Town Square

Post a New Topic

Foothills Park: Still (mostly) just for Palo Altans

Original post made on Jun 30, 2013

On a warm Sunday morning early last fall, 24-year-old Katie Williams rode her bike from her East Palo Alto home up Page Mill Road to the entrance of Palo Alto's Foothills Park. After reaching the park's entrance, Williams was stopped by a park ranger at the gate.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Sunday, June 30, 2013, 10:32 AM

Comments (34)

Posted by Joseph, a resident of Greenmeadow
on Jun 30, 2013 at 11:14 am

This park belongs to Palo Alto. It was paid for with Palo Alto's taxpayer dollars, and is maintained by Palo Altans.

Yes, Williams may have been turned away feeling sad, but that does not mean that our parks need to be opened to the greater public. If anything, it serves to show how many additional visitors would be in the park on any nice Northern California weekend.

Hikers can access the park through the trail and no one has a problem with that. No need to feel guilty for owning such a lovely piece of property.


Posted by Palo Alto Resident, a resident of Evergreen Park
on Jun 30, 2013 at 11:57 am

With the many other parks in the City of Palo Alto open to the public, I appreciate having a park that is nicely maintained, pristine and reserved for residents of the Palo Alto community.


Posted by palo alto parent, a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jun 30, 2013 at 12:02 pm

What about opening the park to non-residents on bikes and on foot only? There isn't anywhere to park nearby, it would still limit the number of visitors, which is good. Anyone visiting Rinconada or Pardee parks at the end of the weekend, both heavily used for parties and picnics, would appreciate why we need to limit such rural space.


Posted by palo alto parent, a resident of Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jun 30, 2013 at 12:02 pm

What about opening the park to non-residents on bikes and on foot only? There isn't anywhere to park nearby, it would still limit the number of visitors, which is good. Anyone visiting Rinconada or Pardee parks at the end of the weekend, both heavily used for parties and picnics, would appreciate why we need to limit such rural space.


Posted by anonymous, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jun 30, 2013 at 12:13 pm

Foothills Park should be maintained under the current basis, which has been successful.
I would also like to add that I oppose Liz Kniss' unhelpful views as stated in this article. This is a special natural environment and plenty of our other city parks are overrun at times with people from other cities.
City Council members, we count on you to protect Palo Alto nature and represent the best interests of Palo Alto citizens. Thank you to the ones that strive to do that.


Posted by Hmmm, a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jun 30, 2013 at 12:32 pm

I'd love to know how many Shallow Altans use the parks in other cities. Given what I know about the habits of my friends there, I'd say they visit other area's parks regularly. Perhaps they should be banned from other cities/counties parks, unless they can cease their ongoing commentary about non-residents visiting PA parks. But who cares about Foothills Park? Leave it to 'em so the residents get to feel special. Maybe it'll even further preservation of more than their collective smugness. But hey - how about returning to EPA baylands stolen years ago?


Posted by Mr.Recycle, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jun 30, 2013 at 12:48 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 30, 2013 at 1:02 pm

Bikes do get into Foothill particularly before 9.30 ish a weekends before the Rangers man the gates.

There is nowhere that I know for securing a bike and there is not enough car parking space for 1,000 visitors if we assume that means 500 cars.

Bikes must not be allowed on the hiking trails. Mountain bikes and hikers do not work well on the same trails. Mountain bikes are very likely to damage a hiking trail by their very nature. If mountain bikes are allowed, then there must be special mountain bike trails built and kept separate from hiking trails.

It is easy for anyone to get into Foothill if they arrive before the Rangers arrive.


Posted by Former Parks Comm, a resident of Esther Clark Park
on Jun 30, 2013 at 1:12 pm

I served on the Parks and Rec Commission for 6 years. This subject was revisited several times. The fact remains that in order to buy the land, Palo Alto floated a Bond. In the language of that Bond, it promised that the land would be reserved only to Palo Alto residents who were the only people to pay on the Bonds. The language in the Bond formed a contract with Palo Altans. That contract should not be breached now just because other communities want access to the land. I think that if the Bond contract were breached, it would trigger a lawsuit on behalf of all Palo Altans for the return of their money. And that would be a hefty bill. The question of access comes down to the fact that a promise was made to the residents that if they agreed to put up the money to buy the land, it would be reserved for them.
That is a promise that should be kept by the City Council or the next time the City tries to float a bond, there will be no credibility in the representations made. The residents will lose faith in their elected officials to keep their promises.


Posted by Greenwich West, a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Jun 30, 2013 at 1:14 pm

Liz Kniss, thanks for continuing to represent the values that characterize north Palo Alto: entitlement, privilege, selfishness, NIMBYism, xenophobia, and arrogance. Thanks weekly for endorsing this kind of candidate. She's better than Tim Grey why?


Posted by Pat, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 30, 2013 at 1:51 pm

??
Up to 30 non residents per day, in parties of 5 or less, families only. And charge $15.
And no groupe activities like birthday partys.

You wont see too many people from out of town coming with those restrictions in place




Posted by Hmmm, a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jun 30, 2013 at 1:56 pm

[Portion removed.]

Honestly, I don't care that the park is only for PA residents - it does seem a way to keep it more intact. But the attitude about non-residents using the other parks - where did this attitude come from? It didn't previously exist amongst so many. Parks were used by people depending on many factors & being a resident wasn't one of them.

A group of my PA friends are having a picnic today in a Menlo Park park - should I call the police?


Posted by Eric, a resident of Mountain View
on Jun 30, 2013 at 2:01 pm

Palo Altans, I assume you're OK with staying out of Shoreline Park. We paid for that....


Posted by Garrett, a resident of another community
on Jun 30, 2013 at 2:55 pm

I have been there few times with relatives that live in Palo Alto. I don't see anything wrong with having a park for residents ONLY. Palo Alto voted and paid for the bonds.


Posted by bob, a resident of Woodside
on Jun 30, 2013 at 3:26 pm

It appears the 2nd most educated town in America flunked kindergarten.


Posted by Paul Losch, a resident of Community Center
on Jun 30, 2013 at 3:45 pm

Paul Losch is a registered user.

I recall when I was interviewed by City Council members for my second of 3 terms on the Parks and Recreation Commission, and then Council Member LaDoris Cordell asked me point blank if I was of the opinion that Foothills should be confined to Palo Alto residents only, or made available to residents from other places.

I don't recall my specific response, but it was a "waffle."

I did give it some thought afterwards, and came to believe that with an appropriate fee structure, people who do not live in Palo Alto can be welcomed at Foothills Park.

No change in quotas, limits on how many people in total can be there at a given day, all other restrictions remain in place. Out of towners pay a fee to enjoy the park, and like anyone who goes there, is fined for abusing the privilege of using it.

It is a great place, and responsible people from anywhere should be welcomed, and be asked to cover the expense of their visit with a fee.


Posted by PA Native, a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Jun 30, 2013 at 4:20 pm

Our city parks and Rinconada pool are taken over by non-residents who use the picnic tables and pool. I think Rinconada pool should be for Palo Alto residents only.

I am glad that no residents of other towns can take over Foothills Park because if we open up the park to other towns, they will take over the park too. I know it's not PC to say this, but everyone is thinking it.


Posted by Nativist or nativitist?, a resident of Esther Clark Park
on Jun 30, 2013 at 4:26 pm

No everyone is not thinking that. [Portion removed.]


Posted by Not an issue, a resident of Community Center
on Jun 30, 2013 at 4:27 pm

PA native-- how do you know that the people that use our parks are non residents? Do you go around asking for ID. The pool at rinconada is not free- in fact non residents pay more. So what is the problem?
But I guess it is okay for PA residents to take over the dish area?


Posted by Hmmm, a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jun 30, 2013 at 4:54 pm

PA Native's attitude is EXACTLY my point in my sharp comments. Is PA so special that they're the only ones w/non-residents using facilities? Has PA Native bothered to find out how much $$ non-residents add to the coffers w/higher fees they pay for some amenities? That non-residents pay higher fees in other communities for amenities, too? It's a common practice all over, as it should be. Sounds to me like PA Native doesn't know much about their own amenities, much less really knows where all these people live! Oooooh, maybe these aren't white or Asian people, so they don't "look" like a PA resident! Does PA Resident also profile the non-English speakers to help determine if they're acceptable park visitors? After all, my PA resident friends who loved their time at Burgess Park in Menlo all have *accents* but at least they're white.

What about if someone spends, say...$50 on food at PA deli, then heads to one of your parks for a picnic - is that acceptable? What about if the non-residents only work in your fair city, but don't live there? Are they allowed to sit on a bench outside while munching their $15 burger, or must they spend $20 minimum before they're allowed to sit & eat? What about the soccer game attendees yesterday - what if they meditated or did yoga in the park before they went to Stanford, after driving from Tracy for the game?

What about when the POTUS was running for office & was at Rinconada - he wasn't a resident. Did people get upset about that?

[Portion removed.]


Posted by isez, a resident of Palo Alto High School
on Jun 30, 2013 at 8:28 pm

isez is a registered user.

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by Alphonso, a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Jun 30, 2013 at 9:51 pm

Alphonso is a registered user.

How many other communities restrict the usage of their parks? - I can't think of any. Many nearby communites have floated bonds to pay for parks open to all. PA should charge for non resident entry - otherwise PA does appear to be selfish.


Posted by rick, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 30, 2013 at 10:49 pm

rick is a registered user.

Does there really exist any 24-year-old resident of East Palo Alto who thinks there's no difference between East Palo Alto and Palo Alto? Or is this a case of journalistic license?


Posted by paly alum, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 30, 2013 at 11:24 pm

paly alum is a registered user.

Ha, I agree with Rick. East Palo Altans and Palo Altans probably know there is a difference. However, there ARE people who don't live in either city who think that there is a West Palo Alto and East Palo Alto and think it's the same city! Back in the 70s, EPA voted to change the name to Nairobi but then it all fell through because it was a nightmare for the postal service to change (or some other excuse, can't remember). Palo Alto does share the zip code of 94303 with East Palo Alto.


Posted by rick, a resident of Midtown
on Jun 30, 2013 at 11:31 pm

rick is a registered user.

Must admit I often mistakenly think South Palo Alto is the same city as North Palo Alto.


Posted by paly alum, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 1, 2013 at 12:29 am

paly alum is a registered user.

@rick: Ha! Another good one!


Posted by Hmmm, a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jul 1, 2013 at 1:23 am

Hmmm is a registered user.

Paly alum - I meet people new to the area who fairly often don't understand that they're 2 different towns & a good number of them have been newcomers to PA. I'm betting that if it was reported accurately, the young woman is a recent resident of EPA.

FWIW, there's a neighborhood in Menlo called West Menlo that some folks think is a separate town & others make much of the unincorporated areas of Menlo Park - & given that's how we refer to them, it is confusing.


Posted by wmartin46, a resident of Fairmeadow
on Jul 1, 2013 at 9:25 am

wmartin46 is a registered user.

> In May 1959, the council put the decision of
> whether or not to purchase the park to a citywide vote

Maybe we should consider putting this question to the voters every 25 years, or so?

> 1,400 acres

At current market rates (in the "flats") this 1,400 acres is worth $7B.

At the current 1,000 people capacity, this allocates 1.4 acres to each person.

At 142K, the daily average attendance would be about 350 people per day.

At 200K, the daily average attendance would be about 550 people per day.

Assuming three people per car (average), this comes to 150 to 180-odd vehicles per day.

> 1,300+ Palo Altans turned away

That comes to about 4 people a day, or 1-2 vehicles a day, on average.

> but due to budget cuts, the front gate is only staffed on weekends.

So, if there aren't any rangers at the front gate during the week, how can the City provide any accurate visitor counts?

> use fees

If the City were to charge $5.00 per person, that would generate $1M a year. As noted in the article, the current $2/car does little to offset the park's operational costs.

Given the large number of parks/open space, and other community services, available to the general public in Palo Alto, it's difficult to understand why this issue of Foothills Park being restricted to Palo Altans is such an issue. Foothills is nice, but it's no nicer than any of the other parks in the area.

This issue bubbles up every time we get a change of Council members. It's really not an issue worth all the public angst.


Posted by Toad22222, a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jul 1, 2013 at 1:16 pm

Toad22222 is a registered user.

I like having the park and restricting it to only some people. Other cities should make their own parks for their own residents, too.


Posted by Toad22222, a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jul 1, 2013 at 1:18 pm

Toad22222 is a registered user.

The Los Altos (Santa Clara County) library closed it to Palo Altans. (or pay $80, very expensive)


Posted by village fool, a resident of another community
on Jul 1, 2013 at 7:07 pm

village fool is a registered user.

May I suggest solution for two problems (for less than the price of one)? - have the homeless parks their cars/RV during the night in Foofhills park (Web Link). This suggestion can be refined, even - the homeless can man the park rangers entrance station during the week - work to pay for parking/water/use of restrooms...
@editor - would it make sense to place both threads under the same category? (this is under - Palo Alto issues, Homeless - around town).


Posted by Hulkamania, a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jul 2, 2013 at 6:19 pm

Hulkamania is a registered user.

Eric, a resident of Mountain View asks, "Palo Altans, I assume you're OK with staying out of Shoreline Park. We paid for that...."

I'm okay with it Eric. The stench of methane gas rising from the garbage under the park is overwhelming. Has the lawn area in the amphitheater caught fire lately?


Posted by paly alum, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 2, 2013 at 10:50 pm

paly alum is a registered user.

Village fool, you can't be serious. It would turn into a huge homeless people's park and Palo Altans would no longer want to visit.

@Hulkamania: Very funny!


Posted by rick, a resident of Midtown
on Jul 3, 2013 at 2:59 am

rick is a registered user.

We'll overlook the fact that methane gas is completely odorless.


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

To post your comment, please click here to login

Remember me?
Forgot Password?
or register. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

Most Seniors do not Need Senior Housing But Could Benefit from other Choice to Remain in Palo Alto
By Steve Levy | 51 comments | 2,133 views

Custom pizza joint on its way to Mountain View
By Elena Kadvany | 5 comments | 1,913 views

"The Galapagos Affair: Satan Came to Eden"
By Anita Felicelli | 0 comments | 1,235 views

I Spy
By Cheryl Bac | 6 comments | 1,111 views

The Cinderella ride
By Sally Torbey | 10 comments | 843 views