News

Despite calls for action, Palo Alto is in no rush to expand Foothills Park access

City Council votes to defer discussion of contentious issue until after its summer break

The City Council voted on June 22 to delay its scheduled discussion of a proposal to expand access to Foothills Park to nonresidents. Embarcadero Media file photo by Veronica Weber.

Weeks after passing a resolution pledging to promote diversity and inclusion, the Palo Alto City Council abruptly postponed considering a proposal that many in the community have argued would do just that: allowing non-residents to access Foothills Park.

Citing a heavy workload in its final two meetings before a scheduled summer recess, the council voted 5-2 on Monday night to remove from its Tuesday night agenda a proposal that would have started the process of rescinding an exclusionary policy that was adopted in the early 1960s, shortly after the city bought the park from the family of Russel V. Lee. Mayor Adrian Fine and Councilwoman Alison Cormack both voted against delaying the discussion.

While the topic of Foothills Park access has been a political hot potato in Palo Alto for decades, calls to abolish the ban on non-residents have grown louder over the past few weeks, as calls for social justice and racial equality have grown both in the community and elsewhere in the nation. The city's Human Relations Commission earlier this month urged the council to expand Foothills Park access as part of a broader strategy to promote equality and the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended a "pilot program" last November that would allow a limited number of non-resident visitors to the park.

The city also received a letter signed by more than 90 residents, legislators and faith leaders, urging it to "meet the moment" and abolish the policy, which the letter argues "sends a terrible message to our neighboring communities — particularly those which do not enjoy the same socioeconomic advantages that Palo Alto does — and leaves a bad taste in the mouths of thousands of would-be visitors who are prohibited by uniformed City staff from entering a public park."

The list of signatories includes U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo, state Sen. Jerry Hill, state Assemblyman Marc Berman, retired Judge and former City Council member LaDoris Cordell and dozens of faith leaders, local commissioners and past mayors, including Leland Levy, Pat Burt and Gail Wooley.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Palo Alto Online for as little as $5/month.

Learn more

The city, however, has been reluctant to take up the topic. The Parks and Recreation Commission's recommendation for a "pilot program" has been sitting in the council's queue for seven months. The council's vote to remove the discussion item from the Tuesday agenda means the subject won't be taken until August at the earliest, and possibly later.

The decision drew immediate public rebuke and a threatened lawsuit. Cordell submitted a letter just after the vote stating her disappointment at the council's "willful inaction." She requested that the city attorney direct the city manager to permanently discontinue enforcement of the prohibition and said that if the city declines to do so, she will pursue litigation and seek emergency injunctive relief.

"As a longtime resident of Palo Alto, there is nothing that I want more than for my city leaders to have the political will to place themselves on the right side of history," Cordell wrote. "However, our leaders have failed time and again to do so."

The decision to postpone the discussion was prompted by Councilwoman Lydia Kou, who made a motion to remove from the Tuesday agenda both the Foothills Park item and a discussion of the "public home zone," a new designation that the city is now crafting to encourage more housing construction.

Vice Mayor Tom DuBois supported the motion after voicing his own concerns about the large number of items on the council's Monday and Tuesday agendas. With Foothills Park and the "planned home zone" now scrapped from the agenda, the council is set to consider on Tuesday night the conversion of President Hotel from a residential building to a boutique hotel (a discussion that was moved from Monday to Tuesday) and measures to encourage outdoor dining. It is also set to approve on its "consent calendar" a new contract with a consultant that is helping the city analyze alternatives to redesign rail crossings and an artist contract to paint "Black Lives Matter" on a local street.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

Fine strongly opposed delaying both the Foothills Park and the housing discussions. The park item, he said, has been ready for the council's consideration since November and the council has "held off on it." And pushing back the housing discussion "just means Palo Alto is going to be that much more dithering on housing."

"I'm frankly pretty disappointed and wishing we can work as a team a little bit more," Fine said.

Several residents shared his disappointment. Ryan Globus said he was "outraged and disgusted" by the council's latest move to delay the Foothills Park discussion, which came just two weeks after the council passed a resolution in support of the Black Lives Matter movement and vowed to support measures that promote diversity and inclusion.

Globus argued the city needs to take actions to "integrate the city" and alluded to the city's history of "redlining," which kept many Black residents from living in Palo Alto.

"In order to integrate our community, we need to open up Foothills Park and not make it a crime for poor Black and brown people to enter our park," Globus said. "We need to fund the affordable housing that so that many of you say you're so concerned about, so people can live here. … Anti-racism is about changing our policy and taking action, not paint on the street."

Follow Palo Alto Online and the Palo Alto Weekly on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Despite calls for action, Palo Alto is in no rush to expand Foothills Park access

City Council votes to defer discussion of contentious issue until after its summer break

by / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Tue, Jun 23, 2020, 11:14 am
Updated: Wed, Jun 24, 2020, 1:46 pm

Weeks after passing a resolution pledging to promote diversity and inclusion, the Palo Alto City Council abruptly postponed considering a proposal that many in the community have argued would do just that: allowing non-residents to access Foothills Park.

Citing a heavy workload in its final two meetings before a scheduled summer recess, the council voted 5-2 on Monday night to remove from its Tuesday night agenda a proposal that would have started the process of rescinding an exclusionary policy that was adopted in the early 1960s, shortly after the city bought the park from the family of Russel V. Lee. Mayor Adrian Fine and Councilwoman Alison Cormack both voted against delaying the discussion.

While the topic of Foothills Park access has been a political hot potato in Palo Alto for decades, calls to abolish the ban on non-residents have grown louder over the past few weeks, as calls for social justice and racial equality have grown both in the community and elsewhere in the nation. The city's Human Relations Commission earlier this month urged the council to expand Foothills Park access as part of a broader strategy to promote equality and the Parks and Recreation Commission recommended a "pilot program" last November that would allow a limited number of non-resident visitors to the park.

The city also received a letter signed by more than 90 residents, legislators and faith leaders, urging it to "meet the moment" and abolish the policy, which the letter argues "sends a terrible message to our neighboring communities — particularly those which do not enjoy the same socioeconomic advantages that Palo Alto does — and leaves a bad taste in the mouths of thousands of would-be visitors who are prohibited by uniformed City staff from entering a public park."

The list of signatories includes U.S. Rep. Anna Eshoo, state Sen. Jerry Hill, state Assemblyman Marc Berman, retired Judge and former City Council member LaDoris Cordell and dozens of faith leaders, local commissioners and past mayors, including Leland Levy, Pat Burt and Gail Wooley.

The city, however, has been reluctant to take up the topic. The Parks and Recreation Commission's recommendation for a "pilot program" has been sitting in the council's queue for seven months. The council's vote to remove the discussion item from the Tuesday agenda means the subject won't be taken until August at the earliest, and possibly later.

The decision drew immediate public rebuke and a threatened lawsuit. Cordell submitted a letter just after the vote stating her disappointment at the council's "willful inaction." She requested that the city attorney direct the city manager to permanently discontinue enforcement of the prohibition and said that if the city declines to do so, she will pursue litigation and seek emergency injunctive relief.

"As a longtime resident of Palo Alto, there is nothing that I want more than for my city leaders to have the political will to place themselves on the right side of history," Cordell wrote. "However, our leaders have failed time and again to do so."

The decision to postpone the discussion was prompted by Councilwoman Lydia Kou, who made a motion to remove from the Tuesday agenda both the Foothills Park item and a discussion of the "public home zone," a new designation that the city is now crafting to encourage more housing construction.

Vice Mayor Tom DuBois supported the motion after voicing his own concerns about the large number of items on the council's Monday and Tuesday agendas. With Foothills Park and the "planned home zone" now scrapped from the agenda, the council is set to consider on Tuesday night the conversion of President Hotel from a residential building to a boutique hotel (a discussion that was moved from Monday to Tuesday) and measures to encourage outdoor dining. It is also set to approve on its "consent calendar" a new contract with a consultant that is helping the city analyze alternatives to redesign rail crossings and an artist contract to paint "Black Lives Matter" on a local street.

Fine strongly opposed delaying both the Foothills Park and the housing discussions. The park item, he said, has been ready for the council's consideration since November and the council has "held off on it." And pushing back the housing discussion "just means Palo Alto is going to be that much more dithering on housing."

"I'm frankly pretty disappointed and wishing we can work as a team a little bit more," Fine said.

Several residents shared his disappointment. Ryan Globus said he was "outraged and disgusted" by the council's latest move to delay the Foothills Park discussion, which came just two weeks after the council passed a resolution in support of the Black Lives Matter movement and vowed to support measures that promote diversity and inclusion.

Globus argued the city needs to take actions to "integrate the city" and alluded to the city's history of "redlining," which kept many Black residents from living in Palo Alto.

"In order to integrate our community, we need to open up Foothills Park and not make it a crime for poor Black and brown people to enter our park," Globus said. "We need to fund the affordable housing that so that many of you say you're so concerned about, so people can live here. … Anti-racism is about changing our policy and taking action, not paint on the street."

Comments

Julian Gómez
Midtown
on Jun 23, 2020 at 11:59 am
Julian Gómez, Midtown
on Jun 23, 2020 at 11:59 am
78 people like this

So what? This "call for action" is coming from a small group of people, and furthermore there have been no actual financial proposals to cover the cost. This is not urgent.


Resident
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 23, 2020 at 12:58 pm
Resident, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 23, 2020 at 12:58 pm
43 people like this

As was proven recently by a local tv reporter, presumably in one of those tv vans with channel logo, it is easy to get into Foothills Park any weekday and easy to find non-residents enjoying the Park and willing to admit they are not residents. There was no mention that a "uniformed City worker" prevented them from entering.

Any person who really wants to get in the Park is presumably able to get in just as easily. I am not saying that I want lots of people to suddenly start going to the Park midweek to prove a point, but there is nothing to stop anyone going there midweek or from arriving through one of the many unmanned pedestrian entrances.

I am very pleased that this virtue signalling discussion has been delayed and hopefully will be cancelled altogether.


Worse and worse
Meadow Park
on Jun 23, 2020 at 1:07 pm
Worse and worse, Meadow Park
on Jun 23, 2020 at 1:07 pm
43 people like this

PAO has really jumped the shark with all these advocacy pieces masquerading as news. It's hard to trust any of their reporting anymore.


Novelera
Midtown
on Jun 23, 2020 at 1:32 pm
Novelera, Midtown
on Jun 23, 2020 at 1:32 pm
69 people like this

I am keeping track. Any CC member who votes for opening up Foothills Park because of a vocal minority of "woke" citizens has lost my vote. Foothills Park is a treasure. As many have stated, all other parks are open to all who wish to come there. Foothills is more of a nature preserve and a precious place to spend actual alone time on the trails. And, as has been stated, we're facing a budget crunch. Why in the world would we decide to dedicate money we don't really have to accommodate more visitors? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.


Anon
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 23, 2020 at 2:12 pm
Anon, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 23, 2020 at 2:12 pm
20 people like this

Posted by Novelera, a resident of Midtown

>> Any CC member who votes for opening up Foothills Park because of a vocal minority of "woke" citizens has lost my vote.

While some "woke" citizens may want this, as far as I can tell, the political force behind it is the same hyper-gentrification pro-Manhattanization group that favors mixed-use development and other tricks as a way to wedge more office space into taller buildings here. Somehow, Foothills Park is not a nature park in their minds, but, some kind of "great cities" amusement.

Hyper-gentrification has had a lot of negatives for NYC, too, and, it is really hurting most of San Francisco+Peninsula. There are lots of other places that need more office jobs. Developers should go build the office space there and leave the park alone.


A Distraction
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 23, 2020 at 2:17 pm
A Distraction, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 23, 2020 at 2:17 pm
48 people like this

Inclusionary for who? The rich residents of Los Altos Hills is who - those living closet to the Preserve. LAH is not a diverse town but is very rich - google its demographics. Residents have never bothered to pay for an actual park of their own. They have a horse ring, a dog "park" and some sports playing fields - that's it. For decades they have wanted Foothill Preserve to be their "park' - still not paying for it. The primary beneficiaries of any change will be the very priveledged LAH residents.


There is serious work to be done on police reform. This is a distraction that trivializes that effort as if it is all of the same cloth - it is not.




Jeremy
Midtown
on Jun 23, 2020 at 2:31 pm
Jeremy, Midtown
on Jun 23, 2020 at 2:31 pm
4 people like this

My understanding is that, for years, the entrance to Foothills Park has only been staffed on weekends and holidays, so despite the official policy, the park is effectively open to everyone five days a week. Everyone is also allowed to walk or bike into the park any day, although that can be admittedly hard to do since the park is so far from urban areas.

The proposed new policy from the Parks and Recreation Commission was created in November 2019, months before the current outcry, although the proposal was presumably put on the agenda because of it. Far from opening the park to everyone, it proposes allowing up to 50 non-residents per day to buy day-passes online for $6 per person (or perhaps it's per household). No one would be able to buy a day pass at the park in person, only online.


TuppenceT
Adobe-Meadow
on Jun 23, 2020 at 5:34 pm
TuppenceT, Adobe-Meadow
on Jun 23, 2020 at 5:34 pm
44 people like this

Perhaps they realized how widely unpopular this proposal is in Palo Alto. Also?
Also, When Council is cutting staff and services - how will the City care for this park? we'd need more maintenance, more rangers, more staff.

Palo Alto welcomes everyone to the Baylands and Arastradero preserve and to all city parks, at no cost. All around Foothills park, Santa Clara County provides ample parkland, trails and parking. Let tat be enough. Please do not revisit this proposal.


Hal
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jun 23, 2020 at 8:49 pm
Hal, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jun 23, 2020 at 8:49 pm
5 people like this

Rangers no longer do their job anyway. I rarely see them out asking people if they are residents. Like the news team out there, I see plenty of people fishing who do not live in Palo Alto. I know because I ask when I'm fishing. Rangers go push papers in their air conditioned office in back. The rangers are given no power to enforce so they are pretty much useless for policy enforcement. In the twenty five plus years of going to the park, I have never observed any police. I don't think they patrol that area. City leaves burden on rangers who have no motivation to enforce a policy they can't enforce.


Midtown Resident
Midtown
on Jun 23, 2020 at 10:17 pm
Midtown Resident, Midtown
on Jun 23, 2020 at 10:17 pm
29 people like this

First off, this reads as an opinion piece and not a news story with opinions on both sides given equal weight. This rates as a poor and biased piece of "reporting".

And wait a minute ... is this actually accurate, that Cordell, a former Council member, Is asking that the City Manager go around the Council and make sure that City law is not enforced? Seriously? The same city manager that cut the independent review of our police department? and illegally put everyone in the City on unneeded curfew so they couldn't exercise their free speech rights? And exactly what is Cordell's analysis of how the City budget is going to accommodate lots of extra folks at Foothills Park and prevent long term damage to the park? Can't we think this out carefully and not tie it to racism?


Resident DTN
Downtown North
on Jun 24, 2020 at 4:47 am
Resident DTN, Downtown North
on Jun 24, 2020 at 4:47 am
15 people like this

The current approach works well; no enforcement during the week, non residents can enjoy the park freely, and enforcement on weekends. Any consideration of opening to non residents will have to revisit the history of the park in which neighboring communities refused to pitch in to purchase the land when the park was created. As a PA resident, I would not want this park to be opened to all non residents on the weekend, and watching the vote closely. 90 signatures is a very limited number of signatures to get this on the agenda...


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Adobe-Meadow
on Jun 24, 2020 at 11:56 am
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
on Jun 24, 2020 at 11:56 am
8 people like this

Reading the above "news story" raises a lot of issues not discussed before. So now we have unearthed a number of the "coalition" that before was not provided. The head of our Human Resources Board - A Mr. Lee?. Is Mr. Lee a resident of the city? Calling for an action that is outside of his purview. He has no budgetary action regarding the park. The Park is part of a different department of the city. And faith leaders? If you are a resident of the city then by definition you are included in the right to use the park. And you have the right to reserve for a group up to 15 people and pay for their entry in the park. Ms. Cordell is a resident of the city? She is entitled to use the park. If all of the complainers are actually residents of the city then by definition they are entitled to use the park. And they are the proof that their comments have no validity.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Adobe-Meadow
on Jun 24, 2020 at 1:30 pm
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
on Jun 24, 2020 at 1:30 pm
4 people like this

I will note here that a token symbol set of trees was arson burned last night at the Presidio. It had no relation to race - it was a group of trees that were combined in an art form. It caused some other fires in the vicinity. We are seen rampant destruction every where in our country and state. The Presidio is open to everyone who love and enjoy it. There is no predictability to who does what and why. Just senseless destruction. And in part righteous justification to do very destructive things to property that is generated by the press and people who have no financial responsibility to an action to still rampage on. FHP is a fragile park in a fragile location. And it needs to be protected. The people who appear at these meetings are not spoke-persons for those people and have no control over what they do.


Jonathan Brown
Ventura
on Jun 24, 2020 at 3:10 pm
Jonathan Brown, Ventura
on Jun 24, 2020 at 3:10 pm
19 people like this

It's outrageous, particularly to anyone who supports the Black Lives Matter movement, for LaDoris Cordell to hijack that quest for racial justice to try to shortcut a proper environmental review of the consequences of opening up Foothills Park to unlimited users. The City Council has many more urgent and pressing matters that demand their attention (budget, homelessness/housing, COVID-19, police, etc.). Postponement was the right decision. For Cordell to threaten to impose even more costs on the city in these challenging budgetary times with a frivolous lawsuit is absolutely "disgusting," to use Ryan Globus's word.


Think about the animals
Old Palo Alto
on Jun 24, 2020 at 3:28 pm
Think about the animals, Old Palo Alto
on Jun 24, 2020 at 3:28 pm
13 people like this

Don't think the Foothill Park animals want to see so many people like Disneyland. They live peacefully there. Non-PA residents can walk or bike in already. I strongly don't agree to open up to a large crowd.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Adobe-Meadow
on Jun 24, 2020 at 6:45 pm
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
on Jun 24, 2020 at 6:45 pm
7 people like this

The person who runs BLM is a trained Marxist strategizer and is very proud of that. We aren't doing Marxist thank you.


Blair
College Terrace
on Jun 25, 2020 at 8:15 am
Blair, College Terrace
on Jun 25, 2020 at 8:15 am
Like this comment

Stanford residents can't access Foothills Park despite their contributions to the local community. Maybe Stanford should charge Palo Alto residents to walk on its campus?


Ann
another community
on Jun 25, 2020 at 10:49 am
Ann, another community
on Jun 25, 2020 at 10:49 am
7 people like this

As a former resident of Palo Alto, and a more recent resident of Redwood City,
I have to take the controversial position of not opening Foothills Park to the open public. To do so would result in an overwhelming and very burdensome influx of a lot of people coming to spend the entire day with their extensive family and friends. There are many other parks available to the open public.
It is beholden to the council members to allow PA residents a perk to which their taxes pay forward.


Do Better, Everyone
Greenmeadow
on Jun 25, 2020 at 11:03 am
Do Better, Everyone, Greenmeadow
on Jun 25, 2020 at 11:03 am
2 people like this

It’s intriguing to see so many people vehemently taking the position of keeping the park closed to non-residents... why? Why are you all so intent on keeping the park closed to some people? What does that accomplish? It’s a beautiful park and more people should be able to visit it. I don’t understand the uproar. I don’t think it’s terrible to postpone the issue as there are other things to address, but I also can’t imagine it would take up much time, so I hope that it isn’t postponed too long.

Also the painting of Black Lives Matter on a street is an incredibly unnecessary and performative measure. You can’t paint some words on a street and pretend that’s enough change. Defund your police department, that’s real change. Or do literally anything that actually helps black people. Words are meaningless unless there’s action behind them. BLM is about people not paint on a street. What a waste of money, even if a small amount, that could instead go towards something like schools or libraries.


Resident
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 25, 2020 at 11:26 am
Resident, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 25, 2020 at 11:26 am
Like this comment

I thought I was done with this, but two things should be said in light of the resignation of Park Commissioner.

First, is that zip codes have nothing to do with this. EPA shares its zip code with part of Palo Alto and those residents are allowed in.

Second, The Park Commissioner should look into the funding allocated in the budget for parks and maintenance before getting so upset as to resign. He of all people should know about the difficulties of maintaining any park, of trail maintenance, of cleanup of litter, of the cost of keeping restroom facilities clean. He should know that more visitors would mean more costs and his pilot proposal would not bring in enough money to cover the costs of added visitors, probably not even cover the costs of implementing the machinery to collect the entrance fee. Has anyone even looked into how much the pilot would cost in person hours alone?


Why I do not support wide opening of the Foothills Park.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 25, 2020 at 11:34 am
Why I do not support wide opening of the Foothills Park., Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 25, 2020 at 11:34 am
5 people like this

Foothills is functionally operated as a nature preserve, not a park. We really should change the name to make that more clear. If rich LAH and Portola Valley residents (who are geographically much closer to Foothills, giving them easier access than I have in Palo Alto) want access to the park, then they should pay a fair share to cover the COST of that access:
-- Increased trail maintenance, restrooms, cleaning , employees
-- Increased insurance cost due to increased liability. More people coming in leads to more people doing stupid stuff that causes wild fires, disturbs wildlife, and creates other types of damage.

Before we talk about opening the park, we should publicly ask LAH and Portola Valley if they want access and let them know what that access will COST. We should ask them to pay for it. LAH has made limited investment in parks in their own community (especially given the open space they have) and they heavily use other Palo Alto parks and community facilities for their leagues and activities. We are subsidizing their wealthy communities enough now. They didn't contribute to the purchase of the land because they were newly founded communities then and said they didn't have the resources. Okay. I accept that, but today they are wealthy and perfectly capable of paying their fair share. I am not interested in subsidizing their quality of life with my tax dollars. Ms. Cordell is completely off the mark on this issue, though on other matters I have often agreed with her.

East Palo Alto, to my mind, is another matter. They have limited space and resources to develop parks. They have families with need. I think it would be a good thing to offer these families access.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Adobe-Meadow
on Jun 25, 2020 at 11:38 am
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
on Jun 25, 2020 at 11:38 am
6 people like this

Comment from SU resident - SU commands the biggest piece of property in the immediate county. While it opens some of it's trails to the public the parking in these locations by definition limits the amount of non-resident participation.
I want to go to Searsville lake - I can't do that. If I park near the student center I have to pay for that parking space for a limited number of hours because I do not have a parking sticker.
SU golf course - have never played there - not a resident.
So what are SU people doing concerning their need for another park within their location? Are they badgering the University to provide a summer camp for the kids on campus - boating, horseback riding, tennis, junior golf?
Yes - SU does contribute to the overall community but we all pay for that through tickets for sports and music events. And for parking for these events. SU is a profit center and they work their profit events very well. And they protect their property from non-paying guests.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Adobe-Meadow
on Jun 25, 2020 at 11:51 am
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
on Jun 25, 2020 at 11:51 am
2 people like this

Greenmeadow - what "some people" are you referring to? The park is open to residents of the city of Palo Alto. That is all residents - not "some residents". The population of the city is growing based on the addition of housing. By definition the number of people who have access is growing.

Note that EPA is in the county of San Mateo - despite the zip code. That is because the dividing creek for the county line has moved to accommodate the golf course and airport. The creek is the dividing line.

We all have shared the cost of increasing maintenance of the creek to forestall flooding in the lower end of EPA. A lot of money, time and work has been devoted to working the lower end of the county line. Meanwhile we are still debating with SU what is happening at the top of the creek and the 100 year old dam. The upper and lower ends of the county line have more issues that include the city of San Francisco water power authority. Don't even go there - another topic.


Keep it closed
Downtown North
on Jun 25, 2020 at 5:05 pm
Keep it closed, Downtown North
on Jun 25, 2020 at 5:05 pm
Like this comment

Human population grows at over 225,000 people a day. We are massively overcrowded in this area and need to save open space. Leave the park alone. Let in fewer people if you want to change something.

California has the dirtiest air in most of the US, we are one of the most crowded areas and our environmental footprint is massive causing a large part of the extinction crisis and global warming that is going on. Why don't these people who want to lounge in the park fight to decrease human growth around here, set population limits for cities and fight for more parks that are accessible for them to lounge in. Given the ongoing disease process and the fact that more diseases are likely to come calling from human invasion and destruction of areas with wild animals that carry these diseases, we should be working for more open space to practice our social distancing, not overcrowding other's spaces.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.