Jim Segreto and I will give an introduction to the issues at hand, then the Audubon Nature Institute will be allowed to present a brief statement (probably in rebuttal); after that we will be opening the floor to 3-5 minute comments and/or questions from the public, which can be directed to our elected officials (Councilpersons Scott Shea, Marlin Gusman, Jim Singleton and Eddie Sapir), and the Commission and Institute representatives (Ron Forman and Dale Stastny of the Audubon Nature Institute and Dr. Willard Dumas of the Audubon Commission).

No one has ever disputed that the golf course and park are badly in need of a facelift. Quite the opposite, in fact: many people blame the Institute for the poor maintenance conditions that have plagued the park and course for years. Those of us who oppose the Institute's present plans do so not because we want everything to stay decrepit, but because we profoundly disagree with what the so-called "golf course renovation" has become, and sincerely believe that the public should and does have the right to impact a project that uses millions of dollars of public money on a parcel of beloved public land. And based on petition signatures alone, there are at least 1300 of us so far, and the numbers just keep growing-- possibly even at a faster rate than the numbers on the petition in support of the project that Audubon Nature Institute employees have been feeling forced to sign of late!

One of the primary purpose's of tonight's meeting is to separate the misinformation from the disinformation, both of which have been liberally desseminated by the Audubon Institute this past month. They have obviously known all the good, bad and indifferent details for the past two years. We can only assume that their failure to share critical details with the general public until it was presumably too late was yet another example of their well-known method of keeping people in the dark in order to mitigate the opposition.

Tonight we will try to separate fact from fiction about what they are really doing in the Park, how they kept us from knowing about it until now, and why they are doing it.

1. What they are really doing.

Like a mantra, they keep repeating that they are "not expanding the golf course, the footprint will not change". Saying it over and over, however, doesn't make it true, because facts are stubborn things.

Part of the problem may be that the Institute is suffering from some false assumptions that could have easily been rectified by simply having presented the final plan to the public for discussion. Oh well...

• They assumed that the Hurst Path was part of the present golf course.
  They were wrong.
  The Hurst Path is part of the original Olmsted design for the park and has coexisted with the golf course for close to a century.
• They assumed that the present golf course extended to the inside edge of the lagoon.
  They were wrong.
  The lagoon and both its banks were part of the original Olmsted design for the park, and the inner bank has always functioned as a linear park running between the golf course and the lagoon, and connected in the middle to the rest of the park by the stone bridge and the Hurst Path.
• They assumed that the magnificent grove of live oaks in which they plan to build roads and adjunct facilities for the golf course is an "underutilized" and forgotten part of the park.
  Just because they routinely "forget" to mow the grass back there doesn't mean that area is not fully utilized by many, many people in the way it was intended: as a quiet and tranquil place of natural beauty. Like grass and trees, not buildings and roads.

So let's just look at the redesign and see for ourselves...

These areas will be eliminated, becoming part of the new course (Hurst Path and Meditation Walk)...

These areas will be "open to the public" but irrevocably altered, and converted into golf course use (grove of trees and conservatory); this area of trees' fate remains unclear at this time.

These areas will be closed to the public (linear park along inside bank of lagoon); and, once and for all (the story keeps changing): will the bridge truly "remain open", or will it be blocked to prevent people from entering the golf course that way? (New Answer: a small "viewing area" will be created at the inside edge of the bridge.)

2. How they kept us from knowing about it until now.

This past month, Institute spokespeople have repeatedly insisted that adequate public notice was given. And they repeatedly have explained that the reason all of us didn't know about these details until now is because we "weren't paying attention" or we must have been "napping"-- as opposed to what we say, which is that they pulled a bait-and-switch on the public, and we were skillfully duped.

So let's look at a timeline for this project that includes all the so-called "public" meetings and press information on which they base their insistence that adequate public notice was given...

This project was presented as a $2.2 million "golf course renovation" at its only Public Hearing on May 24, 1999. If it had stayed at that scale and scope, we may not have found ourselves in this controversy today. But at that time, there were only Preliminary Plans A, B and C, and nothing was finalized. Despite the fact that Preliminary Plans D and E were quickly developed after golf club input, even they were never presented to the general public. The project was shelved for a year and a half and even presumed dead, until it suddenly reappeared on the scene this spring transformed into a $6 million plan in which the golf course "footprint" dramatically increased and appropriated parkland used by the non-golfing public. And, with no additional public notice or input, construction commenced!

And, despite Institute claims of multiple mentions in various media outlets, until Angus Lind's article in the Times-Picayune on July 25, no reference to the project ever mentioned the non-golfing details, the "side-effects", if you will, that have brought us here today.

No, we hadn't been napping: we were duped.

3. Why they are doing it.

That's simple: money.

The Audubon Nature Institute is a money-raising and money-spending machine that has lost sight of it's original mission to "administer, operate and maintain" the Audubon facilities. They basically have too much money and have to keep finding ways to spend it, such as developing new golf courses in public parks.

If we do not do something now about insuring accountability on the part of the Audubon Institute, debacles such as this one will keep occurring. They will continue to sell off our park, inch by inch, to any interested individual or group with money, whether it benefits the park or the public or not. And they will do it in the same insidious way: first, for example, we'll hear about a little snowball stand being approved for an "underutilized" space near Hurst Street; then, two years later or so, voila'; Emeril Lagasse or perhaps Susan Spicer are opening a restaurant on the site of the old golf course maintenance shed, with a private parking lot to boot! And we'll be told we knew all about that too.

We believe that it is unacceptable that the plans for this project went from "preliminary" to "final" and changed dramatically in budget and scope without any public input or scrutiny.

We believe that it is unacceptable that even one additional square inch of precious public green space should be appropriated for golf course uses.

And we believe that any agency using public money on public property should be accountable to the public through our duly elected officials and their appointees.

We call upon the Mayor and Audubon Commission to assert their authority over the Audubon Nature Institute, and delay any futher destruction in Audubon Park until a citizen's advisory committee can be appointed to provide appropriate and meaningful public input into this project, and negotiate a more balanced redesign that all park users can support.