"Points concerning the decision to withdraw Resolution 02-192 (The resolution requiring the City Planning Commission to review the plans for the proposed Audubon golf clubhouse)"

In point of fact, and you may think us reprehensible for bringing this up, R-02-192 never specifically mentioned the clubhouse; it dealt primarily with the larger issue of whether or not the ANI plans were in conformity with the city's Master Plan.

Those Seven Points

1. "First and foremost, public response to my office in support of the proposed clubhouse has outnumbered opposition to the project about 17 to 1."

• R-02-192 did not ask Mr Batt, or any council member, to take a position on whether they 'supported' the clubhouse or 'opposed' it, but merely to direct the City Planning Commission to review the project, and to comment on its conformity with the city's Master Plan and general wider principals of planning in this city.
   
• It seems to us therefore that Mr Batt has erred by effectively deciding the issue based on an informal telephone poll that was not, apparently, scientifically conducted. Plus or minus 3 percentage points? We don't think so...
   
• And really, does anyone believe that supporters of the clubhouse outnumber opponents by 17 to 1?

2. "The Audubon Commission has already reviewed the plans for the clubhouse. This was done with documented public input through public meetings and hearings. The Audubon Institute has given us a list of the public hearings and the dates of their postings in the Times-Picayune. In addition to newspaper ads, public notices were also posted at the Commission's offices."

The Audubon Commission has no offices: the postings took place at the Audubon Nature Institute offices. (Is it any wonder that everyone, the AC and the ANI included, confuse them with each other?)

• This is the same AC/ANI list of so-called public hearings that was utterly debunked as far back as September 2001, consisting mainly of meeting with selected neighborhood groups and with golf club representatives. The only genuine 'public meeting' was held more than two years before the project began, before the money for the clubhouse component was even available.
   
• To the old list can be added:
   
  1. The public meeting of Oct 15, in which the clubhouse size and design were never discussed but at which ANI plans to build a road (!) through the oak grove to service its chosen clubhouse location elicited a hostile response.
      
  2. The AC meeting of Oct 24 , where the location change was approved, but the clubhouse size and design were never discussed.
      
  3. The AC meeting of January 16, in which the brand new plans of a never-before-seen clubhouse exterior design were approved after a half hour of what the Audubon Commission has recently learned to call 'public input' but which anyone else would call 'window dressing'.

This is the same set of 'public meetings', 'documented public input' and 'public notices' that caused all three District-A candidates to fall over each other in their condemnations on the campaign trail (aah, but that was before the election, right?)

The public input was a sham, the approval process was a sham, and just because Mr Batt has fallen completely for their artifice doesn't make it any less a farce.

3. "The Home Rule Charter grants the Audubon Commission authority to oversee projects in the park. The Audubon Commission is the city agency empowered to provide the public supervision that this resolution would call for. I am reluctant to begin a precedent of asking the City Planning Commission to oversee the work of a parallel city-empowered commission."

This City Planning Commission review would NOT have set a precedent. The ANI has regularly submitted its plans to the CPC for review before, in the case of Zoo 2000 and more recently, of the pool demolition.

In addition, the Audubon Commission dutifully submitted its plans for the "space-ride" next to the aquarium a few months ago to the Vieux Carre Commission, an equally "parallel city-empowered commission".

Call us "reprehensible" for pointing this out, but we just don't see that this particular point makes any sense whatsoever.

4. "The City Planning Commission has expressed on numerous occasions that the review of these plans is outside of their basic charter. They are confident that the Audubon Commission has reviewed these plans in accordance with its Charter duties. They are also confident that Safety and Permits has carefully reviewed the plans."

If the City Planning Commission has been instructed to review a project by the City Council or the Mayor, it is NOT outside their basic charter to do so.

That was the entire point of R-02-192.

We were informed months ago that the City Planning Commission was not empowered to 'demand' a review of plans from an equal city-empowered body such as the Audubon Commission, but would be able to carry out such a review if asked to by an 'official of standing' - such as, you know, the City Council.

5. "One of the foremost proponents of Resolution 02-192 is the Save Audubon Park nonprofit. Save Audubon Park, on their official website, has invited and published comments that have taken the tone of personal attacks on Mr. Ron Forman and his character. As a councilman, I am devoted to civility and fairness in public discussion of community issues. I find the tone of this website reprehensible. I have some examples here. Save Audubon Park refuses to reveal the names of the persons responsible for allowing this tone on its official website. I must make a clear statement today that this sort of belligerent posturing is not acceptable in my view."

• Pink flip-flops, on the other hand, are absolutely acceptable (From Jay Batt's campaign literature against incumbant Scott Shea).
   
• This point represents a complete dismissal of the other outstanding organizations that opposed aspects of Audubon's current golf course renovation in general and supported R-02-192 specifically, such as the Preservation Resource Center, the Louisiana Landmarks Society, Uptown Neighborhood Improvement, the National Association of Olmsted Parks and those well-known Jacobins at the League of Women Voters.
   
• We regard the specific attack on the SaveAudubonPark website as entirely spurious and stand by our constitutional rights. Whatever 'civility and fairness' politicians claim to be devoted to is just as often forgotten in their own battles. We have as many rights as they.
   
• The ongoing claim that Save Audubon Park "refuses" to reveal the names of the persons "responsible" is absurd and baffling. We are a registered non-profit organization and the directors of this group are a matter of public record.

6. "The legal opinion of the City Attorneys is that if adequate notice was given by the Audubon Commission of its public hearings, then secondary review by the City Planning Commission is not required by law. I have documentation of the Audubon Commission's public meetings and public hearings dealing with this matter, and of the notices that were posted for those hearings."

With regard to public meetings held before the project began, we can only assume that Mr Batt and the City Attorney are referring to this when they talk of 'adequate public notice'.
This 1-inch square classified advertisement in the Times Picayune has already been discussed as evidence of the Audubon Commission's commitment to public input and was referred to by none other than Jay Batt (on the campaign trail in February) as an attempt to "pull the wool over your eyes, and get it done before you knew" - aah, but that was then.

Notice of AC/ANI meetings has dramatically improved since Save Audubon Park took it upon its reprehensible self to publicize their activities. However, in the light of their tendency to present a proposal to the public one month, change it behind the scenes and then re-present and approve it without further discussion the following month, we continue to believe that some other organization outside of the Audubon Commission and Audubon Institute needs to be involved in their 'public input' processes.

7. "Historically, the park was used for a number of entertainment and refreshment purposes. What the Audubon Institute proposes to do in the clubhouse is minor compared to uses in times past, which included:

-An 1884 World's Fair complex consisting of:

MAIN BLDG: 1,350,000 square feet
ART GALLERY: 25,000
STABLES: 76,000
ARENA: 400,000
OTHER EXHIBITS: 500,000

The proposed clubhouse has only 5039 sf of living (sic) space. That pales in comparison to the gargantuan structures that make up part of the enchanting history of the park.
Over the years, the park has been home to numerous other major and minor buildings.

The point: What the Audubon Institute is trying to do here does not violate the historical authenticity of the park. It is nothing new!"

As a piece-de-resistance, this number 7 is outstanding. But what possible relevance can this have to present-day Audubon Park and its recreation and open-space needs?

And more importantly: Who do you think thought of this novel justification? It certainly wasn't Councilman Batt.

ANI Infographic

ANI kindly provided Mr Batt with a list of the buildings created for the "1884 World's Fair", and a comparison of the size of buildings demolished or to be demolished, versus those constructed for the golf course.

Click here to see the graphic - and ask yourself this question:

If a "nature" organization first neglects, then closes, then finally demolishes a public conservatory - despite a public outcry and in advance of a court hearing - and then has the audacity to use the vanished square-footage of the demolished conservatory as an argument in favor of their new golf clubhouse, are they:

a. Reprehensible
b. Belligerent
c. Unacceptable
or
d. Devoted to civility and fairness

If you answered "all of the above except, erh, 'd'" then you have been paying more attention than Mr Batt.

Conclusions

Had the Audubon Commission actually performed within its chartered mandate to hold adequate public hearings and reviews of this project, and had the Audubon Commission not long, long ago discarded its oversight role with regard to its hireling, the Audubon Nature Institute, we suspect there would never have been a "golf course" controversy over which to disagree. That has always been the crucial point: they are required to hold public meetings on projects in the park, they are required to practice oversight on the ANI, and they do neither.

In an earlier life, as a candidate for office, Mr Batt seemed to recognise a different reality about the nature of the Audubon Commission, commenting that he would like to see "Neighborhood Groups reflected into the Audubon Commission", that the golf course plan had been "steamrolled through" and that he would like "to see it readdressed, and to see the City Council take a firm stance right now and see what they can do."

It seems to us, given the Council's decision to support the jurisdictional rights of the Audubon Commission over all other factors, that the time is now right to reorganize the Audubon Commission: to appoint a wider selection of citizens including but not limited to immediate neighbors of the park; to include experts on urban planning, landscaping and other disciplines so that all the 'expertise' does not come from their supposed 'agent'; and to enforce real and timely public input into the Commission's deliberations.