• Save Audubon Park challenges clubhouse permit...
• Mayor's Advisory Committee on Boards and Commissions...
• The future of the Hyams Fountain remains undecided...
• Some good news on the golf course...
• And more voodoo economics...

BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS APPEAL

Today, Save Audubon Park filed a legal challenge to the proposed new Audubon Park golf clubhouse, claiming that the large commercial kitchen and dining areas included in the plans are a restaurant and in violation of zoning regulations. In an appeal to the Board of Zoning Adjustments, Save Audubon Park quoted a zoning ordinance stating that, in park districts, restaurants are allowed "within boundaries of a zoo only." The proposed 8000 square foot clubhouse and its accessory 4000 square foot cart storage building are scheduled to be built off Magazine Street near the bandstand.

Save Audubon Park cited as precedent a 1975 holding of the Department of Safety and Permits which stated that a restaurant was not permitted in the park, a finding that resulted from a previous attempt by the Audubon Commission to build a restaurant on the park batture. Save Audubon Park, which has criticized increased commercial development in the park, objects to the delivery trucks, garbage dumpsters and increased traffic the restaurant would bring to a previously quiet and passive area of the park.

See also, Audubon Clubhouse Permit hit by Appeal

MAYOR'S ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

The Mayor's Advisory Committee for recommending new nominees for the city's public boards and commissions boasts as members Ron Forman, Bill Hines, Bill Roussell, Jim Singleton, David Marcello, and David White. Ron Forman, the committee chairman, continues to refuse to reveal the times and locations of their meetings, claiming they are not subject to the state's open meetings laws.

Louisiana's Constitution states:

"No person shall be denied the right to observe the deliberations of public bodies and examine public documents, except in cases established by law" (Article XII, Section 3). Additionally, the open meetings law states: "It is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that public business be performed in an open and public manner and that the citizens be advised of and aware of the performance of public officials and the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy."

Rumour has it that this committee is bound and determined to rid our public boards and commissions of preservationists, replacing them with businessmen and development-minded individuals only. Even the Vieux Carre Commission, which recently summarily rejected the AC/ANI's attempt to put an amusement ride next to the Aquarium, will not be exempt from this bias. As for the Audubon Commission, we have lost all hope for improvement. What Mayor Nagin's take on this committee's actions and attitudes may be, only time will tell.

Read more about Louisiana's Sunshine Laws here

FUTURE STILL BLEAK FOR HYAMS FOUNTAIN

The optimism engendered last week by Bruce Eggler's article about the Hyams Fountain reopening was quickly dashed by Ron Forman at the Audubon Commission meeting July 24th. In true Audubon Institute fashion, they have decided not to choose any of their five proffered options. Instead, they are combining Option #1 (No Change) with Option #2 (Unfenced Fountain and Wading Pool in Audubon Park) by deciding to operate the fountain as it was originally intended and designed, but inexplicably, FOR ONLY ONE MONTH, at which time they plan to let it revert back to its regular state of nonfunctioning disrepair. According to Ron, there remains no consensus on what to do with the fountain, whose ultimate fate will now be decided when and if they get around to preparing a long-awaited and oft-requested Master Plan for Audubon Park, a process whose starting date as recently as May was to be in December 2002, but which has already been moved to "sometime in 2003".

Since the ANI have always been willing to clean up and turn on the fountain for private, fee-paying functions, we can't help but wonder how many of these were already scheduled for August...

AUDUBON COOPERATIVE SANCTUARY SYSTEM

One happy bit of news to come out of the Audubon Commission meeting, however, is that the new golf course will be working towards certification in the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary System after all. Part of the program involves wildlife and bird habitat conservation, and chief curator Dan Maloney proudly claimed that the park birds "will benefit from the golf course renovation". We remain a bit confused about the compatibility of flying birds and flying golf balls, but after all, we are neither the golf nor the wildlife experts in this particular scenario...

Read more about Audubon International's Cooperative Sanctuary System: here

VOODOO ECONOMICS, CONTINUED...

In a previous newsletter, we questioned the lack of any objective review of the economic viability of the new golf course, and we continue to do so. A recent review of the AC/ANI's "Audubon Park Golf Course Improvement Study", conducted by Golf Resources Associates, raised more questions than it answered. While conceding that the "Audubon Golf Market Area" participants represented 6.3 percent of the population and were decreasing in number, the report nonetheless projected rosy revenue projections even in the first year, with significant cash flow rises each subsequent year.

In Brett Clanton's CityBusiness article from Sept 2001, Dale Stastny "says the new course's annual maintenance budget will be $350,000. "Even in a good year, that would have eaten up most of our revenue from the old course," he says.

Coincidentally, it's also virtually the same maintenance cost figures as the old course, with its 31,000-35,000 rounds per year:

2000
Revenues: $384,668 Expenses: $376,122 Net Income: $8,546

1999
Revenues: $419,158 Expenses: $378,465 Net Income: $40,693

1998
Revenues: $448,445 Expenses: $386,991 Net Income: $61,454

Alternatively, the new course figures look like this:

Year One (30,938 rounds of play)
Revenues: Golf Course- $781,606 Clubhouse- $193,359
Expenses: Golf Course- $401,803 Clubhouse- $383,138

Year Three (considered a "typical" year at 37,500 rounds of play)
Revenues: Golf Course- $927,047 Clubhouse- $229,336
Expenses: Golf Course- $413,859 Clubhouse- $414,107

How is it possible that the fancy new golf course will cost approximately the same to maintain as the old course, generally reviled for its well-known lack of maintenance?

In the CityBusiness article cited above, Dale Stastny is also quoted as estimating that "the Institute will see an additional $50,000 to $75,000 in revenue from a pro shop and food court located in the new clubhouse." However, their own feasibility study indicates that the new clubhouse is projected to lose more than $180,000 a year in every year of its operation (up to a remarkable $196,735 loss in year 10). This discrepency certainly should give us all cause for concern, and begs the question:

Could it be that the "typical" clubhouse used to determine the figures for the feasibility study bears little resemblance to the far more lucrative facility that the AC/ANI actually has planned for the park?