It appears that even if this were true (it has never been specifically demonstrated), the following remarks by Audubon CEO Ron Forman at the City Council on March 21st, illustrate that we may not be alone.

On Public Support for the Golf Course Renovation

The question, put by District A Councilman Shea was "we have heard all these people who were opposed. Who are the people who are supporting you?"

Forman : 70 board members [ie of the Audubon Commission, Audubon Nature Institute] have approved it. We've had public meetings, neighborhood group meetings, we have 100,000 members [of the Audubon Nature Institute]. Hundreds of people at different meetings and at different times.

Response

1. We have always maintained that that approval of the Audubon Commission and of the board of the Audubon Institute itself does not count for much, since neither entity is in the business of opposing Ron Forman or his plans, and on the whole both bodies see things his way every time. More importantly, at the public meetings that Mr Forman refers to, especially those on Septemeber 4 (by SaveAudubonPark), on October 15th (Audubon Institute),and October 24th (Audubon Commission), publicly voiced opinion was overwhelmingly and vociferously opposed to many aspects of the golf course renovation itself and of the clubhouse plan.

2. Has Audubon carried out a survey of its "100,000 members" to see how many even know about the rest of Audubon Park, or realize that their support for the Zoo and other nature-related facilities is being used to justify this entirely unrelated and environmentally destructive project?

On Audubon responsiveness to Public Opinion

1. Size of new clubhouse

Forman: [At the public meetings we were asked] to make it smaller (the clubhouse). We made it smaller. The 1960's greenhouse we tore down was 3-times the size of the new building.

Response

While the Institute did address some public fears about the purpose of its new clubhouse by reducing dining and kitchen areas, they barely made the building itself "smaller". By compensating for the reduced interior space with increased verandah space, they reduced the actual size of the building from 8,400 sq ft to 7,800 sq ft - A reduction of less than 10%, and still very large for its stated purpose.

While the "3-times the size" line, might or might not include the additional 4,000 sq ft of the golf cart rental building, it certainly overlooks one or two vital facts

• The building torn down was a conservatory standing in a park
• The building being put up is a clubhouse for the new golf course
• The entire conservatory area will be occupied by the clubhouse, cart-parking and parking lot. It's not as if the remaining two-thirds is being returned to greenspace.
• The new building will be forty-one feet high at the peak of its banal Carlos Cashio cuppola.

2. Closure of Hurst Walk

Forman: [Audubon originally wanted to close Hurst Walk, the closure was strongly opposed] We are seeking legislation to keep Hurst Walk open, now they are complaining about that.

Response

Damn straight we are complaining. Despite Institute propaganda to the contrary, Hurst Walk was never demonstrated to be unsafe in the previous 100 years of golf course operation. Its existence as a public path is shown on maps of Audubon Park going back to the early 1900's. In that time, there has not been a single documented case of anyone being hit by a golf ball while on the path.

It is only the disregard for public rights shown by Audubon in its initial plan to close the path and place a fairway across it that now makes it "unsafe".

Given these facts we oppose Audubon's attempt to retain both the path and the fairway by protecting themselves from the legal consequences of the dangerous situation that they themselves have created. Rather than get special legal dispensation to protect themselves, and oblige pedestrians to assume their own risk when crossing a formerly public park, they should adjust the layout of the course so that the path is not directly in the line of fire.

On the purpose of the Clubhouse

Forman : [The clubhouse] "is only for golfers and no-one else"

This statement was made as part of rebuttal of the accusation that the true purpose of the clubhouse is to "smuggle a restaurant into Audubon Park" (Keith Hardie).

Interestingly it contradicts the following text from Audubon's own website ( www.auduboninstitute.org):

• "...these same services [restrooms, foodservice] would be available to anyone in Audubon Park who chose to avail himself or herself of them."
• "If some other group wishes to use the clubhouse at night, we would consider such a request."

Response

While we continue to oppose the construction of such a large building in Audubon Park, and continue to oppose what we consider to be the true agenda of the Institute, namely to operate a general purpose evening rental facility similar to the Audubon Tea Room, we do agree with their earlier sentiment that the clubhouse's bona-fide refreshment and restroom facilities should be available to the general public and not just to golfers. For it to be otherwise would be unacceptable privatization.

What really interests us here though is "what is the actual truth?"

Will the clubhouse be open to the public, as Audubon have stated on their website for months, or will it be "only for the golfers" as Mr Forman now says?

Has Audubon changed it's mind? If so, why - and when were they going to tell us?

If not, was the City Council "misinformed" by Mr Forman, or was it "disinformed"?

You got that right

Forman: We made a commitment to build a new golf course. We didn't have to. It was not a top priority.