ACLU Sues over Residents-Only Parks
The ACLU of North California recently sued the city of Palo Alto in order to grant free access to Foothills Park, one of the only remaining residents-only public greenspaces in California. The 1,400-acre nature preserve opened in the 1960s during a period of racial segregation and discriminatory housing practices.
The park turns away around 3000 cars every year, and those caught on the premises without proof of Palo Alto residency face misdemeanor charges. The ACLU’s filing claims that such charges are unconstitutional and, moreover, that the exclusion of non-residents from the public space harkens back to “the city’s history of racial discrimination.”
The ACLU’s lawsuit comes as decades-long protests against the exclusionary policy have found new life as the United States reconciles with its history of racial injustice. In July, local activists again called upon Palo Alto to eliminate the residency requirement for Foothills Park through marches and murals.
Opposition to the movement claims that the restriction rightly limits the number of visitors in the park, which sustains the preserve’s pristine setting and protects its wildlife. Nonetheless, however, activists have continued to make headway. In August, the city council voted 5 to 2 in support of a pilot program that will allow up to 50 non-residents to purchase day passes. Moreover, the questions as to whether or not Foothills Park should restrict entry will be considered on the ballot in 2022.
The park’s exclusionary policy dates back to 1959 when Palo Alto asked neighboring jurisdictions to join in on purchasing the preserve, though they all declined. In response, when Palo Alto eventually purchased the land itself, the city decided to permit only its residence access to the park. Even as times changed, though, this policy did not.
At 3 million dollars, the median home value in Palo Alto far exceeds the Bay Area’s average. Furthermore, census data indicates that Black individuals comprise a mere 1.7 percent of Palo Alto’s population, compared with 16.7 percent in the neighboring city of East Palo Alto. Given that White individuals compose the majority of Palo Alto’s population, activists claim that Foothills’ residency requirement enforces a form of de facto segregation.
Palo Alto has a notable history of racial injustice. Housing discrimination in the city began with the subdivision of a neighborhood known as Southgate in 1923. People of African, Japanese, Chinese, or Mongolian heritage could not purchase or occupy any homes in this area. Codified racial discrimination ended in 1948 when the Supreme Court determined racial restrictions to be unconstitutional, however, racist sentiments and cleverly worded housing contracts continued to shut out people of color. Despite the efforts of lobbyists, discrimination in Palo Alto persisted well into the 1980s. Some argue that such discrimination persists to this day.
The residency requirement for Foothills Park originated within a racially charged socioeconomic period that saw the open discrimination of colored individuals. As the United States grapples with its history of racial injustice, such exclusionary policies will continue to fuel debate and solicit the attention of activists trying to balance the scales.