Palo Alto Embroiled In Lawsuit Over Exclusionary Park Ordinance

PALO ALTO, CA — The ACLU has moved to compel the City of Palo Alto to lift an exclusionary ordinance that’s come under scrutiny in recent months in the aftermath of George Floyd’s death in police custody.

The ACLU’s Northern California chapter filed a lawsuit Thursday compelling the South Bay city to remove what it calls an “unconstitutional residents-only restriction at Foothills Park” that stands as “a legacy of the city’s history of racial discrimination.”

The picturesque 1,400-acre preserve off Page Mill Road has been off-limits to outsiders since it was purchased by the city in 1959, a policy that racial justice advocates say is discriminatory, and which has attracted protesters to the park in recent months.

The lawsuit was brought on behalf of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People of San Jose/Silicon Valley (NAACP) and 10 individual plaintiffs who are residents of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and neighboring communities throughout Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties.

Non-residents risk jail time and hefty fines for setting foot in a park that’s become a political hot potato.

The ordinance constitutes a civil rights violation that targets people of color, ACLU Foundation of Northern California Senior Counsel William S. Freeman said in a statement.

“Palo Alto cannot threaten to arrest and fine people who want to enjoy a public space,” Freeman said.

“Palo Alto’s exclusion of its neighbors violates the civil rights of communities who too often still find those rights under threat: Black and Brown communities.”

Foothills Park is the state’s only such “residents-only” park.

“I cannot in good conscience sit by while the city of Palo Alto uses my tax dollars to perpetuate the exclusion of people from public spaces in my community,” said plaintiff LaDoris Cordell, a retired Superior Court judge and former member of the Palo Alto City Council.

“The practice of blocking non-residents from Foothills Park perpetuates inequity, and it must end.”

The spirit of the lawsuit, if nothing else, appears to have Palo Alto Mayor Adrian Fine's blessings.

Fine said in an interview with The San Jose Mercury News in which he was speaking for himself and not in his official role that the plaintiffs are “perfectly within their right to file a lawsuit against the city” and acknowledged the that ordinance “has had discriminatory effects.”

“I will continue to say that the city can and should open the park to non-residents,” Fine told The Mercury News. “This is a regional issue and Palo Alto ought to be a good neighbor.”

said during an interview that he did not know whether the city would comment on the pending litigation given standing policy not to do so. But speaking for himself — acknowledging that he’d likely get pushback from his colleagues on the council — Fine said the ACLU and plaintiffs in the suit “are perfectly within their right to file a lawsuit against the city” and called the residents-only ordinance a “policy which has had discriminatory effects.”

“I will continue to say that the city can and should open the park to non-residents,” Fine said. “This is a regional issue and Palo Alto ought to be a good neighbor.”