Before moving to Menlo Park, I lived in Palo Alto and enjoyed visiting Foothill Park.
I miss it. Still, my understanding was that this land was given to Palo Alto on the condition that it be restricted to residents of Palo Alto. There were no restrictions regarding ethnicities. Can Palo Alto legally ignore the conditions of this land donation, i.e., that it be restricted to residents of Palo Alto?

Occasionally, members of my family enroll in City of Menlo Park Parks and Recreation Commission's classes and such. Being honest folk, as residents of West Menlo, i.e., as non-citizens of that fine municipality, we always 'fess up to being residents of the unincorporated lands, and pay the higher non-resident fee. We don't see this as any infringement of our First Amendment freedom of speech or our right to peaceably assemble -- nor would we even if forbidden admission entirely: Menlo's parks and recreation facilities were built and paid for, and owned, by Menlo Parkers, and we're clear on the meaning of "not ours".

I've bicycled past Foothill Park hundreds of times, but never set foot inside it -- because I'm clear on this possibly elusive "not mine" concept: If memory serves, Palo Alto requested help at the time from surrounding communities (including mine), for paying that substantial purchase bill, but nobody lifted a finger to assist. Palo Altans were thus obliged to go it alone, and so received sole title. Personally, I respect that.

-- Rick Moen
(Web-search my name, if my e-mail address is ever needed)

At long last, I can remove the "No Parking for Residents of Palo Alto" sign in front of my house.