
ACLU sues Palo Alto over ‘unconstitutional’ restrictions at residents-only park - apsec112
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/09/15/aclu-sues-palo-alto-over-unconstitutional-restrictions-at-residents-only-park/
======
samcheng
One thing not yet mentioned here is that the 'exclusion' ordinance was drafted
after the neighboring towns of Portola Valley and Los Altos Hills refused to
chip-in when Palo Alto purchased the land.

This park is in the hills, literally across the street from Los Altos Hills,
and a windy drive or strenuous bike ride up the hill from most of Palo Alto.

The exclusionary ordinance is really aimed at these neighbors, rather than at
the e.g. East Palo Alto residents who live ten miles away.

There's definitely a nasty history of racism in California, the Bay Area, and
Palo Alto, but it's not quite accurate to attribute this particular ordinance
on racist exclusionary policy. Los Altos Hills and Portola Valley are even
more affluent and white than Palo Alto is...

~~~
pvg
It's probably a factor but to be the only factor you'd have to believe that
right around the time Palo Alto was constructing itself a literal 'wrong side
of the tracks' minorities ghetto, it also put together an exclusionary
'public' park but that exclusionary intent was really just aimed at other
affluent white people.

------
seasoup
California has a shameful past of adding racist restrictions into real estate
through title documents and other means (ex. "no person of any race other than
the Caucasian or white race" may use or occupy the property, with the
exception of "domestic servants of a different race domiciled with an owner or
tenant."). This meant as neighborhoods built up and out, people were excluded
from them on the basis of race. Home values go up, and the wealth of those
allowed to purchase property goes up along with it.

After some time, those restrictions became legally unenforceable, and then
over more time more and more of those restrictions have eased and now things
are a lot more egalitarian on the surface, but the racial discrimination of
the past has already done its harm and contributed to white wealth and black
and brown poverty and now these neighborhoods maintain their racial
disparities without having to have it encoded in law. So, having residents-
only restrictions on parks are, intentionally or unintentionally or
accidentally on purpose, a way of keeping people out of the park based on
race, and thus, unconstitutional.

~~~
squidlogic
You can argue that historical actions have caused unequal outcomes, but that
doesn't mean that today this decision [to make access to a park based on
residence] is racist. That doesn't logically follow.

~~~
seasoup
People are still being excluded because of their race, it doesn't matter if
you changed the rules once that exclusion was locked in or not. That's a bait
and switch justification.

~~~
TheAdamAndChe
Your logic doesn't follow. I'm white. I don't live in Palo Alto. I wouldn't be
allowed in.

~~~
seasoup
Something can be racist by affecting some races more than others, it's not
binary.

------
ggreer
I dislike this restriction, but it's hard to see how it's unconstitutional.
Cities often exclude non-residents from many resources. It's quite common for
parking permits, libraries, and schools to be exclusively for residents. The
main reason for this is that residents pay taxes and non-residents don't. If
you give non-residents the same privileges as residents, it incentivizes free
riding. People would be encouraged to live in a place with lower taxes while
taking advantage of the resources and services of a nearby city.

~~~
lhorie
As far as I'm aware, you can certainly enter a library outside of your city of
residence and read the books there. You just can't borrow them out, presumably
because if you then stole said book, they wouldn't be able to fine you.

~~~
Cytobit
Why would they be any less able to fine you than your local library? They
would still collect your personal information to set up a library card.

~~~
lhorie
True! In fact, I now saw that others have pointed out that it's even possible
to buy library cards as a non-resident in various places.

------
pvg
For those asking abstract questions about how this is different from access
restrictions on various other kinds of public facilities - it's probably worth
reading up on a bit of Bay Area history for context with 'East Palo Alto' and
'blockbusting' being two good initial search terms. There's a long history of,
to put it very mildly, efforts to keep the wrong sorts of people out, all
across the Bay Area.

~~~
lawrenceyan
Facebook as well as other later tech companies have done a lot to improve both
the perception and land value of East Palo Alto by placing their offices
there. What are your thoughts on this?

~~~
pvg
I don't have any deep (or shallow, for that matter) knowledge or expertise in
this, I do wonder a bit if these are the sorts of problems we want to rely on
IKEA or Facebook to address. There's no question East Palo Alto today is a
much safer place than East Palo Alto in the 90s or 2000's and that can't be a
bad thing.

I did mean 'context' because without it, it's quite reasonable to ponder what
could possibly be so bad or 'unconstitutional' about Palo Alto having its own
version of Gramercy Park. Grody, but maybe not actually illegal?

With the context of 'policy-ied their way to creating an actual ghetto which
went on to become the statistical Murder Capital, USA by 1992', one might
think of it somewhat differently.

------
HideousKojima
There are tons of public facilities, parks, etc. that have restrictions for
non-residents that have never been seen as an issue. The argument being that
local taxpayers are the ones paying for the facilities and maintenance, etc.

For example, for my wedding reception we rented a barn in a park that's often
used for weddings and other events. Since my sister is a resident of the city
she was able to rent the barn at a discount, while non-residents would have
had to pay significantly more. Never crossed my mind that such a thing might
be "discriminatory" or "unconstitutional." I've seen plenty of similar things
with public pools, out of state hunting licenses, library cards, and much
more.

"Public" doesn't mean "free access for all," and that's independent of any
alleged racial discrimination claims the ACLU is making.

~~~
quesera
Similarly: town landfills, school districts, etc. No access is available to
non-residents at any price.

Which is not to say that Palo Alto is being reasonable here, just that there
is a lot of precedent and I'm not clear on the distinction.

~~~
lhorie
You can certainly get into a school without being a resident. They might ask
you to leave if you are disrupting classes or whatever, sure, but there's
nothing that says you can't come from out of state and pick up your
grandchildren after school, for example (provided that the parents have
provided prior permission). Or just talk to the faculty, etc. Journalists do
that.

Another example: before Covid, my kid's school provided parking spots in
school grounds for a nearby festival as a fundraiser.

And in many schools, events like science fairs are open to the public.

As for landfills, I'm not sure there's a distinction between residents and
non-residents. AFAIK, they're treated in similar ways to preservation areas,
where mostly everyone is forbidden from entering, except the people who are
working there (and happen to live nearby by proxy)

~~~
leetcrew
> You can certainly get into a school without being a resident.

in my city you cannot do this unless you have a really good reason. the doors
are steel and controlled from a central office. the administration may choose
to let a journalist in if they feel it is beneficial to the school, but they
can absolutely choose not to.

~~~
lhorie
So, for security reasons, right? Then, I imagine a random resident would also
be denied entry based on the same criteria as a non-resident, no?

It still is similar to preservation areas, in that entry is restricted for
some logistical reason rather than proof of residence.

------
antoncohen
For context on why this park restriction comes across as racist, East Palo
Alto is a different city from Palo Alto, and these are the demographics:

Palo Alto[1]: 60.6% White, 27.0% Asian, 6.2% Latino, 1.8% Black, 0.2% Pacific
Islander

East Palo Alto[2]: 64.5% Latino, 15.8% Black, 7.4% Pacific Islander, 6.2%
White, 3.6% Asian

It comes across as a law that prevents Latino, Black, Pacific Islander people
living in the area from visiting their local park.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Alto,_California#Demograp...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Alto,_California#Demographics)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Palo_Alto,_California#Dem...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Palo_Alto,_California#Demographics)

~~~
duskwuff
That's as of the 2010 census. The demographics of EPA have shifted pretty
dramatically since then -- Facebook moved into the old Sun campus around 2011,
making the area highly desirable for their employees. Combined with the growth
of Google (a few exits south on 101) and other tech companies in the area, EPA
has seen some significant gentrification.

(This is a relatively recent effect, of course; the "residents only"
limitations on the Foothills Park are _much_ older.)

------
noahmbarr
This reserve is ___California State Owned_ __.

If it was owned by the city, restricting access would be different.

^^^^Appears incorrect. It’s city owned! Thanks for digging!!

~~~
ggreer
Where'd you find that information? It's not mentioned anywhere in the article,
and Wikipedia says it was purchased by the city from a private owner[1]:

> Most of the land for the park was bought from Russel V. Lee, a founder of
> the Palo Alto Medical Clinic (now Palo Alto Medical Foundation), who
> offered, in 1958, 1,294 acres of his land at $1,000 an acre ($1.3 million
> total) to the city to preserve as open space.[9] The total cost was high so
> Palo Alto put it to a citywide vote in 1959 which passed with 62% of the
> voters supporting buying the land.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foothills_Park](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foothills_Park)

~~~
an_opabinia
This dispute is ostensibly about a rights issue. But am I wrong, isn’t this
really about preventing homeless and other itinerant people from entering the
park? And as a side effect, Palo Alto harasses visible minorities trying to
enter the park?

It’s interesting, the main way many parks in San Francisco avoid the former
problem is by simply being inhospitable - the tops of hills, slopes, the cold,
the lack of facilities. In Pacific Heights and the Presidio the parks are hard
to use with dignity because of their geography, climate, etc, not necessarily
by design. But it goes a long way obviating the need to deploy the law to keep
homeless and crunchy people out.

Compare to the Mission, which is a very habitable, sunny and flat part of
town, with most services accessible by short walks, that has many small parks
that itinerant people use, sometimes pretty intensively.

If it could, would residents in the Mission restrict its parks? I don’t know
if it’s possible to restrict public access to things, have a positive
experience of gentrification as a net seller of homes / existing resident, and
not harass visible minorities all at the same time.

Palo Alto residents are so confident in their belief they will never someday
be harassed, that the demographics of their town will not change. And maybe
when it does change there will be both homeless people and a visible minority
family, unmolested, in the park.

In this sense the confusion about, who owns the park - it doesn’t really
matter. If Palo Alto wants to prevent itinerant people from using the park,
and if it doesn’t care that that also means every black and Hispanic person is
asked if they are residents and white and Asian people are not, they will get
their way. The solution is through hearts and minds - through empathy and
selflessness really. If the ACLU could get people to see that anyone’s family
member could be homeless, anyone could have mental illness, that those very
same East and South Asian immigrants almost certainly had relatives who were
beggars, you could maybe move the needle.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
I don't see much reason to think it's actually about preventing homeless
encampments in the park. There are plenty of parks that control homelessness
without being closed to anyone from out of town.

~~~
an_opabinia
That was the only reasoned justification I could think of.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
Isn't it just the same justification why some individual might want a private
garden? It's nice to have peaceful nature areas that don't get too crowded.

------
Arainach
While I agree with the idea that parks shouldn't be restricted in spirit,
what's the difference (other than scale) between this park and other resources
such as libraries or pools that require you to be a member of the jurisdiction
that pays for them?

~~~
braythwayt
I have a feeling that as a Canadian, I really cannot cross the chasm between
our society and America's, but I'll try.

Here in Toronto, the libraries are open to the public. Borrowing material or
using their online facilities requires membership, still known as "having a
library card," and for that you need to live, work, or study in Toronto.

(Update, courtesy xatt: There are also paid memberships available for those
who don't qualify for free membership, approximately CAD10/month:
[https://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/using-the-
library/your-l...](https://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/using-the-library/your-
library-card/). But physical access to the library is free to everyone.)

I also think there are other allowances, such as if you care for a relative
who lives there, but the gist is:

1\. Anybody can walk in and use the physical library, and; 2\. There are
additional resources for those who have a connection to the jurisdiction.

There are similar things around community centres. During public swim,
everybody can swim. During certain programs, you may need to be a member of
the facility. I am aware that some physical parks have special programs, and
you may need to register with the city and be a resident to use them.

But the park itself is public, and anybody can go there. You just may not be
able to drop into an outdoor yoga program.

So clearly, we have a two-tier system, and the broadest tier is literally
"everyone." The second tier is the size of a municipality.

In a certain very generous sense, Toronto's libraries, community centres, and
park programs are similar to "gated" parks for a neighbourhood, as they have
some features/programs that require membership and/or some connection to the
municipality.

But in another, they are manifestly different. Neighbourhood parks are usually
set up to exclude "the wrong people." They're about constructing gated
communities, with all the classist and racist implications associated with
these structures.

Whereas, public libraries are exactly what they say on the tin: They're for
the public. Rich, poor, from near, or far.

~~~
dahart
Nearly all parks and libraries and other public places & services in the US
are exactly what you describe... there is no such chasm. The reason this
article was written is because of one single ugly exception to what is a vast
system of public access to community centers, libraries, parks and other open
spaces. Please don't make assumptions and jump to the incorrect conclusion
that a single example suddenly means that's how it works everywhere.

~~~
braythwayt
I have been to excellent public facilities in the US. Excellence is not evenly
distributed anywhere, but the discrepancies of available public services
between rich and poor neighbourhoods, between predominantly white and
predominantly black neighbourhoods have been stark in my (n=1, granted!)
observation of the US.

I think that the reality for the underclass in the US is that in theory,
public services, voting, parks, community centres, education, jobs, and so
forth are equally available, but that is not how it works in practice.

~~~
dahart
Excellence is not evenly distributed anywhere in the world including Canada,
right? But the goal post seems to be walking away from me a little here. I'd
agree that the US has social issues between rich and poor. Weren't we
discussing actual stated policy restrictions to public access above? That's
what the article is reporting on, and what @Arainach was talking about, isn't
it?

What would be the solution to the much bigger problem you're bringing up?
Perhaps the problem is that we allow our citizens to become poor in the US,
not that we have some of our public facilities located near rich people?

------
someonehere
I lived in PA for a bit. A local who worked for the city told me about this
park. I couldn’t believe it was residents only. Sure enough they won’t let you
in when you walk up unless you can prove you live there. I was blown away
because I felt that wasn’t really possible in this area. This was 2009. Long
time coming I guess.

------
gbronner
I got in with my hotel key card when I was staying for a week or two.

There's an argument about limiting the number of people who visit in order to
preserve the natural environment, and residents who pay for it should have
first priority, but an outright ban probably isn't best.

I'm surprised that the state doesn't just buy it off the town.

~~~
sedatk
Get a maintenance fee from non-residents then.

------
mchanson
Sounds like a good fight. Hope they succeed.

------
mc32
What does this do to “residents only” beaches?

What Palo Alto might do is what other cities do and it’s charge some
ridiculous entrance fee. There are a few of these in the Bay Area.

~~~
thirtyseven
Residents only beaches are illegal in California since the entire coastline is
public land.

~~~
codazoda
As a non-resident, I love this. I really wish we would do the same thing for
rivers here in Utah (we've gone back and forth on that).

I visit California every couple years and it's one of my favorite vacation
spots. My favorite beaches are the small ones with tiny walkways between
residential homes. You feel like you're trespassing, but you're not.

I've also made use of dozens of parks in CA as my son was a professional BMX
rider for a time and we went on a tour of as many CA skate parks as he could
ride. It was a good time and we were allowed access to every park we visited.

------
bickfordb
Similarly, Lake Oswego OR restricts non-residents from a public lake through a
combination of public and private partnerships.
[https://www.wweek.com/news/courts/2018/05/04/the-oregon-
supr...](https://www.wweek.com/news/courts/2018/05/04/the-oregon-supreme-
court-will-soon-decide-who-can-swim-in-oswego-lake/)

------
dbt00
Charging a nominal usage or parking fee and discounting for residents seems
fine. Whatever the moral weight of the original purchase price only being born
by Palo Alto was, it's long since expired.

------
fortran77
Palo Alto is very racist. One other thing they do: they have "below market
rate" housing, but it has to be for the "right kind" of poor people. They
build special BMR housing for teachers and firefighters. Wouldn't want
dishwashers, janitors, or home-health workers living nearby.

[https://lahstalon.org/affordable-teacher-housing-to-be-
built...](https://lahstalon.org/affordable-teacher-housing-to-be-built-in-
palo-alto/)

------
chmod600
A reasonable fee for maintenance and security seems reasonable. Perhaps only
allowing reservations of certain facilities to residents. But an outright ban
of every non-resident is, well, mean.

------
chmod600
Probably legal, but antisocial.

The only logical remedy is to card everyone going into any other city park in
California. If they are a Palo Alto resident, no entry. If they are from
anywhere else, come on in.

------
beepboopbeep
1,400 acres none the less. The ACLU is right to sue, this seems absurd.

~~~
Rebelgecko
There's a park near me in Southern California that is 400 acres and was
recently converted to be de facto residents only. Technically anyone can get
in, but all of the parking spots are "residents only" except for legally
mandated handicapped spots. The street parking was also converted to
"residents only", allegedly to reduce COVID risk which IMO is total bullshit.
Hopefully there's more of these lawsuits in the future!

------
bhupy
Curious what this means for public facilities (like libraries, universities,
schools) that are either only available to city/state residents, or offer
preferential pricing for residents.

~~~
GaryNumanVevo
I would be interested to see some examples of libraries / universities that
you cannot enter if you're out of state

~~~
bhupy
Universities offer preferential pricing (in-state tuition) for state
residences. University libraries typically disallow non-students from
entering. It's an important example because it raises the question of where we
draw the line as to what extent government institutions can restrict access to
public property.

------
bhickey
To clarify, Foothills Park isn't strictly residents only but parking there is.
You can hike in from neighboring land.

~~~
cgriswald
That's wrong.

Here is the ordinance:
[https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloal...](https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-20448)

Here is the complaint:
[https://www.aclunc.org/sites/default/files/Final_Complaint_f...](https://www.aclunc.org/sites/default/files/Final_Complaint_for_filing_0.pdf)

> Only residents of the city and regular or part-time city employees, members
> of their households related by blood, marriage, or adoption, and their
> accompanied guests are entitled to enter on foot or by bicycle or vehicle
> and remain in Foothills Park.... Upon the request of an authorized city
> employee or a member of the Palo Alto police department, a person seeking to
> enter Foothills Park at the main gate or a person within the boundaries of
> Foothills Park shall provide identification or information to satisfy the
> requirements of this subsection.... No person shall enter or remain in
> Foothills Park in violation of this subsection. Violations of this
> subsection shall be a misdemeanor.

~~~
bhickey
You can read the ordinance: "Foothills Park may be accessible to the general
public for the purpose of using the Bay-To-Foothills trails."

[https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2008/07/29/from-the-
bay-...](https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2008/07/29/from-the-bay-brto-
skyline-ridge)

~~~
cgriswald
I did read the ordinance. You've suggested as long as people don't park there,
they are fine. That's wrong and anyone who takes your advice could be looking
at a misdemeanor. They are restricted to using the Bay-To-Foothills trails
(and entering and exiting at those specific points).

> Only residents of the city and regular or part-time city employees, members
> of their households related by blood, marriage, or adoption, and their
> accompanied guests are entitled to enter on foot or by bicycle or vehicle
> _and remain in Foothills Park._ (emphasis added)

~~~
bhickey
Except that literally doesn't occur. No one is getting cited for deviating
from the most direct ridge trail through the park or entering from Portola
Valley. The residency restriction is ridiculous, but this isn't how it works
in practice.

~~~
cgriswald
Enforcement can change at any time and on a whim. If violations of this sort
are infrequent, that combined with difficulty of enforcement may result in a
lack of enforcement. If, suddenly, many people illegally entered the park this
way, enforcement may increase both to curb the behavior and because
enforcement is a lot easier when there are a lot of violators. Additionally,
not everyone is able to be so cavalier about committing a misdemeanor because
in practice it might not be enforced.

In any case, this is just moving the goalposts. The fact of the matter is that
as the ordinance is written this behavior isn't allowed and can net you up to
six months in jail and a $1000 fine.

------
franciser
What the sign really say is "Dogs and Colored not admitted"

------
enterx
public vs private services. ticket 10$.

------
wyxuan
Just adding that non residents can come into the park during weekdays. The
restriction is only for weekends.

EDIT:I think the park should be opened, but I think this context should be
added.

~~~
sedatk
That's not true.
[https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/csd/parks/preserves...](https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/csd/parks/preserves/foothills/default.asp)

~~~
wyxuan
Anyone who takes a trail from Arastradero Preserve can enter Foothills Park,
Councilwoman Liz Kniss noted Monday. The city was required to make this trail
open to the broader public as part of an agreement with Santa Clara County,
which contributed the funding the city needed to purchase 13 acres of open
space next to Arastradero Preserve.

In addition, even though non-residents are banned from driving into Foothills
Park on the weekend, many arrive during the week, Kniss said.

[https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2019/05/10/residents-
onl...](https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2019/05/10/residents-only-policy-
for-foothills-park-sparks-fresh-debate)

~~~
sedatk
Yes, you can take a 45 minute hike and reach there, there is no on site
security anyway, only at the front gate. It's no way a workaround for driving
there by car and carrying picnic supplies. Palo Alto residents can happily do
that.

