As reported in the Times-Picayune of Jan 30, 2004 (Audubon targets intrusions into park), for as long as thirty years, a number of homeowners on Walnut Street have converted parts of Audubon Park to private use, fencing in park property or constructing patios or walls within the park. On Wednesday January 28, 2004 the Audubon Commission approved a plan to lease this property back to the encroachers at $3.60 a square foot for ten years.

Save Audubon Park believes the encroachments and the Commission’s proposal raise a number of issues:

1. Why did the Commission wait thirty years to address these encroachments?

Like the café owner in Casablanca, Willard Dumas, Ron Forman, and Roger Ogden pretended to have been “shocked, shocked” to discover that there were encroachments in Audubon Park. In reality, they’ve known about them for many years. The Commission had a survey of the encroachments prepared in 1975, and many of the them have changed little over that time.

Since 2001, Save Audubon Park has made over seven Freedom of Information Act requests to the Commission concerning the encroachments. In 1998, Dale Stastny, ANI’s CFO, wrote to one encroaching landowner, asking that he call to “discuss” the encroachment.

Thus, the truth is that Forman and the Commission have been well aware of the encroachments, but have made a conscious choice to permit them for thirty years, allowing well-connected Uptowners to enclose and use some of the most valuable public land in the City free of charge. Though Forman and the Commissioners spoke of their “fiduciary responsibility” at the January 28th Commission meeting, they didn’t think of dislodging the encroachers until the issue was forced on them at a public meeting on the Park Master Plan. In what dark den of the zoo has this fiduciary responsibility been hibernating for the last thirty years?

2. Why is this a big deal?

Any misuse of public property, particularly one that smacks of patronage, violates fiduciary duties and supports the perception that the City is for sale. The value of these encroachments over their thirty-year existence may top a million dollars. The largest encroachment, 1863 square feet, is worth $ 6,706 a year based on the $ 3.60/sf appraised value. Over the approximately thirty years the Commission permitted the encroachments, the use of that one property alone has been worth approximately $ 200,000!

3. Who’s fault is this?

The Times-Picayune editorial justifiably criticized the landowners, but really missed the mark. Ron Forman, the Audubon Commission, and the Audubon Nature Institute, not the encroachers, are legally responsible for the Park. The Commissioners, not the landowners, have a fiduciary duty to the public. While the landowners exploited the willingness of Forman and the Commission to permit them to expand their properties, it is Forman and the Commission who must answer for the loss. When other City agencies have run amok, those agencies have been called to task by the public and the press.

We think the answer is clear: the brunt of the blame is on the Audubon Commission and the Audubon Nature Institute, and on Ron Forman, who has been at the helm for almost 30 years.

4. Are the proposed leases good for the park?

Audubon has proposed to lease park property to some of the encroachers for a total of 10 years, including extensions. Though they claim that the property will revert to the public at the end of that 10-year period, there is no guarantee that a new lease would not be signed later. If some of the properties are leased, those properties will be removed from meaningful consideration in the Audubon Park Master Plan. From a planning perspective, the encroachments prevent the implementation of a uniform design. The encroaching landowners have each imparted their own vision to the park, some tasteful and some... well, some not. The result is a hodgepodge inconsistent with the unified landscapes that were the trademark of the park’s original designer, John Charles Olmsted.

In order to create and maintain a coherent Master Plan for Audubon Park, the Commission will need control over the entire park. While a Master Plan was first proposed about thirty years ago, it was finally begun only last year. The Commission has had 30 years to do something about these encroachments, and neither the Commission nor the encroachers should be allowed another 10 years to abuse the public trust and further delay implementation of the Master Plan.

5. Who are the encroachers and how did they get away with it?

At the January 28th Commission meeting, one of the encroachers, Jefferson Parker, argued that he shouldn’t be charged the full appraised value of the land he has enclosed, reminding the Commissioners that he had spearheaded a fund-raising effort for the Audubon Nature Institute. (This fact was not reported by the Times-Picayune.)

Many may wonder if this reveals an unspoken quid pro quo, whereby longtime wealthy supporters and advocates of the Audubon Nature Institute may somehow thereby feel entitled to part of Audubon Park in return? It certainly seems sensible for the Commission and Institute to have avoided ruffling the feathers of some of their most influential "friends and neighbors".

The Audubon Commission and Audubon Nature Institute have shown a longstanding and notable lack of interest in Audubon Park itself, being more interested in their profit-making, fee-paying facilities. Is it any surprise then, if they might perhaps have been happy to trade parts of Audubon Park for the occasional fund-raiser or other contribution?

6. What larger issues are raised?

The encroachments pose questions concerning Ron Forman’s fitness to develop business for the City. Will the practice of granting dispensations and benefits to wealthy New Orleanians that developed on his watch at the Park be continued in his tenure at Greater New Orleans, Inc.? Will new business generated by GNOI go to those already well-entrenched in local social and business circles while shutting out the less-well connected? Will GNOI perpetuate the closed environment that has made it so difficult for newcomers to gain a foothold in New Orleans? The abuse exemplified by the encroachments echoes recent instances where politically well-connected New Orleanians profited at the expense of the public fisc, such as the millions made by (former Audubon Commission President) Bill Grace for acting as a middleman in a tax collection scheme, or the generous interests in the renovation of the World Trade Center awarded to political insiders. If we are really to move forward, we must hold our public bodies to high standards and avoid any hint of patronage or nepotism. These encroachments are a microcosm of what ails our business climate and Mr. Forman is at their epicenter.

7. What should be done?

First, leases should not be executed until it is determined that they will not interfere with the master planning process. Second, this matter should be the subject of an independent investigation. Only the tip of the iceberg has been glimpsed, and the public needs to know the faces, facts and history of the encroachments. Thus far, only the names of the encroachers who spoke at Wednesday’s meeting are known, and the Commission has thus far given us only spin and platitudes. The Nagin administration began its term with an investigation of the Taxicab Bureau, and the losses there were far less and the abuse much shorter-lived than those here. Ron Forman is close to the Nagin administration, and any failure to investigate will only raise questions about the Nagin Administration’s willingness to police itself. The public must know the facts behind a practice which has given prime public land, free of charge, to the well-heeled and well-connected for 30 years.