PAC Attack Launched

“I think the jobs they’re talking about saving are their own.”—David Kelsey, president of the South Beach Hotel and Restaurant Association

By Jason Jeffers
Staff Writer 

 

The debate over whether Miami Beach should renew its $5 million contract with the Greater Miami Visitors and Convention Bureau is heating up.

An indication of the increasing discourse on the issue was an advertisement which appeared in the Neighbors section of the Sunday Miami Herald. Bearing the headline “Miami Beach gets back three tourist dollars for every dollar it invests with the Greater Miami Convention & Visitor’s Bureau,” the advertisement implored Beach residents to support the renewal of the contract.  (The SunPost is also running a similar ad this week.)

The small type indicated that the ad had been paid for by an organization named “Save Jobs & Lower Taxes,” a political action committee later revealed to be affiliated with the Miami Beach Chamber of Commerce.

Michael Milberg, chairman of the Chamber of Commerce, said the purpose of the PAC is to “enlighten the public through print, radio, and cable television ads” regarding the importance of Miami Beach’s continued relationship with the Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau—at least for the next two years.

The two-year renewal of the GMCVB contract, a countywide entity that receives public resort taxes and private membership fees to promote the region, is on the Miami Beach City Commission May 8 agenda.

The PAC has also been created to discourage a public referendum on the contract’s renewal, Milberg said.  The public at large isn’t informed enough on the issue to make such a decision, he contends.

“I think it is people who are inside the beltway and around city hall who are the most informed on this issue,” said Milberg in a phone interview. “They go to great lengths to communicate with the public through newsletters, their website and on channel 20, but this issue hasn’t been aired too heavily in these venues.”

Mayor David Dermer, a strong advocate for bidding out the contract, said he may also propose a referendum on the issue at next Wednesday’s meeting.

“It’s interesting to see that a political action committee has been formed to support the renewing of a contract that has not been through the public bidding process in 17 years. Far be it for me to say what a group can or can’t do,” Dermer said. “I think if the Chamber is so convinced that the public isn’t well enough informed on this issue that they should join in the effort to place this on a ballot.”

At a meeting held a few weeks ago at the Chamber of Commerce, Dermer and Tony Goldman, president of the GMCVB, debated whether the contract should be sent out to RFQ (Request for Qualifications). After listening to both sides of the issue, the Chamber’s Board of Governors passed a resolution recommending that the city renew the contract with the GMCVB for two years while a nationally recognized consultant evaluates the performance of the Bureau.

“I think [a referendum] would be terrible. It’s truly a political mechanism and would take away from the core mission of the commissioners,” said Goldman in an interview from his New York office. “Renew it or don’t renew it. By renewing it you support the resources which the coalition brings to the game. If you don’t renew, the community suffers.”

Although he hadn’t seen the advertisement, Goldman agreed with the action of the Chamber of Commerce.

“I think the Chamber feels a responsibility to the business community and is trying to inform the public,” he continued. “They realize how important this is to Miami Beach business, because it’s not just hotels that are affected by this, tourism affects everybody.

It depends how you position this referendum, and if you present it to a public that’s not fully educated on the issue, they might end up voting against their best interests.”

“My feeling is that it’s a multi-faceted issue and I don’t know how it can be represented in the limited number of words that can appear on a ballot,” added Milberg. “You elect public officials to deal with issues such as this.”

Another issue at the heart of the debate is the type of exposure Miami Beach receives through its involvement with the Bureau. The city gave $5 million to the GMCVB last year to market the Beach as part of the Greater Miami area. However, some believe the Beach should be promoted as a separate destination.

“Some money should continue to go towards promoting Greater Miami,” said David Kelsey, president of the South Beach Hotel and Restaurant Association, “but most people think the money should be kept here so we can promote ourselves. If the Chamber had the real interests of the community at heart they wouldn’t have to run the ad, they would have been promoting the Beach as a destination all year around.

“It’s a shame that the Chamber is getting in on this,” he added. “I think the jobs they’re talking about saving are their own.”

While the Chamber receives an annual contribution of $30,000 from the Bureau, Milberg stated this was not an issue.

“The monetary contribution to the Chamber’s Visitor Information Center is guaranteed regardless, whether it’s paid through the Bureau or the city,” pointed out Milberg.

“I think that there are very strong relationships that develop over several years,” added Dermer. “I’m sure that the proponents of keeping this contract closed will do anything to keep it off the ballot.

“In all of my years in politics and in this community, I don’t know of a single time when a political action committee that was formed to keep something off of a ballot has been healthy to the people of Miami Beach,” Dermer continued. “All the Chamber’s trying to do is keep this contract closed, there are no surprises here.”

“I think the Mayor is elected to represent the people and his opinion is valuable, but it’s about how you’re going to proceed on this issue,” commented Milberg. “There needs to be deliberate and measured thinking. I think our approach is not political or emotional.”