18 ms·
ACLU sues Palo Alto over ‘unconstitutional’ restrictions at residents-only park
- gotoeleven 6y agoI'm glad that the ACLU continues to stand up for that most American of Civil Liberties: the right to turn every public space into a hobo encampment.
- johndevor 6y agoI think the right to camp out in a park is different... not sure what law covers that though.
- mc32 6y agoWhat 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.
- thaumasiotes 6y agoWhat they do in Shanghai is have the park inside the apartment complex. (小区, a small walled residential district containing usually several buildings as well as other amenities like bicycle parking and, perhaps, parks for little kids. Amenities vary with the ritziness of the complex.)
- duskwuff 6y agoThe park in question here is on a rather different scale than what you're thinking of. The Foothills Park is an open space of roughly 1,400 acres (570 ha).
- thaumasiotes 6y agoAt that point, "residents" doesn't seem like an applicable concept.
- genericone 6y agoOne compromise is, like many public botanical gardens and parks do, is to enforce operational hours and make entry free for residents with proof of residency in the zipcode/city/county. My example would be the SF botanical garden which is free to residents with id and/or utilities mail with your sf address. No visitors after operating hours. It would be a sad day if SF allows encampments in the gardens, welcoming urban decay into an urban escape.
- thirtyseven 6y agoResidents only beaches are illegal in California since the entire coastline is public land.
- mc32 6y agoSure, but the ACLU has lots of options to open them up in other states that do allow that. Even Nevada for example doesn’t have the concept of “public easement” that CA does. You cannot get out of your canoe and walk on the beach on the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe that is private.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- codazoda 6y agoAs 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.
- therockspush 6y agoOpal Cliffs used to do this. It was dumb, considering you could just walk down the beach or paddle down. https://www.sfchronicle.com/travel/article/Santa-Cruz-s-private-beach-now-open-to-all-13762941.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/travel/article/Santa-Cruz-s-priv...
- everybodyknows 6y agoCan you name them for us? Beach access is a right, actively defended by surfrider.org, who can use your support.
- tptacek 6y agoPresumably Palo Alto could charge some reasonable fee, connected in a way they could justify to a judge to the expenses of keeping the park up, and then offer residents a discount. But there's no "gotcha" where they can recapitulate the current policy of outright restricting nonresidents with absurdly high fees; the law doesn't work like a computer program, and a human judge will shut you down if you try to treat it like one.
- mc32 6y agoAs someone down thread has pointed out, SF botanical gardens within golden gate park is free for residents, but charge $9 ($12 weekends) for non residents. It’s not “high” but I’d consider $30 “high” if they went up that far. Another tactic I’ve seen in other circumstances is you have to get a “reservation” ahead of time.
- labcomputer 6y ago> But there's no "gotcha" where they can recapitulate the current policy of outright restricting nonresidents with absurdly high fees In particular, in California, fees cannot be higher than the cost of providing the service. In drought years, there have been proposals to allow people to use water as they wish, but charge (steeply) progressively-increasing fees for each gallon of water used. The theory being that excess revenues could be put toward obtaining more water (via, e.g., desalinization). Such proposals have been shot down because the cost of providing water doesn't support the high fees that would be necessary to discourage frivolous use.
- mchanson 6y agoSounds like a good fight. Hope they succeed.
- Arainach 6y agoWhile 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?
- fortran77 6y agoMost public libraries allow everyone to come in and browse. Checkouts are restricted to residents, but even then there are usually inter-library loans available.
- newsclues 6y agoTalk to librarians, who like hackers have a dedication to freedom of information, about the need to restrict access to libraries for all as society has allowed the general public mental health to crumble and make libraries unsafe without banning some.
- tptacek 6y agoI have talked to librarians about this issue, in the Chicago area, and none of them said that libraries should be restricted.
- dbt00 6y agoCPL is awesome. They recently dropped late fines, too, which I greatly appreciate. I miss dropping in on the Harold Washington branch after work when I worked in the loop.
- sieabahlpark 6y agoWouldn't that be discriminating then, which is what the article is claiming no one should do?
- ebg13 6y agoYou don't need to be a local resident to enter and enjoy a public library, only to remove things from one.
- HideousKojima 6y agoThere 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.
- sieabahlpark 6y agoThis just seems like a pretty lawsuit to get free stuff paid for by other people. There isn't anything discriminating here besides the taxes you have paid.
- lhorie 6y agoIt looks like this one is different in the sense that you cannot enter even by paying a fee if you are not a resident, unlike e.g. the SF botanical garden (free for residents, but costs money for non-residents).
- GaryNumanVevo 6y agoPublic literally means "of or concerning the people as a whole". California doesn't charge out of state tourists extra to visit their state park system. That would be absurd, as it's a public park for public use. Not to mention that all public lands in the Bay Area are funded in part through state and federal funds.
- seedless-sensat 6y agoNot endorsing Palo Alto here, but just FYI Utah state parks cost more for non-residents.
- SamReidHughes 6y agoOnly allowing high class Palo Alto residents helps keep the littering down. Other cities are free to run their own parks. The ACLU should sue them for mediocre decision-making, which has a disparate impact on their own residents.
- greendude29 6y ago> Only allowing high class Palo Alto residents helps keep the littering down. So much wrong with that sentence, it's hard to know where even begin.
- SamReidHughes 6y agoWhat's right with it is that it's true.
- liability 6y agoDetermining whether or not that statement is wrong would require data on how much litter that park has. Do you have such data?
- temp667 6y agoStart with something concrete / specific? Ie, based on your experience Palo Alto residents litter more than folks visiting?
- sedatk 6y agoThen the better idea must be not to allow anyone. Zero littering.
- gbronner 6y agoI 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 6y agoGet a maintenance fee from non-residents then.
- bhupy 6y agoCurious 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 6y agoI would be interested to see some examples of libraries / universities that you cannot enter if you're out of state
- bhupy 6y agoUniversities 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.
- noahmbarr 6y agoThis 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!!
- ChrisMarshallNY 6y agoAh. I had posted that we have the same issue in NY, but those are town or community parks. If it's state property, then that's different.
- cgriswald 6y agoI'm not so sure it is different. California has a unitary form of government. An incorporated city isn't a separate entity. It's a subdivision of the county which is a subdivision of the state. They're allowed to make local ordinances (which they've done here), but, in what seems to me to be a very real sense, if something is owned by a city in California, it is owned by the state. Legally I have no idea how that plays out.
- jeffbee 6y agoAre you sure? According to Wikipedia, this land was purchased by the city from a private individual in the 1960s.
- ggreer 6y agoWhere'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
- jeffbee 6y ago
- ggreer 6y agoI 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.
- GaryNumanVevo 6y agoI fail to see how this would apply to a public park. Certainly it would cost much more money to enforce the "resident only" rules, with security guards, cameras, identification check-points on the roads. Hard to imagine how "free riding" a public park would work
- ggreer 6y ago> Hard to imagine how "free riding" a public park would work Parks require upkeep. Parking lots and trails must be maintained. Litter must be picked up. Police are needed to evict anyone camping (you'd be surprised how often this happens in California). If you're a resident, your taxes pay for that upkeep. If you're a non-resident, you're free riding. Banning non-residents is a dick move, but it's unclear how it's unconstitutional. Honestly, I think usage fees would benefit both sides. Non-residents could enjoy the park, and the city wouldn't have to worry about a potential burden on their budget.
- wyxuan 6y agoJust 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 6y agoThat's not true. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/csd/parks/preserves/foothills/default.asp https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/csd/parks/preserves...
- wyxuan 6y agoAnyone 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-only-policy-for-foothills-park-sparks-fresh-debate https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2019/05/10/residents-onl...
- sedatk 6y agoYes, 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.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- beepboopbeep 6y ago1,400 acres none the less. The ACLU is right to sue, this seems absurd.
- Rebelgecko 6y agoThere'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!
- someonehere 6y agoI 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.
- dbt00 6y agoCharging 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.
- bhickey 6y agoTo clarify, Foothills Park isn't strictly residents only but parking there is. You can hike in from neighboring land.
- ebg13 6y agoThe article, linked article, photos of the park entrance, details from the lawsuit, and Palo Alto Municipal Code all indicate otherwise. But really that last one is the only one you need to check: "Only residents of the city and regular or part-time city employees, members of their households related by blood, marriage, or adoption, or their accompanied guests are entitled to enter on foot or by bicycle or vehicle and remain in Foothills Park." - https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-20448 https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloal...
- bhickey 6y agoSince 2007 hikers from abutting lands, like Los Trancos, have been allowed to enter the park. I don't know if the council ever codified this. When my friend Corey was on the council he tried to open access to non-residents, but there wasn't support for it.
- ebg13 6y ago> I don't know if the council ever codified this. I mean...clearly they did not per the wording of Palo Alto Municipal Code. That basically means that they've just chosen to only station enforcers at the entrance, not that it's allowed. The code says that PA police can charge you with a misdemeanor just for being inside the bounds of the park.
- lhorie 6y agoIsn't that a bit like saying I can technically get into your house from an open window? Even if it's physically possible, I'm quite sure that I'm not allowed to.
- cgriswald 6y agoThat's wrong. Here is the ordinance: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-20448 https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloal... Here is the complaint: https://www.aclunc.org/sites/default/files/Final_Complaint_for_filing_0.pdf https://www.aclunc.org/sites/default/files/Final_Complaint_f... > 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.
- seasoup 6y agoCalifornia 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.
- JoeAltmaier 6y agoNever mind Californa, Oregon has a long and violent history.
- atomi 6y agoI wouldn't say that it's California exactly that has that shameful past.
- squidlogic 6y agoYou 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.
- chmod600 6y agoProbably 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.
- pvg 6y agoFor 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 6y agoFacebook 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 6y agoI 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.
- chmod600 6y agoA 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.
- antoncohen 6y agoFor 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#Demographics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Alto,_California#Demograp... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Palo_Alto,_California#Demographics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Palo_Alto,_California#Dem...
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- duskwuff 6y agoThat'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.)
- fortran77 6y agoPalo 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-in-palo-alto/ https://lahstalon.org/affordable-teacher-housing-to-be-built...
- samcheng 6y agoOne 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 6y agoIt'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.
- mleonhard 6y agoThat is a possible non-racist motivation. Who knows what the actual motivation was? It doesn't matter. The ordinance is racially exclusionary and has stayed in place for many years. It needs to stop.
- bickfordb 6y agoSimilarly, 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-supreme-court-will-soon-decide-who-can-swim-in-oswego-lake/ https://www.wweek.com/news/courts/2018/05/04/the-oregon-supr...
- franciser 6y agoWhat the sign really say is "Dogs and Colored not admitted"
- enterx 6y agopublic vs private services. ticket 10$.