News

Palo Alto plans to sell annual passes for Foothills Nature Preserve entry

City Council also agrees to offer free access to students, low-income residents

A view of Foothills Park on Aug. 22, 2020. Photo by Magali Gauthier.

After moving to dramatically curtail access to Foothills Park last month, Palo Alto officially agreed on Monday to further revise entry rules to the scenic nature preserve and allow free entry to local students, veterans and visitors with disabilities.

By a unanimous vote, the City Council approved new rules that largely comport with recommendations from the city's Parks and Recreation Commission. This includes creating an annual pass for Foothills Park entry that would cost $50 for Palo Alto residents and $65 for visitors from other cities. The pass would provide entry to two cars from the same household. Visitors who don't have a pass will be able to enter by paying a $6 fee at the gate.

The council also authorized staff on Monday to raise the visitor cap to the 1,400-acre preserve so that up to 650 people can be there at any one time. The move follows the council's decision last month to lower the cap to 400 visitors (while allowing staff to raise it to 500). While the Monday revision raises the threshold, it also empowers staff to lower the cap to 300 if conditions warrant.

The Monday changes were the latest attempt by the council to balance the public's appetite for visiting the preserve, which has traditionally been open only to Palo Alto residents and their guests, and a desire to maintain safe traffic conditions and protect wildlife. Since the park opened to the general public on Dec. 17, residents, council members and city staff had reported unsafe traffic conditions both inside the park and on Page Mill Road, as well as an increase in "social trails" made by visitors who wander off official paths in popular areas such as Boronda Lake and Vista Hill.

In response to surging demand, the council approved on Jan. 11 an emergency ordinance imposing a $6 fee and lowering the visitor cap to between 400 and 500. The emergency ordinance that the council approved Monday supplants the January ordinance.

What's local journalism worth to you?

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

Learn more

Kristen O'Kane, director of the Community Services Department, told the council that since the January action, the city has received quite a bit of feedback from users, with some expressing concern about the $6 fee.

"For those that come up to park four or five times a week, a vehicle fee of $6 each time was not feasible," O'Kane said.

The annual pass, she said, was identified as the best path forward to accommodate these visitors. The Parks and Recreation Commission refined the proposal for an annual pass, as well as for a revised visitor cap, at its Feb. 11 meeting.

In some cases, the council went beyond the commission's recommendations to make park entry easier for some segments of the population. Council member Greer Stone, who teaches history at Gunn High, successfully lobbied for giving all students free entry into the park. The council also adopted council member Alison Cormack's suggestion individuals should receive free entry if their vehicles have placards indicating a disability, going beyond the commission's recommendation to offer these individuals a 25% discount.

Similarly, the council voted to provide free entry to low-income visitors with annual passes, a step that goes beyond the commission's recommendation to provide discounts of between 25% and 50% for these individuals.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

Vice Mayor Pat Burt made the motion to adopt the commission's recommendation but revised it so that the fees for these categories of visitors would be waived entirely. Stone agreed.

"We know low-income neighborhoods generally have far less access to green space, and I think it's really important to be able to provide that opportunity and to be able to, frankly, show the world that in Palo Alto, we're not trying to exclude these groups, that we're opening the door and want to be good neighbors," Stone said.

The council quickly coalesced around the adjusted proposal, despite concerns from other council members about some of the details. Cormack predicted that instituting fees at the entrance gate will create long lines of cars and possible backups to Page Mill Road. She proposed only charging entrance fees on the weekends.

Council member Greg Tanaka, meanwhile, suggested that the city may be exempting too many people from paying the entrance fee. He questioned the need to provide free entry for drivers with student IDs and suggested that the city only provide discounts to low-income visitors.

"Maybe the student driver is from Atherton or Los Altos Hills or Portola Valley or Old Palo Alto and they're very wealthy," Tanaka said. "They probably don't need a free pass. Isn't low-income just what we're trying to get at?"

Despite some hesitation, both Cormack and Tanaka supported the emergency ordinance, which required six of seven votes to pass. With the new rules now in place, the city plans to launch online sales of the annual passes on Feb. 27, according to Daren Anderson, assistant director at the Community Services Department.

To underscore the preserve's sensitive habitat, the council also approved on Monday the renaming of Foothills Park to the Foothills Nature Preserve — a change that was recommended by both the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Palo Alto Historical Association.

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now

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.

Palo Alto plans to sell annual passes for Foothills Nature Preserve entry

City Council also agrees to offer free access to students, low-income residents

by / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Tue, Feb 23, 2021, 9:26 am

After moving to dramatically curtail access to Foothills Park last month, Palo Alto officially agreed on Monday to further revise entry rules to the scenic nature preserve and allow free entry to local students, veterans and visitors with disabilities.

By a unanimous vote, the City Council approved new rules that largely comport with recommendations from the city's Parks and Recreation Commission. This includes creating an annual pass for Foothills Park entry that would cost $50 for Palo Alto residents and $65 for visitors from other cities. The pass would provide entry to two cars from the same household. Visitors who don't have a pass will be able to enter by paying a $6 fee at the gate.

The council also authorized staff on Monday to raise the visitor cap to the 1,400-acre preserve so that up to 650 people can be there at any one time. The move follows the council's decision last month to lower the cap to 400 visitors (while allowing staff to raise it to 500). While the Monday revision raises the threshold, it also empowers staff to lower the cap to 300 if conditions warrant.

The Monday changes were the latest attempt by the council to balance the public's appetite for visiting the preserve, which has traditionally been open only to Palo Alto residents and their guests, and a desire to maintain safe traffic conditions and protect wildlife. Since the park opened to the general public on Dec. 17, residents, council members and city staff had reported unsafe traffic conditions both inside the park and on Page Mill Road, as well as an increase in "social trails" made by visitors who wander off official paths in popular areas such as Boronda Lake and Vista Hill.

In response to surging demand, the council approved on Jan. 11 an emergency ordinance imposing a $6 fee and lowering the visitor cap to between 400 and 500. The emergency ordinance that the council approved Monday supplants the January ordinance.

Kristen O'Kane, director of the Community Services Department, told the council that since the January action, the city has received quite a bit of feedback from users, with some expressing concern about the $6 fee.

"For those that come up to park four or five times a week, a vehicle fee of $6 each time was not feasible," O'Kane said.

The annual pass, she said, was identified as the best path forward to accommodate these visitors. The Parks and Recreation Commission refined the proposal for an annual pass, as well as for a revised visitor cap, at its Feb. 11 meeting.

In some cases, the council went beyond the commission's recommendations to make park entry easier for some segments of the population. Council member Greer Stone, who teaches history at Gunn High, successfully lobbied for giving all students free entry into the park. The council also adopted council member Alison Cormack's suggestion individuals should receive free entry if their vehicles have placards indicating a disability, going beyond the commission's recommendation to offer these individuals a 25% discount.

Similarly, the council voted to provide free entry to low-income visitors with annual passes, a step that goes beyond the commission's recommendation to provide discounts of between 25% and 50% for these individuals.

Vice Mayor Pat Burt made the motion to adopt the commission's recommendation but revised it so that the fees for these categories of visitors would be waived entirely. Stone agreed.

"We know low-income neighborhoods generally have far less access to green space, and I think it's really important to be able to provide that opportunity and to be able to, frankly, show the world that in Palo Alto, we're not trying to exclude these groups, that we're opening the door and want to be good neighbors," Stone said.

The council quickly coalesced around the adjusted proposal, despite concerns from other council members about some of the details. Cormack predicted that instituting fees at the entrance gate will create long lines of cars and possible backups to Page Mill Road. She proposed only charging entrance fees on the weekends.

Council member Greg Tanaka, meanwhile, suggested that the city may be exempting too many people from paying the entrance fee. He questioned the need to provide free entry for drivers with student IDs and suggested that the city only provide discounts to low-income visitors.

"Maybe the student driver is from Atherton or Los Altos Hills or Portola Valley or Old Palo Alto and they're very wealthy," Tanaka said. "They probably don't need a free pass. Isn't low-income just what we're trying to get at?"

Despite some hesitation, both Cormack and Tanaka supported the emergency ordinance, which required six of seven votes to pass. With the new rules now in place, the city plans to launch online sales of the annual passes on Feb. 27, according to Daren Anderson, assistant director at the Community Services Department.

To underscore the preserve's sensitive habitat, the council also approved on Monday the renaming of Foothills Park to the Foothills Nature Preserve — a change that was recommended by both the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Palo Alto Historical Association.

Comments

R. Cavendish
Registered user
Portola Valley
on Feb 23, 2021 at 9:45 am
R. Cavendish, Portola Valley
Registered user
on Feb 23, 2021 at 9:45 am

Council member Tanaka brought up a good point by asking...

"Isn't low-income just what we're trying to get at?"

That said, perhaps FREE daily and annual park passes should be considered for ALL individuals receiving food stamps, welfare or any other form of public assistance (including CA Lifeline Obamaphones) with required verification.

High school and college students should also have to verify low-income eligibility for free passes OR this whole concept/experiment becomes just another cloud-cover maneuver to keep certain people out of Foothills Park.


Devon W.
Registered user
another community
on Feb 23, 2021 at 10:08 am
Devon W., another community
Registered user
on Feb 23, 2021 at 10:08 am

As a homeless vet (two tours of Afghanistan) with PTSD, it is nice to know that I can now enter Foothills Park without getting hassled for loitering or trespassing providing I show my Veteran's Administration ID at the front gate or if questioned by a park ranger.


theAlex
Registered user
South of Midtown
on Feb 23, 2021 at 10:15 am
theAlex, South of Midtown
Registered user
on Feb 23, 2021 at 10:15 am

Let's get real here. At this point, turn the whole thing into low income housing. Foothill Park had a good run. Show the world how it's done!


Jim H
Registered user
Community Center
on Feb 23, 2021 at 10:34 am
Jim H, Community Center
Registered user
on Feb 23, 2021 at 10:34 am

Thank you Palo Alto for creating a season pass. But please add a reservation online so that we don't have to drive all the way up there and find the park is full. This should have been done before the park was opened broadly.


Mikey Palo Alto
Registered user
Midtown
on Feb 23, 2021 at 10:46 am
Mikey Palo Alto, Midtown
Registered user
on Feb 23, 2021 at 10:46 am

So now what was previously a benefit to Palo Alto residents is now something we have to pay for? We're basically subsidizing the opening up of the park to non-residents? What a fiasco... this whole rollout has proven to be. The "annual pass" should be what it was before... our driver's license with a PA address. Sigh.


Susan
Registered user
Professorville
on Feb 23, 2021 at 10:48 am
Susan, Professorville
Registered user
on Feb 23, 2021 at 10:48 am

Would seniors with handicap placard for their vehicles receive any discount on annual pass and/or daily pass?


Aletheia
Registered user
Greenmeadow
on Feb 23, 2021 at 10:56 am
Aletheia, Greenmeadow
Registered user
on Feb 23, 2021 at 10:56 am

Please tell me how you identify a "low income" individual? Do they carry some kind of identification? Is there some indication on their driver license? Enlighten me please.


R. Cavendish
Registered user
another community
on Feb 23, 2021 at 11:19 am
R. Cavendish, another community
Registered user
on Feb 23, 2021 at 11:19 am

"Please tell me how you identify a "low income" individual? Do they carry some kind of identification? Is there some indication on their driver license? Enlighten me please."


Simple...if one has a SNAP or Medi-Cal card or a document from a county social services agency verifying that they are receiving public assistance.

To receive these benefits, one must fall below a certain income level or be disabled.

It's no different than requesting that superior court filing fees be waived for those below a certain income level.

Next question?


Joyce
Registered user
Fairmeadow
on Feb 23, 2021 at 11:28 am
Joyce, Fairmeadow
Registered user
on Feb 23, 2021 at 11:28 am

Will there be a reservation system so that visitors will be assured of getting into the park? Otherwise, it will be disappointing not to enter once plans have been made and one can't enter because the park is filled.


Sara A
Registered user
Midtown
on Feb 23, 2021 at 11:47 am
Sara A, Midtown
Registered user
on Feb 23, 2021 at 11:47 am

Discounts for seniors were not mentioned. Were they included? Now we will have to buy an annual pass for a single park. I think the city could have found other ways to keep the number of visitors down. Arastradero Preserve and Bixbee Park are both open to all and should stay that way. Fees are exclusionary. Turn the park over to the county? At least that way our annual pass would provide access to our many county parks as well.


ChrisC
Registered user
College Terrace
on Feb 23, 2021 at 12:11 pm
ChrisC, College Terrace
Registered user
on Feb 23, 2021 at 12:11 pm

So, opening to everybody has negatively affected Palo Residents? Couldn't you have designed something to give priority?
I've gone here for 38 years for free. Now you're incurring additional costs, but we have to pay to get in? Outrageous! And we might not get a parking place? Are you making any distinction between residents and non-residents for reservations? Like we have priority? Thanks a lot!


Richard
Registered user
Meadow Park
on Feb 23, 2021 at 12:23 pm
Richard, Meadow Park
Registered user
on Feb 23, 2021 at 12:23 pm

I am all for opening the park to everyone. However, since there is nothing particular about the Palo Alto Nature Preserve for Palo Altans, it's time to ask the county or the state to take it over.


R. Cavendish
Registered user
another community
on Feb 23, 2021 at 12:31 pm
R. Cavendish, another community
Registered user
on Feb 23, 2021 at 12:31 pm

"Discounts for seniors were not mentioned. Were they included?"

A good point Sara as many seniors are on fixed incomes.

Curious...was this PACC decision addressing park entrance protocols rushed through in haste?


Oh well.....
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Feb 23, 2021 at 12:36 pm
Oh well....., Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Feb 23, 2021 at 12:36 pm

Good grief! What a mess the city council created!


Samuel Jackson
Registered user
Evergreen Park
on Feb 23, 2021 at 12:38 pm
Samuel Jackson, Evergreen Park
Registered user
on Feb 23, 2021 at 12:38 pm

What does this mean for hikers / bikers who are NOT arriving in a car? Does it remain just a "vehicle fee"?

I hope a system to avoid cash transactions can be handled quickly -- this is a pain at Huddart Park. That said, Foothills is a great reward after a nice bike ride (for those who are able to get up the hill), so I encourage local cyclists to give it a try.


Len Ely
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Feb 23, 2021 at 1:05 pm
Len Ely, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Feb 23, 2021 at 1:05 pm

I have lived in Palo Alto for 70 years. As someone mentioned to now have to pay to go to Foothills Park seems unreasonable. Palo Alto residents should be able to go at any time for free. Even with the cap an extra 10 to 20 people would not have any impact. We have had this benefit of residency in the past and we should going forward.


Bystander
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 23, 2021 at 1:09 pm
Bystander, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Feb 23, 2021 at 1:09 pm

My first thoughts.

In a pandemic, who wants to hand over a $20 at the gate and get change, or who wants to collect $6 in bills and give change? Money is pretty dirty and the need to pay with cash and get change is very wrong.

Who decides what "low income" means? How is the bar going to be set? Will it change each year, every 5 years, or what?

I was under the impression that the reason Stanford residents were never allowed in was because of "Frat Parties" with drunk students misbehaving. Is there going to be any way to stop the same from happening again?

Are bikes and pedestrians going to continue to be allowed in even when the number of visitors arriving in cars are stopped? Will bikes be counted, will pedestrians be counted? Will this give an advantage to very local residents who can enter via a short walk from their homes?

Are we going to have any type of reservation system? The race to get there on weekend mornings is real and arriving at the sign at 9.20 am to see that the gate is closed is not a good system, and for cars that are already on the drive up the hill, they can arrive at the gate and be the first not allowed in. That system is not dependable.

What about all the illegal U turns being made on Page Mill higher up the hill?

What will happen in an emergency situation? A fire, earthquake or other serious event could cause big problems at the gate, on the hill and for arriving emergency vehicles.


Annette
Registered user
College Terrace
on Feb 23, 2021 at 2:06 pm
Annette, College Terrace
Registered user
on Feb 23, 2021 at 2:06 pm

I listened to the entire discussion. Despite good intentions, this has turned into a complicated mess. The access plan is reminding me of the ridiculous color-coded parking plan that the City put into place several years ago. The discussion about the cap and what categories of visitors are excluded from the count (e.g. bus loads of kids, volunteers) was - is - baffling. If the point of a cap is to protect the preserve, why exclude any person from the count? I kinda doubt the deer differentiate between wear and tear by a person on the exclusion list and wear and tear by other visitors. I realize public opinion about Foothills is largely ignored, but here's mine anyway: make the plan simple so that it has the highest possibility of success. I suggest setting the cap at a level that provides the highest level of protection for the preserve and counting everyone (kids, volunteers, bicyclists, hikers, walkers - all human beings) that pass through the gate as part of the headcount.


Tristan Thompson
Registered user
another community
on Feb 23, 2021 at 3:59 pm
Tristan Thompson, another community
Registered user
on Feb 23, 2021 at 3:59 pm

Charging an entrance fee where was once none wreaks of the same exclusionary practices that originally gave rise to the Foothills Park debacle.

There should be no charge to enter a nature preserve and Palo Alto residents should welcome non-residents as their guests.

As far as guestimated adverse impacts on the floor and fauna, simply limit the number of people who can enter the park on any given day.

Special entrance considerations should also be given to those whom the NAACP and ACLU cited as targets of alleged Palo Alto racism.

Only then can Palo Alto move forward as a modern 21st century city that embraces both equality and progressive ideals.

Until then, it will remain a SF Bay Area Mayberry where cordial white folks congregate and make small talk while clandestinely ironing their white sheets and honing timber for other social occasions.

Stanford University should also consider changing its name as it's founder was also a blatant racist who exploited Mexican, Native American, and Chinese laborers who toiled on his bucolic estate and helped build the Transcontinental Railroad.

A liberal racist town is an oxymoron.


LOL NO.
Registered user
Midtown
on Feb 23, 2021 at 3:59 pm
LOL NO., Midtown
Registered user
on Feb 23, 2021 at 3:59 pm

[Portion removed.]

Show proof of low income? Many residents work 40 hour+ weeks and still can't afford to live in that so called "liberal" town and barely scraping by. It's just racism wrapped up in socio-economic strangleholds to keep the unworthy out.


Steve Ludington
Registered user
Palo Verde
on Feb 23, 2021 at 5:20 pm
Steve Ludington, Palo Verde
Registered user
on Feb 23, 2021 at 5:20 pm

Do they want a charge for those entering by bicycle or on foot??


Gnar
Registered user
Greenmeadow
on Feb 23, 2021 at 5:21 pm
Gnar, Greenmeadow
Registered user
on Feb 23, 2021 at 5:21 pm

City Council, you're blowing it, again.

My family and I have lived here for almost 60 years. You're now requiring us to buy an annual pass to get into our own park?

Let's make this really simple for you: free for residents.

Residents pay property taxes. Nonresidents don't. The increased wear and tear on the park needs to come from the new visitors. Charge $6 a car for guests. Done.


TimR
Registered user
Downtown North
on Feb 23, 2021 at 5:26 pm
TimR, Downtown North
Registered user
on Feb 23, 2021 at 5:26 pm

A little short on relevant facts here (and long on irrelevant ones). When is the fee scheduled to go into effect, when can I buy the annual pass, and where/how can I buy it. I don't really care about the insentient social justice angle. I know everyone's a little bored spending so much time at home (maybe even alone), but enough already. Just buy the pass if you like the park, if not, try one of the other dozen or so Open Spaces in the area. Plenty to choose from, with options for every budget.


eileen
Registered user
College Terrace
on Feb 23, 2021 at 8:48 pm
eileen , College Terrace
Registered user
on Feb 23, 2021 at 8:48 pm

Personally, I will miss the solitude of Foothills Park. The encounters with deer hurds on the meadow and a quiet walk on the trails. Yes, open it to all, I genuinely hope everyone has the same, quiet, nature-filled, experience others have had before them! :-)


Julian Gómez
Registered user
Midtown
on Feb 23, 2021 at 10:23 pm
Julian Gómez, Midtown
Registered user
on Feb 23, 2021 at 10:23 pm

What a terrific "solution" for Palo Alto residents. You get to pay taxes for the park's upkeep AND you get to pay for a pass to get in. Unlink everyone else. This is blatant discrimination against residents, and is only because the city administration is a bunch of lazy pushovers.

They are also tone deaf. The only way to get equitable treatment from the city is a court order.


hcc2009
Registered user
Los Altos Hills
on Feb 24, 2021 at 7:39 am
hcc2009, Los Altos Hills
Registered user
on Feb 24, 2021 at 7:39 am

This whole stupid idea was sold on the argument that "underserved communities" and "people of color" were being discriminated against. So you open up the park and it is FLOODED with people from over-served communities and very few of color. So what do you do? You institute a FEE which is guaranteed to keep OUT the people you originally told us were your reason for opening it. Liberalism is a mental disorder and PA City Council has it bad.


Hiram Motubu
Registered user
Professorville
on Feb 24, 2021 at 8:33 am
Hiram Motubu, Professorville
Registered user
on Feb 24, 2021 at 8:33 am

As a visiting scholar from Kenya, I do find this park entrance issue perplexing.

From what I understand, a decision to open Foothills Park to the public was made by the Palo Alto City Council after decades of alleged discrimination brought to light by the NAACP, ACLU and retired African-American judge LaDoris Cordell.

Fearing a potential lawsuit, the city council decided to open the park to all visitors and Palo Alto residents are now concerned about the park getting overun.

That said and duly noted, the only alternatives are to keep the park open to all (with limited access) or close it down completely as a designated wilderness area with absolutely no visitations except by range management.

This scenario is no different than what we have experienced in Africa where various exclusionary practices by colonial white people wreaked havoc on both native societies and the natural ecosystem.

I might suggest that in light of the current attention being addressed towards historical American white racism and it's adverse impact on various peoples of color, Foothills Park be returned to the native Ohlone Indians who can manage the area as both an ecological and sovereign state, allowing park visitations at their own discretions.

In America as in Africa, it is the white people who destroy native lands in the name of progress and to serve their own selfish enterprises. Indiginent people strive to preserve the natural ecosystems.

So there is your solution and I am most grateful to have been able to draw certain myopic Palo Alto residents a simple 'connect the dots' picture for those who do not comprehend basic realities.

In many ways, the intelligent preservation of natural lands in Africa is far more advanced than in a small town like Palo Alto.



R. Cavendish
Registered user
another community
on Feb 24, 2021 at 11:13 am
R. Cavendish, another community
Registered user
on Feb 24, 2021 at 11:13 am

Enlightening and on point...leave it to an educated African scholar to 'educate' Palo Alto on the Foothills Park debacle.

Perhaps Palo Alto should have a student exchange program whereby various PAUSD students have an opportunity to travel abroad and learn about pertinent 'real world' realities from their academic counterparts in Africa.




Please Don't
Registered user
College Terrace
on Feb 24, 2021 at 3:23 pm
Please Don't, College Terrace
Registered user
on Feb 24, 2021 at 3:23 pm

This is ridiculous. Time to sell the park.


mauricio
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Feb 25, 2021 at 10:49 am
mauricio, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Feb 25, 2021 at 10:49 am

This is a debacle. The only reasonable and just solution is to ban all human access to this nature preserve and turn it into a wildlife sanctuary run by the county. Trust humans to destroy any gift from nature and endanger the wild life, so separating humans from wildlife is the only righteous thing to do.


Alfred Guillen
Registered user
another community
on Feb 25, 2021 at 11:47 am
Alfred Guillen, another community
Registered user
on Feb 25, 2021 at 11:47 am

Yes. Sell the park and be done with it.

For close to 50 years it has been a symbol of white privilege and racism.

We are in the 21st century now and those kinds of values and perspectives are no longer acceptable.


coughvid
Registered user
Monroe Park
on Feb 25, 2021 at 10:23 pm
coughvid, Monroe Park
Registered user
on Feb 25, 2021 at 10:23 pm

We have this thing called the internet and zoom meetings for the infamous council meetings. Since most people are not aware:

Palo Alto accepted the lawsuit that somehow Foothills Park was racist and so we now can only create a mild discount for Palo Alto residents. Thus, if residents are free then legally, all must be free. Got it?

So, the park that was free and open to all every weekday is now pay-to-play except to wealthy local Los Altos Hills residents who can walk in thus ending racism in the world. Because Los Alto Hills doesn't like people parking middle class cars on their roads, they have indeed ended all nearby road parking. Yeah!

My solution: Close Foothills Park to walkers and cars. Only bikers can freely enter the park from now on which would also make our policy in line with that of the Kingdom of God in Heaven. Thank you! Brilliant.


Ashley
Registered user
another community
on Feb 26, 2021 at 11:36 am
Ashley, another community
Registered user
on Feb 26, 2021 at 11:36 am

"Only bikers can freely enter the park from now on which would also make our policy in line with that of the Kingdom of God in Heaven."

What does Foothills Park have to do with the Kingdom of God In Heaven?

It's just another park and nothing to write home about.


Jed Larraby
Registered user
another community
on Feb 26, 2021 at 12:50 pm
Jed Larraby, another community
Registered user
on Feb 26, 2021 at 12:50 pm

A wrongful sense of white privilege created the Foothills Park conundrum which is why advocacy (NAACP and the ACLU had to intervene.

The park is now open to all and refusing to pay the entrance fee should serve as a rallying cry and behavioral model for all guests.


LaVonne
Registered user
East Palo Alto
on Feb 26, 2021 at 1:48 pm
LaVonne, East Palo Alto
Registered user
on Feb 26, 2021 at 1:48 pm

Entrance into Foothills Park should remain free to all.

[Portion removed.]


BARRY W.
Registered user
South of Midtown
on Feb 26, 2021 at 4:24 pm
BARRY W., South of Midtown
Registered user
on Feb 26, 2021 at 4:24 pm
esther phillips
Registered user
another community
on Feb 27, 2021 at 8:24 am
esther phillips, another community
Registered user
on Feb 27, 2021 at 8:24 am

Goodness. Foothills Park has become such a controversial subject.

Perhaps as others have suggested, the parklands should either be returned to the Native Americans or sold-off for housing parcels.

Or to appease the various racist accusations, maybe build an African-American cultural and convention center on the site with lodging and dining facilities for guests and seminar attendees.


Arden Pasquinel
Registered user
another community
on Feb 27, 2021 at 8:56 am
Arden Pasquinel, another community
Registered user
on Feb 27, 2021 at 8:56 am

Relinquishing Foothills Park to the ancestors of the Ohlone tribe is a most profound concept and is currently under discussion with various legal advisors who upon further study will request and then demand that this action be taken.

Ideally we will also be able to enlist the assistance of the ACLU and other Native American Advocacy groups to pursue this matter in a concerted effort.

Since it is highly unlikely that the City of Palo Alto City Council would approve an Indian gaming casino within it's city boundaries, returning Foothills Park to it's original inhabitants is justifiable compensation.


Darrin Johnson
Registered user
another community
on Feb 27, 2021 at 10:29 am
Darrin Johnson, another community
Registered user
on Feb 27, 2021 at 10:29 am

The Native Americans have been granted many generous opportunities by the U.S. government in terms of relocation to reservation lands and the option to open independently-operated gaming casinos.

What more could they ask for?


Dave Parker
Registered user
East Palo Alto
on Feb 27, 2021 at 12:07 pm
Dave Parker, East Palo Alto
Registered user
on Feb 27, 2021 at 12:07 pm

Agree. Just return the land at Foothills Park to the Native Americans as they are the only ones with a true sense of respect and spirit for nature and wildlife.

The roads, fences, and trails at the park constitute a vandalism of its own as most white folks could not enjoy the park on its own without man-made contrivances.

Wearing Patagonia and cross-trainers does not make one a true outdoors person, just another tourist.


Me 2
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Feb 27, 2021 at 1:32 pm
Me 2, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Feb 27, 2021 at 1:32 pm

" Just return the land at Foothills Park to the Native Americans as they are the only ones with a true sense of respect and spirit for nature and wildlife."

You first.

Unless you're willing to give up your house to the Native Americans, don't tell anyone else they have to. That makes you a hypocrite.


merry
Registered user
Palo Alto Hills
on Feb 27, 2021 at 1:37 pm
merry, Palo Alto Hills
Registered user
on Feb 27, 2021 at 1:37 pm

It’s a mess.
There is a simple answer. PA residents free entry EVERYONE else..... ????????????6 bucks please.
The current situation is out of control.
Time for CC to meet again
For more rule changes. Maybe $10 dollars entry fee is the right number.
Maybe mr. Tanaka was right again.


R. Cavendish
Registered user
another community
on Feb 27, 2021 at 2:58 pm
R. Cavendish, another community
Registered user
on Feb 27, 2021 at 2:58 pm

previously posted:

> "Relinquishing Foothills Park to the ancestors of the Ohlone tribe is a most profound concept and is currently under discussion with various legal advisors who upon further study will request and then demand that this action be taken."

> "Agree. Just return the land at Foothills Park to the Native Americans as they are the only ones with a true sense of respect and spirit for nature and wildlife."

∆ The movement to return native lands to indigenous peoples is picking-up steam throughout the nation.

The SCOTUS recently ruled that ALL of eastern Oklahoma is Native American sovereign land and in California, immense acreage of prime natural land in Sonoma County (700 acres) and Big Sur (1,200 acres) have been relinquished and returned to both Ohlone and Esalen tribal ancestors.

Web Link

Web Link

So perhaps the Foothills Park debacle will eventually be settled in this manner as discussions are apparently underway by tribal leaders and once the ACLU gets involved, it's game over for the PACC as we have previously witnessed.

On the bright side, there will always be Mitchell Park for outdoor gatherings and chili contests.


Danielle Vanderburg
Registered user
another community
on Feb 27, 2021 at 3:31 pm
Danielle Vanderburg, another community
Registered user
on Feb 27, 2021 at 3:31 pm

In many ways, returning the land encompassing Foothills Park to the tribes whose ancestors once lived there is the right thing to do and perhaps Palo Altans must learn to look beyond their seemingly narrow perspectives.

Native Americans are eco-minded caretakers of land whereas most whites view land in terms of physical ownership dictated by title deeds.

Given the media and legal allegations of systemic racism in Palo Alto, returning Foothills Park to the surviving descendants of the Ohlone tribe would not only be a humanitarian gesture but also serve to dispel the ongoing rumors and imageries of Palo Alto as a city governed by its old school bigotries.


Grew Up Here
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 27, 2021 at 4:06 pm
Grew Up Here, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Feb 27, 2021 at 4:06 pm

We pay taxes for the upkeep, why do we have to pay a $6 entrance fee?

The park's rules were not discriminatory: Palo Alto residents are diverse: Asians, blacks, Latinos, and any other immigrants live in Palo Alto and all were welcome to visit Foothills Park.

Forcing Palo Alto residents to pay twice is reverse discrimination.


Me 2
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Feb 27, 2021 at 4:13 pm
Me 2, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Feb 27, 2021 at 4:13 pm

"Native Americans are eco-minded caretakers of land whereas most whites view land in terms of physical ownership dictated by title deeds."

Stereotype much?

Reminds me when I went river rafting with classmates of differing origins. The (white) guide was rhapsodic on Indian (subcontinent) mysticism and religions and then turned to my friend, who was of Indian descent and asked him about it. He had no clue what the hell she was talking about and gave a mystified shrug.

Stop with this claptrap.

Again, you first. Once you give up your own house or living quarters to Native Americans will we take your nonsensical "return to Native Americans" movement seriously.

Otherwise, you're just a hypocrite.


Florence D.
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Feb 27, 2021 at 4:14 pm
Florence D., Menlo Park
Registered user
on Feb 27, 2021 at 4:14 pm

Why not simply donate the land to the Ohlones and allow them to develop a casino resort on the land with maybe some condos to help alleviate the housing crisis in Palo Alto?

There are no endangered species or plants at the park, just the same deer, skunks, coyotes and poison oak easily available for appreciation at Los Trancos and Adobe Creek.

Seniors and local gamblers would flock to an Indian gaming casino situated conveniently off Page Mill Road.


iSez
Registered user
Palo Alto High School
on Feb 27, 2021 at 4:16 pm
iSez, Palo Alto High School
Registered user
on Feb 27, 2021 at 4:16 pm

The goal was accomplished, the park is open to all. Palo Alto residents already pay taxes for the park. Everyone else should pay to enter.


Florence D.
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Feb 27, 2021 at 4:20 pm
Florence D., Menlo Park
Registered user
on Feb 27, 2021 at 4:20 pm

quote: "The (white) guide was rhapsodic on Indian (subcontinent) mysticism and religions and then turned to my friend, who was of Indian descent and asked him about it. He had no clue what the hell she was talking about and gave a mystified shrug."

If the white rafting guide was referring to East Indian mysticism and the other listener a Native American Indian, this is totally understandable.

Besides, from what I have read he


Florence D.
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Feb 27, 2021 at 4:23 pm
Florence D., Menlo Park
Registered user
on Feb 27, 2021 at 4:23 pm

[Post removed; excessive posting.]


Arabella Rosa
Registered user
another community
on Feb 28, 2021 at 6:51 am
Arabella Rosa, another community
Registered user
on Feb 28, 2021 at 6:51 am

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


ndn
Registered user
Downtown North
on Feb 28, 2021 at 11:14 am
ndn, Downtown North
Registered user
on Feb 28, 2021 at 11:14 am

"Just return the land at Foothills Park to the Native Americans as they are the only ones with a true sense of respect and spirit for nature and wildlife". Yes. It was stolen from them. Apparently some think that the "generous" benefits the native people received were the pox that kill unsurpassed numbers of them and the steal of their rights and dignities. How would you have liked that for yourself and your descendants? A few years ago in Connecticut precisely the reclamation of a good portion of a village (on the land that had been Native) was met with a hefty settlement of some 200million dollars in compensation.
Foothills Preserve needs a new comprehensive plan for preserving it.


Bystander
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 28, 2021 at 12:19 pm
Bystander, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Feb 28, 2021 at 12:19 pm

These passes are now available to purchase online through the Enjoy catalog. Has anyone been able to buy one without any problems yet?

As a follow on, how has the traffic been on Page Mill now that a fee is being collected at the gate?


Edgar Villarone
Registered user
another community
on Feb 28, 2021 at 2:58 pm
Edgar Villarone, another community
Registered user
on Feb 28, 2021 at 2:58 pm

"passes are now available to purchase online through the Enjoy catalog."

Only campsite reservations are currently listed on City of Palo Alto online Enjoy.

Just another way to discourage outsiders (non-outdoor camping people of color) and their families from enjoying a single day at the park.

Trailers and RVs should be allowed to park in the picnic area near the lake for car camping. Then the current reservation process makes more sense.


Bystander
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 1, 2021 at 7:36 am
Bystander, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Mar 1, 2021 at 7:36 am

Here is a link to the Enjoy catalog Foothills annual pass. Web Link= I do not think it was easy to find and it was not as simple a process as it should have been.

It will be interesting to hear just how many annual passes are sold and how many residential v non-residential passes and how far away the non-residential passes are going.


Bobby Munoz
Registered user
another community
on Mar 1, 2021 at 8:00 am
Bobby Munoz, another community
Registered user
on Mar 1, 2021 at 8:00 am
TimR
Registered user
Downtown North
on Mar 1, 2021 at 7:10 pm
TimR, Downtown North
Registered user
on Mar 1, 2021 at 7:10 pm

" Just return the land at Foothills Park to the Native Americans as they are the only ones with a true sense of respect and spirit for nature and wildlife."

Or, they're the only ones with a true sense of how to run a casino on Indian land. Some might like that idea, but I say no thanks. Better to keep it as is.


Laur
Registered user
Community Center
on Mar 1, 2021 at 10:03 pm
Laur, Community Center
Registered user
on Mar 1, 2021 at 10:03 pm

I appreciate many of these comments! I am late for the party- found out about the fee when I arrived at the park on Saturday morning. No signs posted in advance or grace period for people.

I AGREE, with the comments with questions and anger about the institutional barriers for low-income folx to get a fee waiver- the option is only for City of Palo Alto residents. A person must download the form, present it from processing and it requires the person to show proof of residency, TAX returns, and another qualifying income statement for a 25 or 50% discount. WHAT>!>!>!

Why not just post a suggested donation and cap capacity? I agree everyone should be counted for capacity purposes. The new fees are 10000% discriminatory, prohibitive, and against the spirit of opening the park to all.

A thinly-veiled move by the council to continue to try and deter certain people from enjoying the park. Come on, fix this, drop the mandatory fee, and stop creating new laws to prop up the caste system and create new barriers for low-income people. Low-income PA residents could go free 2 months ago- now they have to go through an intense application for a discount. And for low-income non-residents? Guess they are out of luck? And that's the problem.


Carmen Marquez
Registered user
another community
on Mar 2, 2021 at 6:12 am
Carmen Marquez, another community
Registered user
on Mar 2, 2021 at 6:12 am

√ "A thinly-veiled move by the council to continue to try and deter certain people from enjoying the park."

Yes. Palo Alto remains a racist city in denial and the council is reflective of this mindset because they want to get re-elected.

The advance protocols required to show low-income status for park entrance is just another example of Jim Crow type laws to prevent and deter others from participation and entry.

Palo Alto is not a liberal/blue city. It is a low-key racist community that prides itself on exclusivity and white privilege.

A town no different in character than any other bigoted community in the Deep South. Just more subtle.


jeff beaumont
Registered user
another community
on Mar 2, 2021 at 6:38 am
jeff beaumont, another community
Registered user
on Mar 2, 2021 at 6:38 am

Palo Alto people are not racist.

They are what some call discriminatory preservationists.

And if that means keeping others out to ensure their own sense of well-being, they will proceed accordingly whether it involves convoluted park entrance requirements or city council intervention.

As someone mentioned earlier, Palo Alto is like the Kennedys. They talk the liberal talk to appear humanitarian and enlightened but deep down inside they don't want 'certain people' coming around their homes or playgrounds.

My grandparents still reside in Palo Alto and are cut from this cloth of bigotry.

And apparently so are many of the younger and more recent Palo Alto residents.

Best to stay clear of this place if you are not white nor upwardly mobile.

On the other hand I have read that there is an increasing population of wealthy Asians now residing in Palo Alto.

Perhaps over time they will alter the political landscape of Palo Alto.


Jamie Long
Registered user
Stanford
on Mar 2, 2021 at 8:32 am
Jamie Long, Stanford
Registered user
on Mar 2, 2021 at 8:32 am

They are what some call discriminatory preservationists.

My grandparents still reside in Palo Alto and are cut from this cloth of bigotry.

MANY OLDER PEOPLE ARE SET IN THEIR WAYS & RESIST CHANGE. LIVING IN THE PAST OFTEN SERVES AS A COMFORT ZONE.

Best to stay clear of this place if you are not white nor upwardly mobile.

BEING ABLE TO AFFORD THE MORTGAGE PAYMENTS & PROPERTY TAX IS THE KEY DETERMINANT TO WHETHER YOUNGER INDIVIDUALS CAN AFFORD TO OWN A HOME IN PALO ALTO AS A HOMEOWNER.


Novelera
Registered user
Midtown
on Mar 2, 2021 at 1:56 pm
Novelera, Midtown
Registered user
on Mar 2, 2021 at 1:56 pm

The web link to Enjoy catalog for Foothills Park, as I understand it, shows making a reservation for camp sites. I didn't find anything about an annual pass to drive up, park, and then take a hike.


Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Mar 2, 2021 at 2:11 pm
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Mar 2, 2021 at 2:11 pm

"MANY OLDER PEOPLE ARE SET IN THEIR WAYS & RESIST CHANGE. LIVING IN THE PAST OFTEN SERVES AS A COMFORT ZONE."

Many people who are older now were in forefront of protests and lobbying for civil rights, women's rights and equal rights. Many of us are still out there protesting and supporting those causes.

You're welcome.

In fact, we've often commented how political activism at, say Stanford is a mere shadow of what it was decades ago.

Such a shame to see everything now reduced to stereotypes, us-vs-them divisiveness and slogans. But that's easier than thinking through the issues or remembering history including WHY Foothils was restricted to Palo Alto residents.


Mondoman
Registered user
Green Acres
on Mar 2, 2021 at 2:32 pm
Mondoman, Green Acres
Registered user
on Mar 2, 2021 at 2:32 pm

Gnar suggests "Let's make this really simple for you: free for residents.

Residents pay property taxes. Nonresidents don't. The increased wear and tear on the park needs to come from the new visitors. Charge $6 a car for guests. Done."

The sentiment here seems just. Why not do this: keep the new fee schedule, but give people one year's credit toward a pass for every year they've lived here during the years 1970-2020? Seems fair all around -- everyone can access the park and those who have already effectively "prepaid" for their passes by paying taxes even when access was free get some credit for those payments.


Jeremy Taylor
Registered user
Stanford
on Mar 2, 2021 at 4:43 pm
Jeremy Taylor, Stanford
Registered user
on Mar 2, 2021 at 4:43 pm

"Many people who are older now were in forefront of protests and lobbying for civil rights, women's rights and equal rights. Many of us are still out there protesting and supporting those causes."

"You're welcome."

∆ Yeah, and how far have we really evolved based on your protests and lobbying?

African Americans are still being mistreated and discriminated against while women are still underpaid and being objectified.

Yes, your colorful tie-dies and Birkenstocks really changed the world for the better.

And then your generation traded in their ratty-looking VW bugs for stylish BMWs.

Foothills Park is not Walden Pond or Max Yasgur's farm. Seriously.

And as your parents eventually discovered, there comes a time to let the later generations assume the reins.

As your close to 90 year-old prophet once sang, " the times they are a changin'.

BTW...your welcome.


Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Mar 2, 2021 at 4:53 pm
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Mar 2, 2021 at 4:53 pm

That would be "you're welcome" and obviously we've not come far enough since so many are still discriminated against on the basis of sex, age, race, religion, gender, ethnicity etc.

How about getting angry at the institutions that DO the discriminating like the big companies, red-lining banks, law firms and venture capital companies instead of those of us who've been subject to discrimination?

Yelling at us makes no sense.

And Bob Dylan's 79 years old, not 90.


Bystander
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 2, 2021 at 4:53 pm
Bystander, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Mar 2, 2021 at 4:53 pm

The Enjoy catalog link Web Link= I posted it above as it took me quite a while to find it. I think people are still unable to find it. Click on the link then look for the annual pass section


Jim
Registered user
Midtown
on Mar 2, 2021 at 7:31 pm
Jim, Midtown
Registered user
on Mar 2, 2021 at 7:31 pm

Foothills wasn’t always free. As I recall we used to pay $2 to get into Foothills Park in the ‘90s. Nearly $4 in today’s money.


Arabella M.
Registered user
another community
on Mar 3, 2021 at 5:54 am
Arabella M., another community
Registered user
on Mar 3, 2021 at 5:54 am

[Post removed; off topic.]


Jim Nettles
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 3, 2021 at 7:19 am
Jim Nettles, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Mar 3, 2021 at 7:19 am

"And as your parents eventually discovered, there comes a time to let the later generations assume the reins."

Reminds me of a song where the lead singer (who must also be about 90 now) is singing and stuttering something about 'my generation'.

Well that particular generation is now OLD and should give things a rest.

Being 60 is not the 'new 40' and someone who is pushing 80 or 90 years old is most definitely not 50.

This is delusional and defies the scientific practice of modern gerontology.


R. Cavendish
Registered user
another community
on Mar 3, 2021 at 8:57 am
R. Cavendish, another community
Registered user
on Mar 3, 2021 at 8:57 am

Being 60 is not the 'new 40' and someone who is pushing 80 or 90 years old is most definitely not 50.

∆ Which is why cosmetic surgeries, various elixers, and health spa retreats are such lucrative businesses.

Many baby boomers wish to stay as Bob Dylan once sang, 'forever young' and the delusion is OK because as we get older, our minds tend to get forgetful as well.

BTW...I suspect that the stuttering singer you were referring to was Roger Daltrey of The Who and both he and Pete Townsend are no spring chickens either.


Gnar
Registered user
Greenmeadow
on Mar 5, 2021 at 1:51 pm
Gnar, Greenmeadow
Registered user
on Mar 5, 2021 at 1:51 pm

PSA: Everyone stop with the "white privilege" straw man.

Affluent and historically-white neighboring communities of Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Atherton, Menlo Park, etc. have all been excluded by the residency requirement this entire time, so the issue clearly was never about social injustice.


avery james
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 5, 2021 at 2:44 pm
avery james, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Mar 5, 2021 at 2:44 pm

~ "so the issue clearly was never about social injustice."

Yes it was... 'social injustice' towards the "Affluent and historically-white neighboring communities of Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Atherton, Menlo Park etc."


Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Mar 5, 2021 at 3:37 pm
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Mar 5, 2021 at 3:37 pm

It was about simple economics. Those other communities refused to help pay for the park so they were denied access. See also no free lunch.

If someone doesn't buy concert tickets or pay for hotel rooms in advance, they don't let you in. Same thing. Whoever you are.


R. Cavendish
Registered user
another community
on Mar 5, 2021 at 3:46 pm
R. Cavendish, another community
Registered user
on Mar 5, 2021 at 3:46 pm

"If someone doesn't buy concert tickets or pay for hotel rooms in advance, they don't let you in."

Unless you are wearing a 'laminate' and have a backstage pass.

As for nice hotels and fine dining...best reserved as a corporate 'business expense'.


Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Mar 5, 2021 at 3:54 pm
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Mar 5, 2021 at 3:54 pm

R Cavendish, fine. I was trying to keep it simple that if you -- or your employer or sponsor -- don't pay, you don't get in.


Felicia Marquez
Registered user
another community
on Mar 5, 2021 at 4:28 pm
Felicia Marquez, another community
Registered user
on Mar 5, 2021 at 4:28 pm

Ideally the park will remain open to all outside visitors with free entrance.

Since the Pao Alto residents have had exclusive and free access to the park for many years, it would not be unreasonable for them to pay a nominal entrance fee instead of non-residents having to pay and as some others have mentioned, create a group of community volunteers to keep the place tidy and maintain the walkways and trails as needed. Then they could get their fresh air and outdoor experience twofold.

Call it civic duty, a community responsibility to preserve cherished recreational areas for everyone including themselves.

Perhaps people from other communities could join in as well but the ultimate obligations rest with the residents of Palo Alto and the munipality itself.

It's time to step-up and maintain the area or give it back to the Indians.


Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Mar 5, 2021 at 6:41 pm
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Mar 5, 2021 at 6:41 pm

"Since the Palo Alto residents have had exclusive and free access to the park for many years, it would not be unreasonable for them to pay a nominal entrance fee instead of non-residents having to pay and as some..."

One more time:

PA has NOT had FREE access; we've PAID for it. With our TAXES. For DECADES.

PA had "exclusive" access BECAUSE PA chose to prioritize the park and pay for park staffing, maintenance and education etc. while the other communities didn't. They chose to use THEIR tax dollars for OTHER things in THEIR communities.

Rangers and Parks & Recreation people aren't free. Nor should they be. PA pays their salaries and benefits and pensions. As we have for decades.

That means PA has less money for OTHER things which are being cut due to A) budget shortfalls due to the the pandemic and B) higher Park costs related to opening the park and dealing with overflow crowds and park damage.

It has nothing to do with racism. PLEASE stop calling it that.

PS: Why should non-residents pay nothing? Access to state parks and national parks isn't free.


LaVonne Miranda
Registered user
another community
15 hours ago
LaVonne Miranda, another community
Registered user
15 hours ago

"It has nothing to do with racism. PLEASE stop calling it that."

I tend to agree as it is more about the self-serving elitist mindset of many Palo Alto residents who do not believe in sharing their park with others or taking any personal initiatives on a volunteer basis to contribute to its daily maintanence.

Most want to be waited on hand and foot, whether it's at a downtown restaurant or at one of Palo Alto's fancy and overpriced hair care salons.

And chances are, the majority of them have never picked-up a broom or a rake. They simply hire a Mexican gardner and then pass ordinances against the use of leaf blowers.

We'll call it 'environmental racism' instead.


TimR
Registered user
Downtown North
14 hours ago
TimR, Downtown North
Registered user
14 hours ago

"On the other hand I have read that there is an increasing population of wealthy Asians now residing in Palo Alto."

And even before opening the park to "everyone," Foothills had an increasing number of visitors who are Asian. And after the opening? No change at all. From vising around twice a week, I estimate the demographics of park visitation to be half Asian. So CLEARLY white privilege has nothing whatsoever to do with this park or current arguments about access. To say otherwise is to be touting a myth-based belief system completely devoid of facts.


Minnie Wong
Registered user
Charleston Meadows
12 hours ago
Minnie Wong, Charleston Meadows
Registered user
12 hours ago

× And even before opening the park to "everyone," Foothills had an increasing number of visitors who are Asian. And after the opening? No change at all. From vising around twice a week, I estimate the demographics of park visitation to be half Asian. So CLEARLY white privilege has nothing whatsoever to do with this park or current arguments about access. To say otherwise is to be touting a myth-based belief system completely devoid of facts.

@TimR

Based on your insightful commentary. and 'And after the opening. No change at all'.

Did it ever occur or dawn on you that the multitude of Asians visiting Foothills Park prior to it's open access were also Palo Alto residents?

Palo Alto is approximately 35% Mandarin Chinese now so it stands to reason that many of them will visit Foothills Park as it is now their park as well + many of the elders who are now living with their adult children enjoy the outdoors as well.

Your comments are just another cloud-cover for the pervasive racism in Palo Alto.

And I suspect there is a certain degree of resentment due to the fact that many of the recently arrived residents from China can easily afford to buy homes in Palo Alto with cash.


Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
11 hours ago
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
11 hours ago

Lavonne makes all sorts of assumptions about people about whom she knows nothing and then concludes "We'll call it 'environmental racism' instead."

YOUR racism is showing.

If you'd read PA news and comments here, you'd have noticed that for years many of us have been complained that we rarely go downtown because we've been over-run by commuters and there's no parking. Pre-pandemic, commuters outnumbered residents four to one.

Yes,I agree that many PA restaurants are over-priced BECAUSE offices rents are higher and those offices pushed out small restaurants and small retailers. SO we go elsewhere for a more interesting restaurant mix and livelier street sscene -- Menlo Park, Mountain View Redwood City etc.

Several years ago we did a petition drive to limit office growth and voted out City Council members supporting the huge growth in offices, many of which had their own cafeterias which destroyed nearby restaurants.

Re gardening, check out PA's community gardens in various parks, Gamble Garden center on Embarcadero and the big Summer Winds Garden store at Middlefield & San Antonio -- just SOME of the places for people who like to garden.

And please check YOUR racism before making unfounded accusations.


R. Cavendish
Registered user
another community
8 hours ago
R. Cavendish, another community
Registered user
8 hours ago

I am beginning to suspect that given all of the unresolved issues of racial and economic disparity, we are now entering a new era defined by 'reverse racism'...a heightened sense of contempt and hatred directed at those who various minority people/groups perceive as still calling the shots in American society.


Kaneesha
Registered user
East Palo Alto
8 hours ago
Kaneesha , East Palo Alto
Registered user
8 hours ago

White people don't get it.

They succeeded in oppressing the blacks and keeping them in poverty and now they are going after wealthy Asians by blaming them for the coronavirus.

If this isn't white perpetuated racism and ignorance, then pigs have wings.


Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
7 hours ago
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
7 hours ago

Kaneesha, things aren't as simple as you're trying to make them.

Of course blacks were /are oppressed. But so are/were ALL women who still make much less than men if they're still employed. Read up on the history of union-busting where Pinkterons and others literally busted the heads of workers (blacks, whites and Asians) striving for better working conditions in mines and factories. This dates back at least 100 years.

Yes, Asians are being unfairly blamed for Covid because Trump called it the Chinese disease AND because rap artists ALSO unfairly characterize Asians. The increased violence against Asians by whites, blacks and others in disgusting.

But "wealthy Asians" and OTHER wealthy foreign investors are partly responsible for pushing up the price of US real estate as they move money out of their countries and treat real estate as a safe bank account.

This is a major national and international issue that cities are struggling to address.

Have you heard of "ghost" houses? Those are unoccupied houses and apartments that have been bought STRICTLY for investment often without the buyer ever seeing the properties. It's why many cities are considering taxing this type of investment to discourage it and make more housing available.

Perpetuating ignorance and stereotypes isn't limited to whites.


Jacob Lee
Registered user
Charleston Meadows
7 hours ago
Jacob Lee, Charleston Meadows
Registered user
7 hours ago

What is wrong with a ghost investment house if other white people cannot afford to pay cash for the property like the Chinese do in most instances?

It is at the discretion of the owner whether to rent, sell or inhabit the property.

As other white Palo Alto residents have said before, if one cannot afford to reside in Palo Alto go live somewhere else.

Like Milpitas or Gilroy or Hayward.

White people in Palo Alto make the rules and we simply abide by them.

Money talks.


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.