" I am here to speak against approval of this Cooperative Endeavor Agreement, in which bond money approved by the voters in November 2000 for "repairs, renovations and improvements" to Audubon Park will also be used to reimburse the Audubon Nature Institute for expenditures for their controversial new golf course and clubhouse. While the bond issue specifically mentioned money for the clubhouse and golf course at Pontchartrain Park, voters did not approve such uses at Audubon Park. And far from witnessing the "renovation" of the historic old Audubon Golf Course, we have seen it completely obliterated and a new one being built in its place.

We feel that the city should not grant any further monies, particularly those earmarked for new construction, until the City Planning Commission, on instructions from the City Council, has reviewed the plans for conformity with the City's current Master Plan, and has forwarded a recommendation to the Council. The City Council should set a precedent NOW, before it is too late, for City Planning Commission review of new construction projects in ALL of our public parks, particularly those with the irrevocable significance of the large new buildings and parking lots that the Audubon Nature Institute has planned for what little remains of Audubon Park.

While it may not have begun as such, the Audubon Institute is, first and foremost, a real estate development company-- one which has been given carte blanche by the Audubon Commission to commercially develop a number of valuable city properties, usually with great success. But while the Audubon Commission was always supposed to serve the city and the public, we all know that it long ago abdicated those responsibilities in favor of serving the Audubon Institute instead. Their relationship has created an unfortunate vacuum in public accountability and government oversight of their projects, with the golf course controversy being only the latest consequence.

It is time for the City Council to recognize this void and do something about it. The City Planning Commission and its staff are a qualified public body that can and should review these kinds of development and construction projects to ensure that the city's interests, and the public's interests, are being appropriately served. It is imperative that the Council ensure that developments in our city are subject to meaningful public input, to review by the Planning Commission, and to City Council oversight, especially when those developments impact valuable urban green spaces such as Audubon Park and City Park."

Michael Deas

Describing Audubon's proposed new clubhouse and restaurant as "a building only Al Copeland could love", Mr Deas pointed out that at 7,800 sq feet the clubhouse alone will be the size of two St Charles Avenue mansions, not counting the additional 4,000 sq feet of the golf-cart rental building. He decribed the entire project as "civic vandalism" taking place in one of the city's greatest and most historic treasures - Audubon Park.

Like other speakers, Mr Deas pointed out that the voters had not in fact voted for the golf course renovation when they approved the bond issue for Audubon Park. The words 'Audubon Park golf course' do not appear once in the bond issue, he remarked, arguing that "we voted to have Audubon Park maintained, not blasted off the face of the earth".

Mr Deas further decried that methods of the Audubon Institute and Commission for working in shadow, and when challenged, responding with threats.

He closed by appealing to members of the council to withhold monies until Audubon agrees to make its plans available to the City Planning Commission, and to thereby use their leverage to "control this out of control project"

Vernon Palmer

Striking perhaps a more measured tone, Vernon Palmer described his coming remarks as "a plea to follow zoning ordinances, a plea to follow procedures"

He stressed that he was not asking the City Council to take sides on the particulars of these projects, but merely to insist on the rule of law, of the Master Plan and of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.

Jim Segreto, member of Master Plan Advisory Committee

Mr Segreto focussed on the issues of rational and publicly-accountable planning addressed by the current 1992 city Master Plan and by the forthcoming revision. He characterized the level of City Plannning Commission review of Audubon's plans as "not reflective of the large-scale public input provided for in the Master Plan".

He also commented that Audubon Park is "too large to be controlled by a private entity and disposed of as it wishes"

Responding to the familiar argument that projects such as the Audubon golf course provide operational revenue for other areas of the park, Mr Segreto remarked that he believes that "the public accepts revenue-generation but is sensitive to preservation".

He also commented on the recognition within the new Master Plan for more open planning for public parks, and for the preservation of passive non-structured green space.

Michael Duplantier

Pointing out that the City Council is intimately involved in many zoning and code issues, including individual garages and roofs, Mr Duplantier remarked that this contrasted with the Council's lack of oversight of one of the largest land-use issues in the city - Audubon Park.

He remarked that the Audubon Commission simply does not carry out this oversight function on behalf of the city.

Mr Duplantier questioned the relationship between the Institute and the Commission, describing the Audubon Nature Institute as the "private alter-ego" of the Commission, and remarking that the Commission itself has no executive staff, no office and no phone.

"This is privatization run amok", where "public input is an unwanted intrusion into the lock-step progress of their development plans".

Other Speakers

Keith Hardie, of Save Audubon Park, addressed himself mainly to Audubon's intentions for Hurst Walk - initially to close it, now to keep it open with the help of legal liability exemption from the state. He pointed out that while closing the path was entirely inappropriate, keeping it open under legal cover without addressing the golf course modifications that have made it dangerous, was not in line with Audubon's own stated purpose of "improving safety for golfers and park users". He described this legal ruse by Audubon as the "Wing the Walker law", and appealed for appropriate modifications to the golf course and the trajectory of the path to allow the two to coexist safely.

Mr Hardie also described Audubon's clubhouse plan as an attempt to "smuggle a restaurant into Audubon Park" in contravention of existing zoning laws.

Lydia Schmaltz, of the Louisiana Landmarks Society, read a resolution pleading for the landscape and for the principals of good government.

Anne Pettit, of the League of Women Voters, also spoke against adoption of the Cooperative Endeavor Agreement, describing the current process as "severely limiting public participation"

Michelle Kimble, Advocacy Coordinator for the Preservation Resource Center, stated that the PRC believes that there has not been nearly enough public input, and that SaveAudubonPark, the neighborhood groups and "everyone else" should be more actively involved with the Audubon Nature Institute.

Mark O'Bannon, onetime owner of a SaveAudubonPark bumper sticker, commented on his difficulties in staying informed of Audubon activities and participating in the process. With reference to Audubon's clubhouse plans, its food service plans, and its demolition of the Heyman Conservatory he remarked that overall Audubon "may stick to the letter of the law, but they violate the spirit of democratic participation".

He also remarked that Audubon Park is the property of the people of the city, not of either the Audubon Institute or the Audubon Commission and that the carte-blanche given to the Institute by the Commission amounts to "short circuiting government of the people by the people".