3 ms·
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
by samcheng 6y ago
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 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.