ACLU sues Palo Alto over parking restrictions

PALO ALTO >> The ACLU filed a lawsuit Tuesday to compel the city to remove what it calls an “unconstitutional residents-only restriction” at the exclusive Foothills Park, arguing the practice perpetuates long-standing racial discrimination.

The lawsuit comes about two months after activists resurrected a decades-long fight over the 1,400-acre park, a nature preserve off Page Mill Road believed to be the only publicly owned park in California that excludes nonresidents, unless they’re guests accompanied by Palo Altans. Filed on behalf of the NAACP

of Silicon Valley and ten individual plaintiffs from Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park and 10 other neighboring communities, the suit alleges that the restrictive ordinance is a vestige of a “well-documented history of racial discrimination” that has kept brown and Black people out under threat of jail time and a hefty fine. In the past year, the city estimates it has refused access to about 8,200 people.

William Freeman, spokesman for the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, compared the restriction to San Francisco posting a “residentsonly” sign at Golden Gate Park, or Palo Alto restricting access to University Avenue. The park comprises nearly 10 percent of the land in Palo Alto, the suit says, and a popular location for weddings, social gatherings and free music concerts that attract thousands a year with associated security costs to the city of about $89,000 a year.

“No city has the right to put public property into a private membersonly club and build a wall against others,” said Freeman. “What we’re seeking is basic fairness to people throughout the community. Public parks are just that: public.”

The lawsuit, filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court, asserts that the Palo Alto ordinance violates both the U.S. and California Constitutions because “it infringes on the plaintiffs’ fundamental rights of freedom of movement, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.” The suit also seeks to prohibit the city from “wasteful and unlawful” spending of public funds to enforce the ordinance, which carries with it a misdemeanor charge and potential fines.

Joining the ACLU in the suit is Los Angeles-based co-counsel Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, who are taking on the case pro bono.

In August, the city council approved a pilot program that would allow some non-residents to buy passes and enter the pristine preserve.

Mayor Adrian Fine 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.”

The decades-long debate has reared its head again this year following widespread nationwide protests against systemic racism and police brutality.

Since June, activists and protesters have marched on the main path toward the park and have painted the word “desegregate” at the entrance several times. A video posted on Twitter July 6 shows a park ranger pressure-washing the message off of the pavement.

The controversy around the restrictive park also led to the resignation of parks commissioner Ryan McCauley. Several local officials and current congresswomen Anna Eshoo (D-Palo Alto), Jackie Speier (D-San Mateo) and Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose) have also signed a petition urging the city council to repeal the ordinance.

Plaintiff Gwen Gasque, who owns the Letter Perfect stationery store on University Avenue but lives in Menlo Park, said in a statement that she finds the residents-only restriction offensive.

“Even though I run a business in Palo Alto and have for many years paid taxes that fund the park, I cannot enter it,” she said.

Laura Martinez, a former mayor of East Palo Alto who is also a plaintiff, felt similarly.

“I attended schools in Palo Alto Unified School District for many years, I currently work and serve as a volunteer in nonprofit organizations in Palo Alto and have spent much of my career in public service, yet I am barred from entering the public grounds of Foothills Park,” said Martinez, who lives in East Palo Alto.

For retired Santa Clara County Superior Court judge LaDoris Cordell, the issue of Foothills Park is personal, and a reflection of Palo Alto’s racist past.

In an interview on Tuesday, Cordell said she was directly affected by the discriminatory housing policies Palo Alto real estate agents and public officials employed against people of color when she first wanted to buy a home in the 1980s.

When she ran for city council in 2003 and won, she made it her goal to open the park. She said the pushback she received was intense and came from all directions: the city council, the parks and recreation commission and longtime residents “all of whom were white.”

Reviving the fight in June this year, Cordell sent a letter to the city attorney asking the council to open the park to non-residents, but she said she was ignored.

“There’s no political courage,” Cordell said. “This is one of the reasons I went into the law. The lawyer in me knows that they can’t constitutionally take a public space and make it private. We have Black, White and Latino women, men and young people in this lawsuit who represent the rainbow. The rainbow says open it up. Parks look beautiful with rainbows.”