https://mv-voice.com/square/print/2020/09/15/palo-alto-faces-lawsuit-over-residents-only-policy-at-foothills-park


Town Square

Palo Alto faces lawsuit over 'residents-only' policy at Foothills Park

Original post made on Sep 16, 2020

A group of civil rights organizations and residents filed a lawsuit against Palo Alto on Tuesday in a bid to repeal a contentious law that bans non-Palo Altans from visiting Foothills Park unless accompanied by a city resident.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Tuesday, September 15, 2020, 5:02 PM

Comments

Posted by "Public" property
a resident of Slater
on Sep 16, 2020 at 8:13 am

"Public" property is a registered user.

So is there a right to assemble and speak out at Palo Alto High School or other locally owned and restricted schools and on other "public" property? Is a city's property "public" property in the sense that each person's "private" property is owned and controlled by all ,private" persons? Public property will be owned and controlled by every member of the public - in the world. And private property will be owned and controlled by every person and business not in the "public sector." Is that the proposition? Your house is my house. Stop discriminating against me. I want your food too. Protests. Everywhere - anytime - all of the time. How about protests in locker rooms when school is in session? Protest the rule against outsiders! Maybe protest the dependence on passenger vehicles on Highway 101. Protest 24-hours/day. Stop that traffic. A city police car is "public" property. Maybe protest in the back seat about not being allowed to drive it.


Posted by Rodger
a resident of Sylvan Park
on Sep 17, 2020 at 3:10 pm

Rodger is a registered user.

It’s ok if they keep us out of their park just keep them out of city parks like Shoreline park


Posted by USA
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Sep 17, 2020 at 5:54 pm

USA is a registered user.

There are so many parks around here. Is it really worth all the fuss about one park that is owned by a city?