy solutions to public, private and non-profit
organizations in South Florida. Established in 1997, the Metropolitan Center has an impressive track
record of providing quality services to communities through various social science research studies
including economic development plans, housing needs assessments, community indicator studies,
economic impact analyses, surveys and focus groups. In addition, the Metropolitan Center has organized
workshops, conferences and retreats as well as public opinion forums to address specific urban issues.
Principal Investigators:
Maria Ilcheva, Ph.D.,
Assistant Scholar/Senior Research Associate
Dario Moreno, Ph.D.,
Professor, FIU Department of Politics and International Relations
The Ad Hoc Blue Ribbon Steering Committee on the Convention Center Hotel was established in April
2016 for the purpose of examining the issue of the Convention Center hotel and exploring opportunities
for reintroducing the hotel for voter approval. The Committee is comprised of:
Commissioner Ricky Arriola, Chair
Commissioner Kristen Rosen Gonzalez, Vice Chair
Jorge Exposito, Member
Paul Freedman, Member
Saul Gross, Member
Debra Leibowitz, Member
Leslie Tobin, Member
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ................................................................................................................. 1
METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................. 3
OVERALL SUPPORT .......................................................................................................................... 4
FACTORS AFFECTING VOTER SUPPORT .......................................................................................... 7
RESULTS BY AREA .......................................................................................................................... 12
RESULTS BY AGE ............................................................................................................................ 15
RESULTS BY VOTER QUALITY......................................................................................................... 20
OPPORTUNITIES ............................................................................................................................ 25
APPENDIX A: REASONS TO OPPOSE THE HOTEL ........................................................................... 26
APPENDIX B: REASONS TO SUPPORT THE HOTEL ......................................................................... 28
APPENDIX C: SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ........................................................................................ 31
1
Summary of Findings
On March 15, 2016, the City of Miami Beach held a referendum on the construction of a Convention
Center hotel. The hotel ballot measure obtained only 54% approval from voters and failed to reach the
super-majority vote of 60% required to begin construction of the hotel.
The Miami Beach Convention Center is undergoing a $600 million renovation and expansion. Convention
Center and other tourism officials recommended that in order for the Center to be financially successful,
it needed a “headquarter hotel” with 800 to 1,200 rooms that is adjacent to the Center. The plans were
for the City to lease the land to a private developer who will privately finance the hotel construction and
provide lease payments to the City. No taxpayer funds would be used in the development.
According to media reports and the hotel opposition, the hotel failed to obtain the necessary voter
approval due to concerns over its height, size, location and traffic impact. To test these propositions, the
Metropolitan Center conducted a survey with a representative sample of Miami Beach voters. The 600
completed survey responses were collected from August 2nd through 14th, 2016. This report presents the
analysis of the results and offers insight into potential changes the City of Miami Beach may make to
address voter concerns. Below is a summary of the results which are discussed in more detail in the report.
Miami Beach residents are deeply divided about building a Convention Center hotel.
46% of the voters support the original project, 46% oppose it and 8% are unsure or
undecided.
Opposition to the project has grown as one out of five hotel supporters in the March
referendum would now oppose the hotel if it was the same as proposed before.
The proposed hotel’s impact on traffic is clearly the most important concern for Miami Beach
residents.
The options for a new location – at the Jackie Gleason site and in the parking lot across the
Convention Center - have significant opposition.
A comprehensive plan for traffic mitigation alone increases support for the hotel more than the
options of downsizing the hotel or changing location.
41% of hotel opponents would be more likely to support the hotel if the hotel development
includes a comprehensive plan to mitigate traffic in the area of the hotel.
34% of opponents would be more likely to support the hotel if height was reduced.
33% of opponents would be more likely to support the hotel if the hotel design is the
product of a public process after the lease is approved.
Residents’ concerns could be alleviated by a properly designed project that mitigates the hotel’s
impact on traffic and parking. The hotel development needs to include:
A citywide comprehensive plan process after the signing of lease;
Public participation in the planning process;
Broad stakeholder involvement of the public as well as experts (architects, planners,
traffic and parking engineers); and
2 Miami Beach Voter Survey, Miami Beach Convention Center Hotel
Increased awareness about the need for the hotel to support the new Convention
Center and its broader impact on revenues, job creation and economic development.
3
Methodology
The survey was administered for two weeks from August 2 through August 14, 2016. A total of 600
complete responses were collected, with a representative distribution of voters in terms of geographic
location, as well as other demographic characteristics.
Race and Ethnicity
• 48% White • 44% Hispanic
• 2% Black • 6% Other
Gender
• 47% Male • 53% Female
Language
• 74% English • 26% Spanish
Party Affiliation
• 45% Democrat • 31% Republican
• 22% No Party Affiliation • 2% Independent
Age
• 18-34: 9% • 35-64: 50% • 65+: 41%
Area
• 25% North Beach
• 34% Middle Beach
• 41% South Beach
The survey was conducted with registered voters, based on voter registration lists from the Florida
Department of Elections. However, since not all voters will participate in an election, in order to gauge
voter preferences and estimate their stance on voting issues in a future election, survey research groups
voters in different categories. The Miami Beach respondent database categorized voters on a scale of 1
to 5, with 1 being assigned to a voter who voted once in past elections, and 5 for a voter who voted five
out of five times. Presidential elections typically have a higher turnout rate than local elections. The
likelihood of voter participation depending on the type of election in which a voting item appears may
affect the chance of that item passing.
Voting Record
• 19% Voted once • 20% voted twice • 23% voted 3x • 18% voted 4x • 20% voted 5x
MARCH 2016 REFERENDUM STATISTICS
Total Registered Voters: 40,889
North Beach – 11,645
Mid Beach – 14,726
South Beach – 14,518
Demographics
47% White, 42% Hispanic
Age: 18-35 – 22%; 36-65 – 52%; Over 65 - 26%
Party: 41% Dem, 23% Rep, 34% No Party, 2% Ind
Voter turnout: 39%
North Beach – 35%
Mid Beach – 43%
South Beach – 37%
Source: Miami-Dade County Elections Department.
4 Miami Beach Voter Survey, Miami Beach Convention Center Hotel
Overall Support
Only 45% of those surveyed supported the hotel in the March referendum, while 30% voted against
it and 25% did not vote.
The respondents are evenly split with regards to the hotel, with 46% indicating they would support
it, 46% against it and 8% are unsure.
Support for the hotel has declined since March.
One of the first questions asked in the survey was “Would you support the hotel if it were the
same as proposed in March?” Responses to that question showed that 23% of those who
supported the hotel in March are against it now.
The responses to the final survey question - ”What is the primary reason you would vote to
support the hotel?” - showed that only 17% of those who voted in favor of the hotel would
not support it now. This change (from 23% down to 17%) following questions on various
potential changes to the hotel design and location may indicate that some voters may be
persuaded to vote in favor.
In contrast, 54% of those who voted against the hotel in March confirmed they would vote
against it again, regardless of any changes.
There is opportunity to grow support among voters who did not participate in the March
referendum as 46% of those who did not vote would support the hotel if it was the same as
proposed before, and 18% are unsure.
Did you vote in the March 15 referendum
regarding the development of a Convention
Center hotel? (Count/Percentage)
I voted and
supported
I voted and did
not support I did not vote
Would you
support the
hotel if it were
the same as
proposed in
March?
Yes 197 11 70
73.5% 6.1% 46.4%
No 62 160 53
23.1% 88.4% 35.1%
Maybe/Unsure 9 10 28
3.4% 5.5% 18.5%
Total 268 181 151
100% 100% 100%
Voter quality: There are no significant difference in support for the hotel depending on the quality
of the voters.
47% of high quality voters (those who voted 4 or 5 times in the last 5 elections) and 46% of
those who voted 3 or fewer times would support the hotel.
Age: Support for the hotel is slightly stronger among voters aged 65 years and over (52%) than
working age voters – 42%.
Ethnicity/Race: Hispanic voters are more likely to support the hotel (59%) than White, non-
Hispanics (35%).
5
Party affiliation: The hotel is not a partisan issue as similar percentages of Republican (50%) and
Democrat voters (47%) support it.
The weakest support for the hotel is among those with no party affiliation with only 39%
in favor and 51% against it.
Language: Support for the hotel is stronger among Spanish-speaking voters (63%) than English-
speaking voters (41%).
Gender: Male voters (53%) are more likely to support the hotel than female voters (41%).
Area: South Beach residents are more likely to support the hotel (50.8%) than Middle Beach (42.4%)
or North Beach (44.2%).
While voters are apprehensive over the size, height and location of the project, it is the hotel’s impact
on traffic that concern most. Almost half of those who voted against the hotel (48.6%) pointed to the
traffic congestion the hotel will create. Another 17.1% indicated the citywide traffic was their primary
reason for opposing the hotel. It should be noted that the respondents self-reported these concerns,
without a prompt from the interviewer. The percentages in the chart below add up to more than 100
because some respondents provided more than one answer.
Additionally, 55 voters, or approximately 30% of those who voted against the hotel indicated other
reasons. These reasons are listed in Appendix A.
7.2%
7.7%
12.7%
16.6%
17.1%
48.6%
The location of the hotel
The design of the development
The parking shortage it may produce
The height of the proposed
development
Citywide traffic
The traffic congestion it will create
What was your primary concern when you voted against
the hotel development?
6 Miami Beach Voter Survey, Miami Beach Convention Center Hotel
At the end of the survey, voters were asked to provide reasons for supporting the hotel. Almost a
third reported they would not support the hotel under any circumstance. The hotel’s potential to
bring quality conventions and to create jobs were most frequently mentioned, by approximately
21% of voters. The percentages in the chart below add up to more than 100 because some
respondents provided more than one answer.
Another 17% indicated other reasons for supporting the hotel or that they would support it
provided that certain changes were made. These responses are listed verbatim in Appendix B.
11.2%
17.2%
17.3%
20.7%
21.3%
31.5%
IT WILL IMPROVE THE AREA
IT WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL
REVENUES TO THE CITY
OTHER
IT WILL CREATE NEW JOBS
IT WILL HELP BRING QUALITY
CONVENTIONS
I WOULD NOT VOTE IN FAVOR
OF THE HOTEL
PRIMARY REASON TO SUPPORT
7
Factors Affecting Voter Support
The survey asked seven (7) specific questions about potential changes to the hotel design, location and
overall planning progress to gauge the likelihood of each of them to increase support for the hotel. The
overall results indicate the development of a comprehensive traffic mitigation plan to be the most
effective is increasing support. Almost two-thirds (64%) would be more likely to support the hotel if such
a plan existed.
Some of the potential changes to the hotel are less popular and increase the likelihood of opposition for
the hotel. Almost a third of respondents indicated that they would be less likely to support the hotel if
the development incorporated the Jackie Gleason Theater. The opposition to moving the hotel location
to the parking lot across from the Convention Center was even stronger.
Location
Location in parking lot across from Convention Center is a non-starter as it will significantly
increase opposition to the hotel project
The Gleason theater option has some support (44%) but by itself not enough to assure passage
of hotel project.
Traffic
Two-thirds of the respondents cited Traffic as their principle concern with the new convention
hotel.
Residents are mostly concerned with the project’s impact on traffic in the area immediately
around the proposed site (48.6%) but there was considerable concern on its impact on citywide
traffic patterns (17.1%).
Almost two-thirds of the respondents (64%) would be more likely to support the hotel
development if it includes a comprehensive plan to mitigate traffic in the area of the hotel.
Design
Residents also have concerns regarding the design of the building.
Almost half support reducing the building footprint.
49.5% more likely to support if height is reduced.
38% more likely to support if rooms are reduced.
Reducing the height or number of rooms alone would not be sufficient to increase
support past the 60% required voter approval.
Recruiting a world-class architect to design the hotel would make 49% more likely to support.
8 Miami Beach Voter Survey, Miami Beach Convention Center Hotel
*A small percentage of respondents indicated for some of these options that they do not believe these changes
will happen. The largest percentage of “Do not believe” responses were with regards to making the hotel design
part of a public process (3.5%) and including a traffic mitigation plan as part of the hotel development (4.2%)
27.0%
40.2%
22.5%
29.0%
30.0%
20.7%
15.0%
40.3%
21.8%
31.7%
20.3%
20.5%
25.0%
16.8%
32.7%
38.0%
43.5%
49.0%
49.5%
50.8%
64.0%
the hotel was developed on the parking lot
across the street from the Convention Center
that is currently planned to be a public park,
instead of the parking lot behind the Fillmore.
the hotel size was reduced from 800 rooms to
approximately 600 rooms
the hotel developer rebuilt and incorporated a
new Fillmore Miami Beach at Jackie Gleason
Theater into the hotel.
a world-class architect was recruited to design
the hotel
the hotel height was reduced from 288 feet to
a maximum of 185 feet, which is approximately
the height of the Clock Tower building at
Lincoln Road and Washington Avenue
the hotel design was the product of a public
process after the lease is approved
the hotel development includes a
comprehensive plan to mitigate traffic in the
area of the hotel
Would you be more or less likely to support the hotel if …
No difference Less Likely More Likely
9
The table below shows the potential factors that may affect voters and the respective percentage of
voters who indicated they would be more likely to support the hotel. The comprehensive traffic
mitigation plan increases the likelihood that previous hotel opponents may change their vote as
approximately 41% indicated such a plan would make them more likely to support the hotel.
Reducing the hotel height and making the hotel design part of a public process might influence
about a third of opponents.
PERCENTAGE OF VOTERS IN TOP FIVE FACTORS THAT WOULD MAKE THEM MORE LIKELY TO SUPPORT HOTEL
Ho
w
d
i
d
y
o
u
v
o
t
e
a
t
t
h
e
M
a
r
c
h
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
d
u
m
?
I voted and
supported
Hotel development
includes a
comprehensive plan to
mitigate traffic in the
area of the hotel
(76.9%)
World-class
architect
(63.4%)
Public process
(60.8%)
Reduced hotel
height (59.3%)
Hotel developer
rebuild and
incorporate a new
Fillmore Miami
Beach at Jackie
Gleason Theater
(53.7%)
I voted and
did not
support
Hotel development
includes a
comprehensive plan to
mitigate traffic (40.9%)
Reduced hotel
height (34.3%)
Public process
(32.6%)
Reduced
number of
rooms (27.6%)
World-class
architect (25.4%)
I did not
vote
Hotel development
includes a
comprehensive plan to
mitigate traffic (68.9%)
Public process
(55.0%)
Hotel developer
rebuild and
incorporate a
new Fillmore
Miami Beach at
Jackie Gleason
Theater (52.3%)
World class
architect
(51.7%)
Reduced hotel
height (50.3%)
10 Miami Beach Voter Survey, Miami Beach Convention Center Hotel
The table below shows the distribution of responses for the voters who opposed the hotel in the March
referendum. These responses indicate that a combination of changes to the planning process for the
hotel development may increase support
Effect of Changes on Hotel OPPONENTS
More likely Less Likely No Difference Do not believe
Hotel development includes a
comprehensive plan to mitigate traffic in
the area of the hotel
40.9% 32.0% 21.5% 5.6%
Hotel height was reduced 34.3% 31.5% 19.2% 15.0%
Public process 32.6% 36.5% 26.0% 4.9%
Number of rooms reduced to 600 27.6% 31.5% 40.9% 0.0%
World-class architect 25.4% 31.5% 41.4% 1.7%
Hotel developer rebuild and incorporate
a new Fillmore Miami Beach at Jackie
Gleason Theater
21.0% 46.4% 29.3% 3.3%
Develop on parking lot across from
Convention Center 17.7% 51.9% 30.4% 0.0%
Some of the changes intended to increase support for the hotel may actually reduce support among
those who previously approved it. The table below shows the distribution of responses for the voters
who supported the hotel in the March referendum. Developing the hotel in the parking lot across from
the Convention Center and incorporating the Gleason Theatre in the new development are the most
unpopular among hotel supporters.
Effect of Changes on Hotel SUPPORTERS
More likely Less Likely No Difference Do not believe
Develop on parking lot across from
Convention Center 41.4% 36.0% 22.4% 0.2%
Hotel developer rebuild and incorporate
a new Fillmore Miami Beach at Jackie
Gleason Theater
53.7% 24.3% 19.8% 2.2%
Public process 60.8% 18.7% 17.5% 3.0%
Number of rooms reduced to 600 26.9% 15.3% 38.8% 19.0%
Hotel height was reduced 59.3% 13.8% 26.9% 0.0%
World-class architect 63.4% 12.7% 22.0% 1.9%
Hotel development includes a
comprehensive plan to mitigate traffic in
the area of the hotel
76.9% 7.8% 11.9% 3.4%
11
The table below shows the distribution of responses for the voters who did not participate in the March
referendum. Only 47% of these voters indicated they would support the hotel if it were the same as
proposed in March, while another 19% were undecided. Developing the hotel in the parking lot across
from the Convention Center and incorporating the Gleason Theatre in the new development are the
most unpopular among those who did not participate in the March referendum.
Effect of Changes on Voters Who Did Not Vote in March
More likely Less Likely No Difference Do not believe
Hotel development includes a
comprehensive plan to mitigate traffic in
the area of the hotel.
68.9% 14.6% 12.6% 3.9%
Public process 55.0% 22.5% 19.9% 2.6%
Hotel developer rebuild and incorporate
a new Fillmore Miami Beach at Jackie
Gleason Theater
52.3% 27.2% 19.2% 1.3%
World-class architect 51.7% 20.5% 26.5% 1.3%
Hotel height was reduced 50.3% 19.2% 30.5% 0.0%
Number of rooms reduced 36.4% 21.9% 41.7% 0.0%
Develop on parking lot across from
Convention Center 35.1% 33.8% 31.1% 0.0%
12 Miami Beach Voter Survey, Miami Beach Convention Center Hotel
Results by Area
The survey results were analyzed by the respondents’ areas of residence by using information on their
precinct. In comparison to the March referendum voters, the response distribution by area has a small
underrepresentation for Middle Beach and overrepresentation for South Beach voters. The March
referendum percentages by area were 26% for North Beach, 40% for Middle Beach and 34% for South
Beach. Since the analysis below shows that South Beach residents are more likely to support the hotel,
the results may overestimate overall support for the hotel.
Miami Beach Area Count Percent
North Beach 147 24.5%
Mid Beach 205 34.2%
South Beach 248 41.3%
Total 600 100.0
South Beach residents are more likely to support the hotel (50.8%) than Middle Beach (42.4%) or North
Beach (44.2%).
Traffic was the primary concern for those who rejected the hotel.
Citywide traffic is a bigger concern for North and Middle Beach residents.
7% 5%
14%
9%
25%
34%
52%
10% 12%
16%
21% 19%
27%
52%
4% 6%
9%
17%
10%
31%
43%
The location
of the hotel
The design of
the
development
The parking
shortage it
may produce
The height of
the proposed
development
Citywide
traffic
Other The traffic
congestion it
will create
REASONS FOR OPPOSITION
North Mid South
13
The traffic mitigation plan is most impactful in building support among Middle and South Beach
residents; only 53.1% of North Beach residents would be more likely to support the hotel if there
was a traffic plan.
A larger percentage of Middle and South Beach voters are also more likely to support the hotel if the
design was part of a public process.
Mid and South Beach residents would be more supportive of the hotel if it was designed by a world-
class architect.
PERCENTAGE OF VOTERS MORE LIKELY TO SUPPORT HOTEL IF
North Middle South Overall
the hotel development includes a comprehensive plan to
mitigate traffic in the area of the hotel 53.1% 66.8% 68.1% 64.0%
the hotel design was the product of a public process after
the lease is approved 44.9% 49.3% 55.6% 50.8%
the hotel height was reduced from 288 feet to a maximum
of 185 feet, which is approximately the height of the Clock
Tower building at Lincoln Road and Washington Avenue
40.1% 49.8% 54.8% 49.5%
a world-class architect was recruited to design the hotel 39.5% 50.7% 53.2% 49.0%
the hotel developer rebuilt and incorporated a new Fillmore
Miami Beach at Jackie Gleason Theater into the hotel 38.8% 41.5% 48.0% 43.5%
the hotel size was reduced from 800 rooms to approximately
600 rooms 29.3% 36.6% 44.4% 38.0%
the hotel was developed on the parking lot across the street
from the Convention Center that is currently planned to be a
public park, instead of the parking lot behind the Fillmore
28.6% 33.2% 34.7% 32.7%
Almost half of South and Middle Beach residents who voted against the hotel would be more
likely to support it if its development includes a traffic mitigation plan.
27.5%
21.7%
27.5%
41.5%
35.8%
49.1%
40.0% 42.0%
50.0%
the hotel height was reduced
from 288 feet to a maximum of
185 feet, which is
approximately the height of the
Clock Tower building at Lincoln
Road and Washington Avenue
the hotel design was the
product of a public process
after the lease is approved
the hotel development includes
a comprehensive plan to
mitigate traffic in the area of
the hotel
Effect of Proposed Changes on Opposition
North Mid South
14 Miami Beach Voter Survey, Miami Beach Convention Center Hotel
Opposition to the hotel remained strong even after suggested concessions.
36% would not vote in favor in North Beach, 33% in Middle Beach and 29% in South
Beach.
Developing the hotel in the lot across the Convention Center has a strong opposition in
all areas of Miami Beach but is stronger among North and Middle Beach residents.
PERCENTAGE OF VOTERS LESS LIKELY TO SUPPORT HOTEL IF
North Middle South Overall
the hotel was developed on the parking lot across the
street from the Convention Center that is currently
planned to be a public park, instead of the parking lot
behind the Fillmore
45.6% 44.9% 33.5% 40.3%
the hotel developer rebuilt and incorporated a new
Fillmore Miami Beach at Jackie Gleason Theater into the
hotel
37.4% 34.6% 25.8% 31.7%
a world-class architect was recruited to design the hotel 28.6% 26.8% 31.0% 29.0%
the hotel design was the product of a public process after
the lease is approved 29.3% 30.7% 17.7% 25.0%
the hotel size was reduced from 800 rooms to
approximately 600 rooms 28.6% 26.3% 14.1% 21.8%
the hotel height was reduced from 288 feet to a max. of
185 feet, which is approximately the height of the Clock
Tower building at Lincoln Road and Washington Avenue
25.9% 24.4% 14.1% 20.5%
the hotel development includes a comprehensive plan to
mitigate traffic in the area of the hotel 25.2% 17.1% 11.7% 16.8%
North and South Beach residents mentioned job creation and attracting quality conventions as
their reasons to support the hotel.
Mid Beach residents most frequently mentioned the attraction of quality conventions and the
additional revenues to the city.
7%
14% 14%
26%
16%
36%
13%
17%
21%
14%
24%
33%
11%
19% 16%
25%
21%
29%
It will improve
the area
It will provide
additional
revenues to
the city
Other It will create
new jobs
It will help
bring quality
conventions
I would not
vote in favor
of the hotel
Reasons for Support
North Mid South
15
Results by Age
In order to assess differences across age groups, the analysis categorized survey responses into three
age groups: young adults and professionals, aged 18-34; working age respondents, aged 35 to 64; and
retirement or near retirement ages of 65 and over.
Age Group Count Percent
18-34 52 8.7%
35-64 302 50.3%
65+ 246 41.0%
Total 600 100.0
There are some significant differences in voter responses across age groups. Moreover, there have been
changes in voter’s opinions from the March referendum.
Older voters were more likely to support the hotel, with the highest support being in the 35-64
age group (47.7%).
The largest opposition to the hotel was among young voters, in the 18-34 age group (32.7% in
opposition) and voters in retirement age, 65 and over (32.9% opposed).
Did you vote in the March 15 referendum regarding the development
of a Convention Center hotel?
Age
18-34 35-64 65+ Total
I voted and
supported 36.5% 47.7% 42.7% 44.7%
I voted and did
not support 32.7% 27.5% 32.9% 30.2%
I did not vote 30.8% 24.8% 24.4% 25.2%
However, at time of survey data collection, voters in the ages 65 and above were more likely to support
the hotel.
A small majority of voters in the 65+ age group would support the hotel if it were the same as
proposed in March (52.0%).
Half of young voters, in the 18-34 age group and a small majority of working age voters would
oppose the hotel
Would you support the hotel if it were the same as proposed in March?
Age
18-34 35-64 65+ Total
Yes 42.3% 42.4% 52.0% 46.3%
No 50.0% 51.0% 38.6% 45.8%
Maybe/Unsure 7.7% 6.6% 9.3% 7.8%
16 Miami Beach Voter Survey, Miami Beach Convention Center Hotel
Traffic considerations were the biggest concern for voters who opposed the hotel across all age groups.
A majority of voters in the 35-64 group (54.2%) pointed to the traffic congestion the
development will create as a main concern.
Traffic congestion was a concern for a smaller percentage of voters in retirement age (43.2%)
and in the 18-34 age group (47.1%).
12% 12%
18%
24%
29%
47%
6% 6%
14%
17% 18%
54%
7% 9% 10%
16%
12%
43%
The location of
the hotel
The design of
the
development
The parking
shortage it may
produce
The height of
the proposed
development
Citywide traffic The traffic
congestion it
will create
REASONS FOR OPPOSITION BY AGE
18-34 35-64 65+
17
The development of a traffic mitigation plan is an important factor that can affect support for the hotel
among the majority of voters across all age groups. The table below shows the percentage of voters in
each age group who indicated that the respective change would make them more likely to support the
hotel. Some of the significant differences across these changes include:
The development of a comprehensive traffic mitigation plan has a more significant impact on
hotel support among young voters as it increased likelihood of support for 75% of voters aged
18-34.
Making the hotel design part of a public process had stronger support among young voters
(aged 18-34), with 55.8% of them indicating they would be more likely to support the hotel in
that context. In comparison, the public process increased support for only 45.5% of older voters
(65+).
A larger percentage of older voters (65+ age) feel more positive towards reducing the hotel size
to 600 rooms (39.8%) than young voters (30.8%).
PERCENTAGE OF VOTERS MORE LIKELY TO SUPPORT HOTEL IF
Age
18-34 35-64 65+ Total
the hotel development includes a comprehensive
plan to mitigate traffic in the area of the hotel 75.0% 67.5% 57.3% 64.0%
the hotel design was the product of a public
process after the lease is approved 55.8% 54.3% 45.5% 50.8%
a world-class architect was recruited to design the
hotel 48.1% 52.0% 45.5% 49.0%
the hotel height was reduced from 288 feet to a
maximum of 185 feet 48.1% 50.7% 48.4% 49.5%
the hotel developer rebuilt and incorporated a new
Fillmore Miami Beach at Jackie Gleason Theater
into the hotel
40.4% 42.1% 45.9% 43.5%
the hotel was developed on the parking lot across
the street from the Convention Center that is
currently planned to be a public park, instead of the
parking lot behind the Fillmore.
32.7% 30.5% 35.4% 32.7%
the hotel size was reduced from 800 rooms to
approximately 600 rooms 30.8% 37.7% 39.8% 38.0%
18 Miami Beach Voter Survey, Miami Beach Convention Center Hotel
There were also differences across ages in their opposition to proposed changes to the hotel.
While changing the hotel location to the parking lot across the Convention Center decreased
support across all age groups, it had a most significant negative impact on the 35-64 age group,
of whom 44.4% indicated they would be less likely to support the hotel with that proposed
change.
Opposition to incorporating a new Fillmore Miami Beach at Jackie Gleason Theater into the
hotel was also strongest in the 35-64 age group, with 36.1% indicating they would not support
the hotel.
PERCENTAGE OF VOTERS LESS LIKELY TO SUPPORT HOTEL IF
Age
18-34 35-64 65+ Total
the hotel was developed on the parking lot across
the street from the Convention Center that is
currently planned to be a public park, instead of the
parking lot behind the Fillmore
34.6% 44.4% 36.6% 40.3%
the hotel developer rebuilt and incorporated a new
Fillmore Miami Beach at Jackie Gleason Theater
into the hotel
30.8% 36.1% 26.4% 31.7%
the hotel size was reduced from 800 rooms to
approximately 600 rooms 19.2% 20.9% 23.6% 21.8%
the hotel design was the product of a public
process after the lease is approved 19.2% 25.2% 26.0% 25.0%
a world-class architect was recruited to design the
hotel 15.4% 19.5% 22.4% 20.3%
the hotel height was reduced from 288 feet to a
maximum of 185 feet 13.5% 20.2% 22.4% 20.5%
the hotel development includes a comprehensive
plan to mitigate traffic in the area of the hotel 9.6% 16.9% 18.3% 16.8%
19
When asked at the end of the survey about their reasons to support the hotel, approximately a third of
respondents reiterated they would not support the hotel.
Opposition remained strongest among younger voters with 38% of those aged 18-34 against it.
The majority of responses grouped in the “Other” category were provided by older residents
(65+) who indicated that it would improve the area, support the Convention Center hotel and
will be beneficial for the city.
8%
12% 13%
21% 21%
38%
11%
20%
14%
25% 24%
32%
11%
14%
22%
17% 18%
28%
It will improve
the area
It will provide
additional
revenues to
the city
Other It will create
new jobs
It will help
bring quality
conventions
I would not
vote in favor of
the hotel
REASONS FOR SUPPORT
18-34 35-64 65+
20 Miami Beach Voter Survey, Miami Beach Convention Center Hotel
Results by Voter Quality
The Miami Beach respondent database categorized voters on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being assigned to a
voter who voted once in past elections, and 5 for a voter who voted five out of five times.
Understanding the voters who will actually show up at the ballot box is essential for assessing the
likelihood of a measure to be approved. One way is to define the voters who have consistently voted in
a selected set of elections. There is a high possibility that these voters could vote in the upcoming
election. In the analysis below, voters who voted 4 or 5 times in the last five elections are considered
quality voters or super voters and likely to vote again in following elections.
The table below shows that a higher percentage of voters who voted 3 or more times in the last general
elections participated in the March referendum.
Overall, only 61.7% of those who voted once or twice out of five times participated in the
referendum.
In comparison, 82.3% of super voters (4 or 5 times out of 5) cast a vote in March.
The Convention Center hotel received varying support depending on voter quality, with a
smaller percentage of super voters (57%) voting in favor of the hotel at the March referendum
than other voters (62%). Conversely, there was stronger opposition to the hotel among super
voters.
QUALITY: Total 1 2 3 4 5
Did you vote in
the March 15
referendum r?
I voted and
supported
Count 34 54 74 45 61 268
% 30.1% 44.3% 53.2% 42.1% 51.3% 44.7%
I voted and
did not
support
Count 30 27 44 40 40 181
% 26.5% 22.1% 31.7% 37.4% 33.6% 30.2%
I did not
vote
Count 49 41 21 22 18 151
% 43.4% 33.6% 15.1% 20.6% 15.1% 25.2%
Total Count 113 122 139 107 119 600
Support for the hotel has declined among all voters, regardless of their voting quality category.
At the time of the survey, virtually the same percentage of super voters and less likely voters
indicated they would support the hotel if it was the same as proposed in March, 46.9% and
46.0% respectively.
21
Among those who opposed the hotel, traffic considerations were the biggest concern. However, there
were significant differences with regards to the other reasons for opposition.
A significantly larger percentage of super voters (25%) opposed the hotel because of its height,
than other voters (10%).
A significantly smaller percentage of super voters (13%) opposed the hotel because of citywide
traffic, than other voters (21%).
10%
11%
10%
25%
13%
28%
48%
5%
5%
15%
10%
21%
33%
50%
The location of the hotel
The design of the
development
The parking shortage it may
produce
The height of the proposed
development
Citywide traffic
Other
The traffic congestion it will
create
REASONS FOR OPPOSITION
Other Voters Supervoters
22 Miami Beach Voter Survey, Miami Beach Convention Center Hotel
The traffic mitigation plan, hotel height and the public input into the design process were the top three
changes that would increase the hotel support among all voters. However, potential changes to the
hotel have a smaller impact on super voters.
Only 58.4% of super voters are more likely to support the hotel if it includes a comprehensive
traffic mitigation plan, compared to 67.4% of other voters.
Reducing the hotel height from 288 feet to a maximum of 185 feet had weaker support among
super voters (46.5%) than other voters (51.3%).
Making the hotel design part of a public process increased likelihood of support for 46% of super
voters and 53.7% of other voters.
PERCENTAGE OF VOTERS MORE LIKELY TO SUPPORT HOTEL IF
Super Voters Other Voters Overall
the hotel development includes a comprehensive plan to
mitigate traffic in the area of the hotel 58.4% 67.4% 64.0%
the hotel height was reduced from 288 feet to a maximum of
185 feet 46.5% 51.3% 49.5%
the hotel design was the product of a public process after the
lease is approved 46.0% 53.7% 50.8%
the hotel developer rebuilt and incorporated a new Fillmore
Miami Beach at Jackie Gleason Theater into the hotel 45.6% 42.2% 43.5%
a world-class architect was recruited to design the hotel 45.1% 51.3% 49.0%
the hotel size was reduced from 800 rooms to approximately
600 rooms 35.0% 39.8% 38.0%
the hotel was developed on the parking lot across the street
from the Convention Center that is currently planned to be a
public park, instead of the parking lot behind the Fillmore
31.9% 33.2% 32.7%
23
There were small variations with regards to the reasons for support.
The hotel’s potential to bring quality conventions was a more frequently mentioned reason
among super voters (23%) than other voters.
Job creation was mentioned by a larger percentage of “Other” voters (24%) than super voters
(18%).
Opposition to the hotel was stronger among “Other” voters.
A larger percentage of super voters indicated “Other” as a reason to support the hotel and some
of these reasons included increasing real estate values, improving the area, positive impact on
businesses and tourism, and the potential of the hotel’s revenues to lower taxes.
11%
15%
20% 18%
23%
29%
11%
18% 16%
24%
20%
33%
It will
improve the
area
It will provide
additional
revenues to
the city
Other It will create
new jobs
It will help
bring quality
conventions
I would not
vote in favor
of the hotel
REASONS FOR SUPPORT
Supervoters Other Voters
24 Miami Beach Voter Survey, Miami Beach Convention Center Hotel
Some of the potential changes have significant opposition from all voters. However, there are
differences depending on voter quality.
Developing the hotel on the parking lot across the Convention Center would make 37.2% of
super voters and 42.2% of other voters less likely to support the hotel.
Rebuilt and incorporating a new Fillmore Miami Beach at Jackie Gleason Theater into the hotel
would make 26.5% of super voters and 34.8% of other voters less likely to support the hotel.
PERCENTAGE OF VOTERS LESS LIKELY TO SUPPORT HOTEL IF
Super Voters Other Voters Total
the hotel was developed on the parking lot across the street
from the Convention Center that is currently planned to be a
public park, instead of the parking lot behind the Fillmore
37.2% 42.2% 40.3%
the hotel developer rebuilt and incorporated a new Fillmore
Miami Beach at Jackie Gleason Theater into the hotel 26.5% 34.8% 31.7%
the hotel design was the product of a public process after the
lease is approved 26.5% 24.1% 25.0%
the hotel size was reduced from 800 rooms to approximately
600 rooms 23.9% 20.6% 21.8%
the hotel height was reduced from 288 feet to a maximum of
185 feet 23.9% 18.4% 20.5%
a world-class architect was recruited to design the hotel 23.0% 18.7% 20.3%
the hotel development includes a comprehensive plan to
mitigate traffic in the area of the hotel 19.0% 15.5% 16.8%
25
Opportunities
The survey results show that voter support is insufficient to pass the required 60% approval as only 46%
of voters overall and 47% of super voters would be in favor of the development. However, the City of
Miami Beach can initiate changes to the hotel design and implement traffic mitigation measures that
could increase support. Based on voter preferences for potential changes, as well as reasons that voters
indicated may influence their support, the City will need to focus its efforts on alleviating voter concerns
about traffic and engage them in the planning process. The City’s effort to develop a large hotel that can
make the Convention Center financially successful by attracting large conventions rests on five pillars.
Inclusive process to deal with design, location and traffic 1
Experts, politicians, and citizens 2
Traffic mitigation plan instead of another traffic study 3
Unique and iconic design maybe incorporating the Jackie Gleason 4
Economic Impact Study 5
COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN
26 Miami Beach Voter Survey, Miami Beach Convention Center Hotel
Appendix A: Reasons to Oppose the Hotel
Approximately 31% of those who voted against the hotel indicated other reasons. These reasons,
mostly verbatim, with minor grammar changes are listed below.
Too many people, transit, congestion; island has too many structures as is
Too much development and traffic
Too many people will come
Too large, overshadowing everything
Too many hotels
Too big and too many rooms
The terms of the contract; the payment for that land was too low
The Mayor doesn’t know what he is doing
Taking away from local businesses
At the end we will pay for it
Why are they going to increase rent?
Because it does not make sense that the person comes and only stays in the hotel and does
not visit the rest of Miami Beach and that would mean more traffic
Because bringing that debt into the city is too risky
For North Beach they were not unified in making hotels neither for South Beach
Overcrowded
Overdevelopment
Out of keeping, too big and traffic
I don't remember the reason
No more room on the beach
Not convenient.
More traffic and more people!
The owners of businesses are having a difficult time because there are no clients and if they
build another hotel there will be less customers for the existing hotels.
Layout and size
Kickbacks and corruption
Just don’t like the idea
It’s too big
It’s tearing down the character of Miami Beach
27
It’s not needed
There is an overpopulation and the city is too small, the water sewage is not sufficient
because when it rains the city floods. Other things are more important.
Government involvement
I am tired of so many buildings and I can't see the ocean
That is no benefit for the city
I understood the residents had to pay for it
Where are they going to maintain a full hotel for 800 or 600 rooms only if they had a
conference in the convention every day? It is impossible.
It is a waste of money. There is sufficient hotels that provide service
Don’t trust the administration
If developer could not meet his revenue targets, he would turn back to the city for financial
relief which would then fall on the taxpayer
Look for the plans of Miami Beach you can't construct a building more than 4 floors.
Bad deal for the city, not enough money for the city
It would increase the number of residents
Many concerns – traffic, overdevelopment, bad deal for the city
28 Miami Beach Voter Survey, Miami Beach Convention Center Hotel
Appendix B: Reasons to Support the Hotel
Listed below are the reasons some voters would support the hotel, provided in open comments. These
reasons are listed verbatim with only minor grammar changes.
I believe the convention center needs a hotel where guests may stay, those individuals that
have events to attend specifically in the convention center
To stop the monopoly
Would have to be smaller
Well, since I have to drive, the traffic would be horrible so I don’t know if I would support
We are undecided
Tourism
It would bring in more tourists, more people. And that is a good thing because Miami Beach
is a tourist town.
Too many hotels and they are screwing over the people who live there, to build those
boutique hotels and push out residents
To expand the Convention Center you need the hotel
The old one is outdated
The Convention Center needs a hotel, that is part of getting conventions
The famous architect design
Would support if the size is smaller, built in a way to accommodate infrastructure and
environmental issues
I am a democrat and I support Levin and I support everything that he proposes
I would only vote in favor if they improve the quality of the people, commute and the traffic
Smaller and artistic spectacular hotel
If they do what you propose would be a great addition to the city of Miami Beach
More prosperity to Miami Beach
Would be an improvement for the city in general! I support the construction of the hotel
should be the smallest possible
Reserve opinion
They say it is needed for the Convention Center
If height is reduced it would look better
It would reduce traffic on and off the island and for positive economic reasons, to increase
revenue
That I can see it would not affect the public because it would cost millions, that is why I
voted against the construction of the hotel
29
To improve the traffic would improve everything else
It has not shown money
If it shows we do not have a big debt by the city
Why not include a plan that can help manage the problem of traffic which is a current
problem of Miami Beach
Because it would bring more tourism
Because it would bring progress to the city.
Because the big conventions would meet in one place because everything is found there.
Because it would benefit the city.
Because they would create something new
So there can be more employment for labor.
Only if it lowered taxes
If they told me they improve the traffic, that's how they explained it to me, so that the
individuals stay in one place within the convention center and would not need to move
Not really concerned
Not informed on the matter
We don’t need more hotels in Miami Beach, there is no space and the traffic is horrible, and
I am a realtor and I know there is not adequate place to build
Nice to have a hotel in the center
If there is new road that won’t interfere with hotel
Need tourism
Necessity
We need more creativity for the city of Miami Beach!
More traffic to Lincoln road
More quality events to center enhancing value to city and residents
Miami Beach resident payoff
Lower rooms, reduce size, resolve traffic
It would give greater value to Miami Beach, more modern
The reasons I support is because the information given was valid and it brings progress to
Miami Beach, not hard to understand
The reason is because it would agree more with the architecture of the area
It’s convenient, to become a real center
It’s progress for the city
30 Miami Beach Voter Survey, Miami Beach Convention Center Hotel
It will change the area, I would have voted if I had remembered
It has to be a smaller hotel
Increase real estate value
Improves mass transit, light rail
Improve the area
If it didn’t take land from the city and it if didn’t take business away from hotels in the area
If the lease went up more
If it were moved to the parking lot across from the Center, less room, put park in original
space, mitigate the traffic problem, if it kept more with the design in the area
If it was smaller
If it is decent size and does not affect parking; there is no parking and we need the train for
public transportation
It will give strippers more jobs
Funded by individuals and not by taxpayers; I like how the city will make money off it, they
have to make sure it is a lot
Good for business
I am in total disagreement with everything
The traffic would be better
The traffic is too much and too many cars parked in the streets
The problem would be the parking, we need them to create more parking!
Construct on the other side
Convention Center needs better facilities near it
Chances are better for growth
Bring tourism, income and jobs
Bring in architect who will make it an innovative destination structure and attraction
Would be good for the city
Will add more value
A more equitable system of payback, considerably less than 99 years
800 cars less in the streets
31
Appendix C: Survey Questionnaire
Miami Beach Convention Center Hotel
Good evening. We are conducting a survey on behalf of the City of Miami Beach on the topic of the
Convention Center hotel. The goal of the survey is to understand the preferences of Miami Beach
residents on the topic, and to address their concerns by adjusting the Convention Center hotel
accordingly. To ensure the collection of objective information, the City of Miami Beach has contracted
the Metropolitan Center, a public policy institute at FIU. Your answers will remain anonymous.
May we proceed?
Thank you. First, let me provide a brief overview of the Convention Center facts so far.
The Miami Beach Convention Center is undergoing a $600 million renovation and expansion. Convention
Center and other tourism officials recommend that in order for the Center to be financially successful, it
needs a “headquarter hotel” with 800 to 1,200 rooms that is adjacent to the Center. The plans are for
the City to lease the land to a private developer who will privately finance the hotel construction and
provide lease payments to the City. No taxpayer funds will be used in the development.
Now, let me begin with the questions…
1) Did you vote in the March 15 referendum regarding the development of a Convention Center hotel?
I voted and supported
I voted and did not support
I did not vote
2) Would you support the hotel if it were the same as proposed in March?
Yes
No
Maybe/Unsure [Do not read, record if indicated]
3) What was your primary concern when you voted against the hotel development? [Do not read
options, mark all indicated] [Ask only if Q1, option 2 is selected]
The height of the proposed development
The design of the development
The location of the hotel
The parking shortage it may produce
The traffic congestion it will create
Citywide traffic
Other________________________
32 Miami Beach Voter Survey, Miami Beach Convention Center Hotel
4) To address some residents’ concerns, it has been suggested that the hotel size be reduced from 800
rooms to approximately 600 rooms. Would you be more or less likely to support the hotel if the
hotel size was reduced?
More likely to support the hotel
Less likely to support the hotel
No difference
5) To address some residents’ concerns, it has been suggested that the hotel height be reduced from
288 feet to a maximum of 185 feet, which is approximately the height of the Clock Tower building at
Lincoln Road and Washington Avenue. Would you be more or less likely to support the hotel if the
hotel height was reduced?
More likely to support the hotel
Less likely to support the hotel
No difference
6) To address some residents’ concerns, it has been suggested that the hotel be developed on the
parking lot across the street from the Convention Center that is currently planned to be a public
park, instead of the parking lot behind the Fillmore. Would you be more or less likely to support the
hotel at the new location?
More likely to support the hotel
Less likely to support the hotel
No difference
7) To address some residents’ concerns about height and to make it more compatible with the
surrounding architecture, it has been suggested that the hotel developer rebuild and incorporate a
new Fillmore Miami Beach at Jackie Gleason Theater into the hotel. Would you be more or less likely
to support the hotel in that case?
More likely to support the hotel
Less likely to support the hotel
No difference
Do not believe [Do not read, record if answer provided]
8) To address some residents’ concerns about design, it has been suggested that a world-class
architect be recruited to design the hotel. Would you be more or less likely to support the hotel in
that case?
More likely to support the hotel
Less likely to support the hotel
No difference
Do not believe [Do not read, record if answer provided]
33
9) To address some residents’ concerns, it has been suggested that the hotel design be the product of
a public process after the lease is approved. Would you be more or less likely to support the hotel in
that case?
More likely to support the hotel
Less likely to support the hotel
No difference
Do not believe [Do not read, record if answer provided]
10) To address some residents’ concerns about traffic, it has been suggested that the hotel
development includes a comprehensive plan to mitigate traffic in the area of the hotel. Would you
be more or less likely to support the hotel?
More likely to support the hotel
Less likely to support the hotel
No difference
Do not believe [Do not read, record if answer provided]
11) What is the primary reason you would vote to support the hotel? [Do not read options, mark all
indicated]
It will provide additional revenues to the city
It will help bring quality conventions to the city
It will improve the area
It will create new jobs
I would not vote in favor of the hotel
Other ______________________________________
12) Phone (1)_______________________________________
Precinct (2)___________________________________________
Gender (3)______________________________________
Race (4)__________________________________
Party Affiliation (5) __________________________
34 Miami Beach Voter Survey, Miami Beach Convention Center Hotel