October 21st, 2001

By now you are all aware of the many issues that surround the controversial plans developed by the Audubon Nature Institute to rebuild and expand the Audubon Park Golf Course, and you know that the people of New Orleans have many serious concerns about the detrimental impact of these plans on Audubon Park.

We would like to take this opportunity to summarise the issues, to offer some thoughts on where an acceptable compromise can be reached, and to appeal to you to follow the appropriate public process by which a compromise plan can be developed, publicly discussed, and only then decided by the Commission.

Current Problems and Possible Solutions

1. Location of new clubhouse

The proposed location of the new clubhouse and its adjunct roads and buildings in the Oak Grove at the heart of the park is absolutely unacceptable to a huge number of park users, as evidenced by the opposition voiced at the public meeting held on October 15th. We continue to advocate changing the site to one which would leave the Oak Grove untouched by construction, and suggest the site of the old maintenance greenhouses behind the Heymann Conservatory (click here for details of the draft plan)

Despite the fact that the Audubon Institute has long asserted that the new clubhouse is "for everybody, not just golfers", the greenhouse site has apparently been deemed "too accessible" to the public by both the Institute and the adjacent Neighborhood Groups. Both now continue to push for the location most damaging to the park because the "public" would use that location less! This position is disgraceful and unconscionable.

Solution #1: We believe that a smaller clubhouse, designed primarily to serve the comforts of the golf course's users, excluding extended restaurant service and closed to night time or private party use would keep "general interest" to a minumum and not serve as an additional attraction within the park that would tend to worsen traffic and parking in the way feared by the Neighborhood Groups. It is the Institute's plan to create a permanent restaurant facility available for private rental, for night-time use, and of a size adequate for large-scale golf tournaments that makes its location close to Magazine Street harmful to the interests of the park's immediate neighbors.

We believe that a smaller clubhouse, with reduced parking could be positioned either on the site of the greenhouse buildings, or in some other location on the periphery of the course with no ill effect for neighbors and park users, while offering adequate facilities for golfers.

Solution #2: The Audubon Golf Club has generously offered to donate its existing clubhouse to Audubon Park. This offer, already rejected once by the Audubon Institute, was repeated on October 15th, and again rejected.

We believe that this option should be seriously considered. The money saved by renovating the old clubhouse rather than constructing a new one could be used for the badly needed "improvements to Audubon Park" for which the people voted last year. While Walnut Street residents might be against such a plan if it involved vastly extended clubhouse usage, the traffic generated by golfers alone, coming to a facility designed for and restricted to genuine 'clubhouse' functions would not significantly increase over the previous clubhouse. The Audubon Institute's own studies show no increase in golf course usage, nor a significant increase in traffic provided that the clubhouse is not allowed to become an attraction in its own right, in the manner of the Audubon Tea Room.

2. Demolition of the Heymann Conservatory

The attractions of a Conservatory and Botanical Gardens were on vivid display the weekend of October 20th - but at City Park!

A functioning Conservatory fits into the purported mission of the Audubon Nature Institute far better than a golf course, and certainly better than the 70 parking spaces that the Institute plans to build on this site. Such a facility, which we believe can comfortably co-exist with the course, its clubhouse, and reduced clubhouse parking, would truly reflect an interest in "the wonders of nature".

To demolish the Conservatory for a parking lot, without any discussion of alternate plans that could save it, would be an act of destruction by the Audubon Commission that would contrast very markedly with its mandated mission to "manage and maintain" the park. It would be an act not quickly forgotten by the many members of the public who are now taking a close interest in the activities of the Audubon Institute and Audubon Commission.

Solution: We believe that the Conservatory should be retained, renovated and re-opened to the public as an income-producing educational asset on its present site.

3. Access to Hurst Walk and the 'Linear Park' inside the lagoon.

The initial intention by the Audubon Institute to eradicate Hurst Walk and barricade the Lagoon Bridge was one of the issues that resonated most loudly with the general public. While the Institute apparently considered the path to be part of the old golf course, the outpouring of public indignation over this issue indicates strongly that the public begs to differ. In fact, Mr Stastny and Mr Forman have both identified the Hurst Walk issue as one of the main reasons for public outcry over the Institute's entire golf course plan. Had there been adequate and detailed public discussion of the golf course plan taking place before construction began, Institute executives may have been less surprised by the public's reaction.

Solution: We hear that the Institute is considering ways to keep Hurst Walk "partially open", but no guarantees have been made publicly. Keeping the path open, albeit on a slightly altered route, has been suggested by the Institute, and would be a fine first step. Having it closed to the public during daylight hours is not even remotely acceptable, much less feasible.

A slight modification to the new course design, specifically shortening the 18th fairway a few yards so golfers don't tee off across the path, plus some appropriate signage, are warranted in order to respect and maintain the public's right to share the park with the golf course as it has always done.

Public Process

While we appreciate the opportunity that the Audubon Institute and Audubon Commission gave the public to air its grievances on Monday, October 15th, we do feel that this begins, rather than completes, an adequate process of public discussion. It is far too early in the process, and there is far too much opposition to these plans, for the Audubon Commission to vote on the Institute's final design at this time.

We propose instead that the Institute begin a dialogue to develop a compromise plan for the location, size and function of the proposed clubhouse and its related buildings, roadways, paths and parking facilities. If developed with public input, such a compromise is likely to receive considerable public support, while also giving adequate space and facilities for users of the golf course. Once one or more alternative designs have been developed, the appropriate next step would be another Public Meeting attended by Institute and Commission members where the pro's and con's of the various designs can be discussed, and a solution acceptable to the majority of park stakeholders can be approved.