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.
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?
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.
