[seasoup]

California has a shameful past of adding racist restrictions into real estate through title documents and other means (ex. "no person of any race other than the Caucasian or white race" may use or occupy the property, with the exception of "domestic servants of a different race domiciled with an owner or tenant."). This meant as neighborhoods built up and out, people were excluded from them on the basis of race. Home values go up, and the wealth of those allowed to purchase property goes up along with it.

After some time, those restrictions became legally unenforceable, and then over more time more and more of those restrictions have eased and now things are a lot more egalitarian on the surface, but the racial discrimination of the past has already done its harm and contributed to white wealth and black and brown poverty and now these neighborhoods maintain their racial disparities without having to have it encoded in law. So, having residents-only restrictions on parks are, intentionally or unintentionally or accidentally on purpose, a way of keeping people out of the park based on race, and thus, unconstitutional.

[squidlogic]

You can argue that historical actions have caused unequal outcomes, but that doesn't mean that today this decision [to make access to a park based on residence] is racist. That doesn't logically follow.

[seasoup]

People are still being excluded because of their race, it doesn't matter if you changed the rules once that exclusion was locked in or not. That's a bait and switch justification.

[TheAdamAndChe]

Your logic doesn't follow. I'm white. I don't live in Palo Alto. I wouldn't be allowed in.

[seasoup]

Something can be racist by affecting some races more than others, it's not binary.

[pvg]

The park has had that restriction almost since the day it was opened. In 1965.

[atomi]

I wouldn't say that it's California exactly that has that shameful past.

[JoeAltmaier]

Never mind Californa, Oregon has a long and violent history.