Introduction

The Carrollton Preservation Alliance hosted a forum for District A candidates on Thursday 24th January 2002. Moderated by Jim Logan from the Alliance, candidates were given 5 minutes to introduce themselves and were then invited to answer a range of questions submitted by Carrollton area neighborhood groups and other organizations.

The purpose of the forum was to elicit candidate positions on issues specific to District A. Questions were therefore invited only on issues of immediate local concern and not on city-wide controversies such as WalMart or the privatization of the S+WB.

The questions therefore dealt mainly with issues of crime and policing, the lack of a grocery store in the Carrollton area and the many zoning, liquor-licensing, noise pollution and waste-management questions that attract the ire of any neighborhood's residents. As SaveAudubonPark is not strictly a 'neighborhood group' we were somewhat interested in these issues but more interested in a couple of questions that arose about the role of the public in determining future land developments in the District.

The question-and-answer format of the forum allowed the candidates to state their positions on the issues raised but perhaps, by eschewing follow-up questions or open debate, allowed a little too much generality and bravado to really throw any light on how any of the candidates would actually behave in office. Nonetheless, we feel that the forum was a very constructive event, and were encouraged by what the candidates had to say on the Audubon Park-related issues that were discussed.

Audubon Park and City Planning

The very first question was a hybrid of one submitted by SaveAudubonPark and another similar question submitted by the Uptown Triangle Association. The question, approximately, was:

"A large number of residents maintain that the Audubon Commission and Audubon Nature Institute have not been responsive to the public interest in their massive remodelling of the Audubon park golf course. Neither the public nor the City Planning Commission were ever given the opportunity to review their plans for conformity with the city's Master Plan. A request has been made of the City Council member representing this district to direct the Planning Commission to perform such a review. Is our request justified, or what IS the proper relationship that should exist among the residents of District A, the Audubon Nature Institute, the City Planning Commission, and elective city government?"

The following paragraphs paraphrase the candidates' responses to the best of this observer's ability:

Scott Shea : Ron Forman has been good for this city and for Audubon Park. I have had conversations with Ron Forman and with SaveAudubonPark [about this]. Ron Forman needs to do a better job of getting input.

In 1999 he had public hearings but the project fell through because of lack of money. When the money became available in 2001 he should have had another round of hearings.

The fundamental problem is the makeup of the Audubon Commission, which needs to be changed. However this is outside the purview of the City Council, it is controlled by the state. We need to change regulations about the makeup of the Audubon Commission via state legislation (see ¹ below).

Sal Palmisano : I didnt know about this [the golf course renovation] either. The problem of Audubon Park is like the bus barn and WalMart; people need to be brought together from the beginning before it is a 'done deal'.

Jay Batt : The public notice by the Audubon Institute [referring, presumably, to this] was intended to pull the wool over your eyes and get it done before you knew.

We need to get the Neighborhood Groups reflected into the Audubon Commission, but this needs state law (also ¹ below).

Nonetheless, the councilman can rattle the cage and exert pressure on, eg, Ron Forman.

[The plan] was steamrolled through, and I would like to see it readdressed, and to see the City Council take a firm stance right now and see what they can do.

New Developments and Neighborhood Group Approval

"Should new developments and/or expansions require real neighborhood group approval, or would you vote to approve them if you liked it yourself?"

"How much does neighborhood opinion matter versus a deal already cut with the politicians behind the scenes?"

Sal Palmisano : [This would be solved by having a] Master Plan.

Scott Shea : I have stood with the neighborhood groups on every issue, Castellon's, Uptown Square, the Bus Barn.

[Regarding the bus barn] the neighbors had serious concerns, and I rolled up my sleeves and went to work, and got a compromise that suits everyone. I have proven that I can stand with the neighbors.

Commentary

We were very encouraged by the comments made by all candidates on these questions. In the case of the Audubon Park golf course, each candidate explicitly recognised the lack of adequate public input in this project. Both Mr Shea and Mr Batt went one-further than SaveAudubonPark previously has by calling not for a Citizen's Advisory Group to monitor Audubon Commission activities, but instead for widening the membership of the Commission itself to reflect a range of interests not currently represented in the Commission.

¹ Both Mr Shea and Mr Batt qualified their remarks on re-making the Audubon Commission by stating that this would require state legislation as the Commission is a state body. This is a complete fallacy, as we have tried to explain to Mr Shea before:

The Audubon Commission is a CITY body, its members are appointed by the Mayor, not by the state. The confusion arises because the state attempted twice, in 1982 and 1983, to take control of the Audubon Commission and of Audubon Park. However, the statutes in question were both overturned in the courts on constitutional grounds. As it stands the Commission is a city body and Audubon Park itself is city property (unlike 'City' Park, which is actually owned by the state, but there ya go).

This is a critical point because any attempt to control development in Audubon Park (and elsewhere) by imposing a Citizen's Advisory Group on the Audubon Commission, by changing the make-up of the Commission, or by requiring City Planning Commission oversight of development plans, will always founder if our city's elected representatives keep trying to pass the buck to Baton Rouge, which has absolutely no jurisdiction over Audubon Park.