Quoting an anti-renovation letter, he writes "Even some of the users concerned about the golf course renovations recognize, as stated in a recent letter to the editor, that Audubon Park is 'one of New Orleans' loveliest spaces.'"

That argument cannot be used in favor of the Institute's own role in the park's immediate past or imminent future! The point precisely of the statement is that the park is comparatively unspoilt and open to public access. The Institute's excessive, costly and garish golf course and clubhouse plan threaten to undermine these very aspects of the park.

Mr. Forman goes on to state that a "necessary part" of improvements to the park is the golf course reconstruction, which will provide "the type of quality golf experience consistent with Audubon's other facilities"

We dare say, that the "quality" of the "golf experience" will indeed be improved. But who benefits? Players at the Audubon Golf Course would like the course to be somewhat improved and better maintained, they are on the whole against wholesale reconstruction - particularly as the objective of this is to produce an influx of tourists and conventioneers and a commensurate increase in prices.

Another claim, that the renovations will "improve safety for park users and golfers" is convenient and self-serving. The current course is not especially unsafe, other 'unsafe' aspects of the park are far more egregious, and the whole safety issue is Institute 'spin'.

"The golf course plans were developed, beginning in 1999, with public input from a public hearing; eight public meetings of the Audubon Commission; meetings with neighborhood groups and with the current users of the golf course."

Mr. Forman's statement is disingenuous at best:

• Remind us: when was this so-called "public" hearing?
• While you're at it, when was the last time the public was invited to a scheduled meeting of the Audubon Commission?
• The only neighborhood groups that were consulted where those living immediately next to the park. These are not the only people with an interest in the park.
• Whilst 'current users of the golf course' certainly were consulted, Mr Forman omits to mention that they were largely against it!
• Not only do they oppose such drastic and costly changes to the course, they offered to give their current clubhouse to the Institute rather than have a new one built slap in the middle of the park! This offer was apparently turned down peremptorily by the Institute.
• Sources who attended various of these meetings tell us that the mood turned increasingly antagonistic as opposition to the plan was repeatedly ignored by the Institute.

Mr. Forman's letter concludes, "The plans we implement will be designed to provide facilities which will be an asset to our community long into the future.

We don't doubt that the facilities will be an 'asset'. However, it is not necessarily 'our community' that will benefit - but rather, the Audubon Institute itself, in its ceaseless quest for cash.