Guest Opinion: Now's not the time for full Foothills Park discussion | Town Square | Palo Alto Online |

Town Square

Post a New Topic

Guest Opinion: Now's not the time for full Foothills Park discussion

Original post made on Jul 24, 2020

It makes no sense to be discussing the issue of expanding access at Foothills Park during these unusual times, especially when we have no solid data regarding the preserve.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, July 24, 2020, 6:54 AM

Comments (42)

60 people like this
Posted by Well Said
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 24, 2020 at 6:58 am

Excellent points.

It's always good to remember that people from all cities can walk and bike into Foothills Park every day of the week and can drive in and park on weekdays. The restriction on weekend parking was never to exclude people by race - rather, it was to benefit those who taxed themselves to purchase the park versus the wealthier (!!!) nearby communities that opted not to pay.

It's vital that we address racial and economic injustice within our city and throughout the nation. The Foothills Park weekend parking lot issue is so tiny and irrelevant by comparison that we mustn't allow it to distract us from the real efforts needed.


42 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 24, 2020 at 7:03 am

As a frequent visitor to the Preserve, I notice that it is being used much more now than say this time last year. I find that by 9.00 am on a Saturday morning, 95% of the official parking spots are filled and many cars are parking on the grass, as an indicator of just how much it is being used. I do not think that it is under-utilized and since nobody is at the gate until mid morning at weekends, I don't see how they know the number of visitors.

Thank you for counting the numbers, that is interesting.

However, one thing I do bring up because I think it is important to add this to your excellent opinion piece and that is the safety question. If a fire or other type of emergency were to break out in the park or in the nearby hills, it would be almost impossible to alert visitors since there is not good cell reception in the hills. Additionally, with one very windy road with steep hills and hundreds of bikes trying to leave the area in an emergency and with emergency vehicles trying to come up the hill, the results would be catastrophic.

Page Mill Road cannot handle more vehicles than it does at present on a busy weekend. From the point of view of the residents of the area alone, we cannot make that road more dangerous by adding more vehicles to it.

You have made excellent points in the opinion piece, thank you for doing that. My additional points I feel are just as important considerations.


34 people like this
Posted by anon
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Jul 24, 2020 at 8:08 am

What a nice opinion piece, no name calling or hyperbole; makes sense to me.

Surely the potential increased risk of fire and reduced ability to fight it and resulting impact in the flora and fauna of the park (a designated conservation area) must be evaluated accurately before jumping to any decision. (Not to mention nearby homes and structures)
Is the plan consultant with other city documents ?
The city council at the behest of city manager Shikada cut the fire department down to the bone as part of the grueling budget process this year.
is the actual cost of opening the park up in every sense going to be evaluated before a decision is made or are we going to plow ahead regardless of the potential effects ?
As the first poster above points out this could be a minuscule step in the right direction to fight racism and a giant leap in the wrong direction in conservation of
the natural world.



44 people like this
Posted by Strict Regulation
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 24, 2020 at 8:10 am

Do no harm to this Open Space Preserve.
The current limits for maximum daily use of 1000 people with limited parking must remain. Both limits are vital to keeping it a low key ecological preserve which has few amenities and one part time range. It’s a preserve and can’t become a country version of a crowded city park overflowing with loud energy.

The stinger is that though these limits are vital to preserve Foothill’s ecology and essence which is the highest priority, it means if access is opened to all, at times Palo Altans will be turned away from Foothill. Our one Open Space/Park that we ourselves cannot use. This is why we have the word irony.



5 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Evergreen Park
on Jul 24, 2020 at 8:21 am

BTW
Here is a link the the parks/rec commission agenda for next Tuesday’s meeting:

Web Link

Note there is a panel discussion under “business “ scheduled.
I could not find any mention of the panelists (unless it is the commissioners?)
or staff report associated with the item... maybe it will be posted later today?
Hasn’t the commission already voted on the matter? What is the purpose of the panel ???


Like this comment
Posted by Mark Weiss
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 24, 2020 at 8:46 am

Actually Roger since you and your cohorts are the ones who changed Lytton Plaza to your specification which arguably was anti-first amendment anti-free-speech You should be leading the charge to make up for the additional costs of opening foothills park


Like this comment
Posted by Mark Weiss
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 24, 2020 at 8:49 am

[Post removed.]


Like this comment
Posted by Mark Weiss
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 24, 2020 at 8:51 am

[Post removed.]


20 people like this
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 24, 2020 at 8:56 am

>> It’s a preserve and can’t become a country version of a crowded city park overflowing with loud energy.

This is a key point which the "open it up" folks apparently are unwilling to take seriously. FHP was never intended to be that kind of "park". We already have and use Rinconada and Mitchell parks for that, and, share the space and noise with people from all over. In normal times, the activity, noise, and energy level at those parks is very high.

Seriously, if the park can't be maintained as a *quiet* city resource, let's sell it to MidPen for use as an Open Space preserve. FHP hasn't been a budget priority ever for the pro-development majority we have now on PACC. Let's let MidPen downscale it, remove the barbecues (fire season starts too early now anyway), and keep it as a quiet preserve.


11 people like this
Posted by tom kearns
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jul 24, 2020 at 10:35 am

I was at the park this morning. Not crowded at all. If no one is
being turned away (no guard at gate), why is this even an issue.
People with way too much time on their hands trying to fix a problem that doesn't appear to exist.


39 people like this
Posted by Jim H
a resident of Community Center
on Jul 24, 2020 at 10:59 am

I agree with the opinion piece. I particularly liked that it pointed out the great parks that we share with our neighbors. The park is open to anyone coming by bike. This is just another distraction issue. We have so many problems to solve in Palo Alto. This is not an issue and should not consume Palo Alto employee or council time.


30 people like this
Posted by ablt
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 24, 2020 at 11:14 am

Roger, thank you for this terrific opinion piece. You are an informed user of the park, as well as other available open space places in Palo Alto. This is not an issue for now, but can be decided by voters at another time. We have much more important budget necessities at this time.

Also, has there been mention of the current bathroom situation. It is in need of some maintenance and if we open up the park to greater numbers it needs to be enlarged. Money we do not have right now.


15 people like this
Posted by Robby M
a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Jul 24, 2020 at 12:07 pm

I grew up in LAH. Before I could drive, we would walk or bike to FHP and sneak in. It was part of that "greater backyard" we enjoyed as kids - within biking distance but not too far that we couldn't get home before dark. Criminalizing access to the park to the surrounding neighborhoods is very unneighborly.

Palo Alto is the heart of Silicon Valley. People from all over the world dream of coming here to start a business and change the world for the better. For such a progressive city with so much education and leadership, it's disappointing to see the selfishness and elitism that surfaces when this discussion continues to come up.

What a shame it would be if more municipalities followed Palo Alto's lead. Imagine if access to our coastlines or other treasures like state parks and forests was criminalized. Imagine if one couldn't visit the Grand Canyon if they weren't a resident of Arizona...


26 people like this
Posted by Dan
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Jul 24, 2020 at 12:15 pm

I'm a frequent user of the preserve and the last thing that I want to happen is that it's use ends up being a political sacrifice, with the residents of Palo Alto being the ones who suffer. Like Roger says, we have many, many open spaces in our city that are open, and used by all. This is a Preserve, not a park. And listening to people who say that we are racist because we want to conserve the environment of property that we bought is just ludicrous. Table the discussion and have the citizens of the city vote on it.


18 people like this
Posted by Michelle
a resident of Professorville
on Jul 24, 2020 at 12:21 pm

“In addition, gun violence also exists in our community and in the surrounding communities that have large numbers of Black and Hispanic citizens.”
Why was the above and other references to crime a relevant point to make in an opinion piece on opening up the park? Are you implying the park will become dangerous if more residents from neighboring communities are officially allowed to enjoy the park? I hope not.
Why not discuss the historical legacy of redlining that excluded Black residents from buying homes in Palo Alto? That would be far more relevant to this discussion and is why desegregation is an appropriate framework to discuss this issue. Read The Color of Law for a more thorough understanding of this history.
Finally, the BLM rallies are focused on racist policing. There are other rallies and movements laser focused on gun control laws - these movements are supported by many who are also supportive of BLM.
You wish you could ask the animals. That’s nice but why not also spend some time thinking about why Black residents of Palo Alto, including Judge La Doris Cordell, consider this an issue of great importance.


12 people like this
Posted by Margaret Petros
a resident of Los Altos
on Jul 24, 2020 at 1:17 pm

Roger, always rolling up your sleeves to do right by all people and by your community. It's nice to have an intelligent and sensible opinion shared for all to rationally think about, instead of a threat of a lawsuit! Suing the city for what? For carrying out their fiduciary responsibilities to their tax-payers, the Palo Altans? Here, in Los Altos, we have plenty of majestic nature space to enjoy on our own tax-payers' dime.


19 people like this
Posted by CrescentParkAnon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 24, 2020 at 3:13 pm

Thank you.
I agree, table this pointless non-issue, or better yet drop it altogether. If we need to go through all the reasons and all the history to drop it, then so be it, but better yet report on the who, what and why of this issue being given time and a certain urgency if not priority.


22 people like this
Posted by Public Good
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 24, 2020 at 4:23 pm

@Robby M,
"What a shame it would be if more municipalities followed Palo Alto's lead. Imagine if access to our coastlines or other treasures like state parks and forests was criminalized. Imagine if one couldn't visit the Grand Canyon if they weren't a resident of Arizona...

Palo Altans taxed themselves for a really long time to pay for this park purchase, which would have been a lot easier if their "neighbors" had joined in. Your message seems devoid of any gratitude for what you enjoyed as a child by taking advantage of what these citizens did, and full of condemnation. I'm sure if Los Altos Hills were to effectively split the cost in today's dollars, that its residents could be included.

As for your being holier than thou, I use the COUNTY library on Arastradero, which Los Altos proceeded to charge a hefty $80/year for per non-Los Altos patron after voting a bond to improve it, even though as a taxpayer in the county, I help subsidize the lending assets of that library, and the library was the source of a huge philanthropic donation (which ultimately led to the fee being ended, but not immediately).

If anything, charging a fee that stiff for library usage was a lot more unneighborly and, frankly, de facto racist.

Grand Canyon is a poor example as it is federal land that we all pay for, and Arizona benefits economically from the tourism. According to NPS, "A new National Park Service (NPS) report shows that the 6.3 million visitors to Grand Canyon National Park in 2018 spent $947 million in communities near the park. That spending supported 12,558 jobs in the local area and had a cumulative benefit to the local economy of $1.2 billion."

A lot of visitors to Foothill Park, on the other hand, only cost residents more money, and it's not likely to improve equity to open to nearby tony (white) Los Altos Hills and Woodside, two rich communities who didn't want to pay to buy and maintain the park. Again, speaking of unneighborly.


13 people like this
Posted by Public Good
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 24, 2020 at 4:48 pm

@Robby M,
"Imagine if access to our coastlines or other treasures like state parks and forests was criminalized."

Access to many of our federal treasures ARE effectively “criminalized", in that in so many aspects of our lives where there is federal jurisdiction, there is a void of clear rules, especially rules by which citizens can defend themselves if accused falsely. If someone is detained in many federal jurisdictions, like national parks, the government might assimilate a state code to charge people (they gave themselves permission to do that legally), but because what they are doing is ad hoc anyway, they typically will not allow use of the state code to defend against a false charge. There are next to zero lawyers who practice this kind of law, and so it's not a stretch to connect this circumstance with the low usage of the national parks by citizens of color.

Not that that's the worst problem related to this void of federal regulations (especially rights) where there is federal jurisdiction. It has resulted in a large percentage of the population, including many employer-based insured, federal employees, and Medicare patients, being unable to enforce their insurance contracts and ineligible to seek protection under well-developed state insurance codes or consumer medical protection agencies because of the federal jurisdiction (and lack of rules). Where there is an utter void of federal rules, including something as simple as traffic rules on federal bases and national parks, in contrast to what the 10th Amendment promises, the rights DON’T automatically go to the states or individuals.

Protestors detained in Portland who are detained on city streets may have a way to defend themselves, but if they are detained on federal property, good luck, there is nothing to protect them short of a federal case.

It's no accident that when the GOP wanted to criminalize black citizens/voters in the ‘80s, they first arrested/imprisoned a lot of black citizens under FEDERAL statutes. According to the ACLU "October 2, 2007 "The most recent government statistics available show that in 2005, African Americans constituted more than 80 percent of those sentenced to federal prison for crack cocaine offenses, even though two-thirds of crack cocaine users are white or Hispanic.” How could that happen? It’s not only racism in arrests. Where there is federal jurisdiction, people’s ability to defend themselves using the law almost doesn’t exist, because all the protections and protection institutions exist at the state level, and the feds assimilate the criminal codes to charge people without allow people to consider the rights in those codes as also being assimilated. The code of federal regulations has nothing at all like the kinds of well-developed rules, rights and protections in so many areas of our lives as states do.

So, actually, yes, our coastlines and federal treasures at least ARE effectively criminalized.


9 people like this
Posted by Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Jul 24, 2020 at 7:41 pm

Good POV - I agree. As we go through the summer we will have to close that park due to fire danger. We do not have the budget to support a full time fire crew in that area. Thank you - lots of valid points.


Like this comment
Posted by rsmithjr
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jul 24, 2020 at 10:25 pm

When I moved here over 50 years ago, my friends and I occasionally went to Foothill Park. We used a system of ferrying people in not unlike the missionary-and-cannibals problem.

Mostly, I went to parks in other areas, such as Golden Gate Park in SF, Huddart Park in San Mateo County, etc. in any event.

It is noteworthy that those other parks don't reject me because I don't live in their areas, but those of us here in Palo Alto don't seem to want to share and share alike.

I don't much care. I can still go back to missionaries-and-cannibals.

Agreed that this and all non-critical-now issues should be deferred until some sanity can return.


7 people like this
Posted by CrescentParkAnon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 25, 2020 at 2:47 am

> "What a shame it would be if more municipalities followed Palo Alto's lead.
> Imagine if access to our coastlines or other treasures like state parks and
> forests was criminalized.

Have you ever been to a state park or beach? Or you cheated the state and
just didn't pay the admission?

What a shame that you either do not understand what is going on her or that
you need to blatantly distort the truth so dishonestly, but that seems to be the
way of the troll.

Seriously, you need too be called out for what you are doing that is not helpful
to public discussion and making obviously twisted and broken analogies equating
the state's management of public spaces to this issue in Palo Alto is malicious to
the process of public discussion. Focus!

Posts like yours seem to be about toxifying the whole idea of democracy to serve
some hidden undemocratic agenda. I sure hope your conscience gnaws at you
and you try be more in line with reality in future comments.


9 people like this
Posted by Concerned About Palo Alto
a resident of Downtown North
on Jul 25, 2020 at 6:58 am

I can't say how deeply disappointed I am in Mr. Smith. This boils down to "nature and public parks are for me and not for thee."

Our community is better than this level of selfishness.


10 people like this
Posted by senor blogger
a resident of Palo Verde
on Jul 25, 2020 at 8:15 am

What a terrific opinion piece. Let's leave things as they are with the park. And forget the frivolous threats of a law suit. (from a retired judge of all things).


6 people like this
Posted by Robby M
a resident of Los Altos Hills
on Jul 25, 2020 at 11:33 am

"What a shame that you either do not understand what is going on her or that
you need to blatantly distort the truth so dishonestly, but that seems to be the
way of the troll."

Trolls tend to hide behind anonymous handles as clearly evidenced by these personal attacks on me for stating my opinion.

The history behind why FHP is private and other natural spaces are public happened long before I was born. I was simply trying to express how grateful I am that Palo Alto's approach to criminalizing access to parks and preserves is not more common.

This "we paid for it" attitude is silly. My grandparents raised one of my parents in Palo Alto during the period when the land became a park. Does it make any sense that someone who moved to Palo Alto last week has access but not someone who's tax dollars directly contributed to the acquisition and maintenance of the park? Of course not.

Open the park to the public and charge a non-resident parking fee. Stop being selfish by refusing others to access. Stop being elitist by suggesting the animals in the park don't want residents from other towns visiting. Or that only the gentle shepherds of Palo Alto can be trusted to maintain the land.

To the commenter mentioning the library: The Los Altos Library has always been open to the public just like all of our parks and open spaces. Even if your comment was accurate, I would remind you two wrongs don't make a right.


7 people like this
Posted by Public Good
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 25, 2020 at 12:26 pm

@Robby M
You can put your money where your mouth is. I am quite sure if neighboring communities like Los Altos Hills came through with cost sharing in todays dollars for their share of purchase and upkeep, that you could open access.

If two wrongs dont make a right, and you think the “we paid for it” argument is sillIy, then I expect Los Altos will make its schools open to everyone soon? At least to students in East Palo Alto as PAUSD does? Your arguments would be stronger without the hypocrisy. The $80/person/year was something I paid, but not before all my reserved materials were dumped and I had to wait up to six months for some of them again. Again, Los Altans did that because of their library bond, even though it’s a county library. As has been noted, PaloAlto has numerous parks that are available to everyone at no charge, and yet somehow this one that mainly Los Altos Hills has access to, is a problem for you. You know you could get your town to pay its share in todays dollars, have you troed approaching your own town to do that first? I’m not making a baseless charge to point out your hypocrisy. Rich Los Altos Hills residents are just trying to get a freebie at their less rich neighbors’ expense.


5 people like this
Posted by Public Good
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 25, 2020 at 12:38 pm

That is a good point. If people dont want to shelve this now, perhaps the city could come up with a good cost-sharing proposal for any communities around us that want to open things up, including the purchase in today’s dollars and any improvements, plus an upkeep cost-sharing proposal. For equity, everyone should shoulder the costs to include EPA. It will either settle this and provide a much-needed financial resource or it will shut up the hypocrites trying to exploit a social justice issue to leverage something unrelated that they turned down because they didnt want to pay for it. Let’s see how vociferous Robbie M is in asking his neighbors to pay their fair share for this.


6 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 25, 2020 at 12:58 pm

This morning in the park there was a traffic jam inside as people who wanted to park waited for other cars to leave and so many cars parking parallel that two cars could not pass on the roads. This was inside the park.

I saw trash, including fast food wrappers that I have not seen there before.

Now I have no objection to who uses the park, but it seems like this morning there were more problems with the numbers of visitors than I have seen before.

At what stage does the park become full? If there are only 1000 cars who counts before the ranger gets to the gate? Who goes around picking up the trash on the trails? Even the bathrooms were well used judging by toilet paper left after users had used it to open the doors without touching the handles.

It is getting hard to see any wildlife or even hear the birds due to the loud voices all over the trails. Many people are making it difficult to take a picture of nature as they do not appear to be aware of nature all around them, or that someone is pointing a camera.

If there is supposed to be a cap on the number of visitors, then why is that not being observed? All the recent publicity plus the fact that there is now so little that bored housebound people can do during the pandemic means that a lovely serene nature reserve is as busy as a top tourist attraction. I am half expecting to see food trucks arrive! (sarcasm)


6 people like this
Posted by Public Good
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 25, 2020 at 3:01 pm

There was some land added later, and I can't remember how much that cost, but I'm guessing the cost of purchasing it in today's dollars, including the added land, the extra cost of financing it, the cost of amenities, etc, are going to be under $30million (maybe well under). It costs about $50,000/year to fill the lake, plus other costs. Let's assume with staff for the programs, upkeep, etc, overhead, we're talking $750,000/year?

So, what do you think Los Altos Hills? If you can get just one more community join, it will seem like a bargain.

I say we offer it to the complainers to help purchase it now, and if they join in, we open it.


10 people like this
Posted by Public Good
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 25, 2020 at 3:02 pm

Hmmm... I wonder if the publicity surrounding Los Altos Hills residents calling for it to be open will increase fire danger for LAH through the overuse. That would be ironic.


13 people like this
Posted by merry
a resident of Palo Alto Hills
on Jul 25, 2020 at 7:15 pm

Why is this about race? If u live in PA u r good to go.
If not, make a friend and be a guest.
This is not complicated .


9 people like this
Posted by Public Good
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 25, 2020 at 7:50 pm

@merry,
There is a legitimate argument to be made that redlining has affected how many people of color live in Palo Alto. However, the people who are making the argument are mainly the rich more white people of Los Altos Hills who declined to pay for the park when they had the chance and they understood the implications of that -- they didn't care. So if they want access now, or to open access, they should ask Palo Alto and agree to split the costs in todays dollars, not be monumental hypocrites and use social justice arguments to get access for themselves for free, when all they would be doing would be discouraging use of the park by people of color by making it richer and whiter.


15 people like this
Posted by Hmmm
a resident of East Palo Alto
on Jul 25, 2020 at 8:07 pm

As an East Palo Alto resident and Palo Alto native I agree this isn’t the right time for the discussion. I don’t miss access to the park and have always been aware of its history. It was never about denying access to low income and/or POC; it was always about keeping out all the riff raff who said no thanks to sharing the costs with Palo Alto.


8 people like this
Posted by Jennifer Wu
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jul 25, 2020 at 10:21 pm

Not just now. Ever. There is simply no reason why this park should ever be opened to non-residents.


4 people like this
Posted by CrescentParkAnon.
a resident of Crescent Park
on Jul 26, 2020 at 1:10 am

Public Good
> it will shut up the hypocrites trying to exploit a social justice issue to leverage something unrelated that they turned down because they didnt want to pay for it.

Public Good, I like that comment, because I think you hit on the latest excuse for whoever it is to try to make this THE issue with the park and ignore all the other components.

One might think doesn't this at some point, when the park is paid for, a civilized society let bygones be bygones. After a generation, two, three ... five? I say this because I don't think the issue is wholly about money and who paid for the park.

After all there are a lot of non-Palo Altans who had no say in what their cities might have done about this decision.

There are Palo Altans who did not pay a penny except in some esoterically indirect way perhaps in the cost of their houses or rents.

I think this is mostly about keeping the traffic down and limited to people who feel a sense of care and ownership of Foothills Park.

The reason people feel they can roll out these guilt-tripping strategies is that it seems this is an unusual arrangement that is not copied anywhere else locally and seems off to people who don't give it much thought.

The major problem, if there is even a problem, is in the history of the park and taking care of it in a way a lot of other places are not taken care of.


8 people like this
Posted by resident 2
a resident of Barron Park
on Jul 26, 2020 at 11:58 am

I agree with Resident, it is getting crowded since the pandemic. I never go much anymore, the park is mostly ruined...and it's not even opened up yet. Cars, crowds, picnics its awful. Even had a drone flying around (fire hazard and just plain annoying and ugly) called ranger he never showed up. I think they are mostly staying out of site for their own protection from covid.

It was such a nice and quiet place....Oh an by the way to the, "open it up cuz its racists if you don't" crowd, many if not most of the people I see there now are not white...are you happy now?

But anyway covid ruined the park, it's just like any other open space in the bay area...CROWDED.


6 people like this
Posted by Harry
a resident of Charleston Meadows
on Jul 27, 2020 at 11:24 am

Frankly it would be a bad time to open Foothills Park to the public due to the covid-19 epidemic. Palo Alto have very few cases and very few deaths and exposing Palo Alto citizens to the masses could create a severe health issue for Palo Alto residents.


10 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Midtown
on Jul 27, 2020 at 8:05 pm

There is an interesting article in todays Daily Post written by editor Dave Price.
He submitted a public records act, and not one person was arrested or given a ticket in violation with the ban at FHP in a two year period ending 12-31-19.

P.S. It is todays print, not on line.


Like this comment
Posted by Cal Ave resident
a resident of College Terrace
on Jul 30, 2020 at 6:02 pm

Open the park to everyone. Close the park to cars. Create a safe, car free bike route from downtown.

The problem isn’t access for people. It’s assuming that everything should be accessible by car all the time, for free. If you do keep access for cars, charge for it. Make the bike option better and cheaper.

The problem isn’t the park, it’s your fixation on driving and parking.


Like this comment
Posted by Seeking Fairness
a resident of University South
on Jul 31, 2020 at 1:27 pm

Roger Smith and fellow Palo Altan elitists:

Keep your park to yourselves, but in fairness to the rest of the County, I hope you are not hypocritical enough to feel like you or your family can come out of your bubble into neighboring cities to shop, dine, visit medical professionals, attend entertainment/sporting events, work, seek county/state services, etc.

You are clogging up our roadways and using up our valuable, limited resources.


Like this comment
Posted by Grandma Afraid of Palo Altan Elitist Virus
a resident of another community
on Jul 31, 2020 at 5:52 pm

Harry:
You express concern that exposing “Palo Alto citizens to the masses (at your park) could create a severe health issue for Palo Alto residents.”

Do you think for one moment that the minimum wage Essential Workers who have been cleaning and renovating your homes, mowing your lawns, serving you your outdoor dining meal, delivering your Door Dash meals, or delivering your Amazon orders during this pandemic are Palo Alto residents? I think not. Shame on you.


Like this comment
Posted by Anon
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 31, 2020 at 5:56 pm

Posted by Cal Ave resident, a resident of College Terrace

>> Open the park to everyone. Close the park to cars. Create a safe, car free bike route from downtown.

I agree with you that cars are a large part (but not all of) the issue. But, what route do you have in mind? Can you lay it out for us? Is there a viable path that doesn't require, say, shutting down Page Mill Road to auto traffic? I would love a good bike route up there that doesn't require riding up Page Mill, but, I don't expect to see it any time soon.


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

Email:


Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.


Get fact-based reporting on the COVID-19 crisis sent to your inbox daily.

Fighting an 'uphill battle,' Palo Alto's longtime MacArthur Park to close until 2021
By Elena Kadvany | 1 comment | 4,324 views

Do peaceful protests do any good? How about the more violent ones?
By Diana Diamond | 7 comments | 2,463 views

Traffic Lights for the Whole Family
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,729 views

Did a hedge fund just steal your EV rebate?
By Sherry Listgarten | 0 comments | 1,178 views

Tough back-to-school decisions
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 304 views