Foothills Preserve Lawsuit - Survey Results

foothills-park-entrance-1280x720.png

We invited you to respond to our survey on the Foothills Preserve Lawsuit. 

PURPOSE: The results of this survey will be used to inform Councilmember Lydia Kou of resident's opinions and will be made public before the November 2 Council meeting where action on the Foothills Preserve lawsuit will be decided.


INTRODUCTION: On August 3, 2020 the Palo Alto City Council voted 5-2 to:

  1. approve renaming Foothills Park to be a Nature Preserve,
  2. approve a revenue-neutral pilot program to allow a limited number of non-residents to enter the Preserve without needing to be a guest of a Palo Alto resident, and
  3. encourage the next City Council to put forward a ballot measure on the access rules in 2022.

Fifty days later, a small group of individuals filed a lawsuit against Palo Alto to force the immediate removal of the resident + guest restriction. This lawsuit is backed by local chapters of the NAACP and ACLU and a high-power law firm doing pro bono work for the ACLU. On October 19, the City Council voted in closed (confidential) session to settle the lawsuit with the public vote coming on November 2.

RESOURCES: The text of the lawsuit and a blog critiquing it. There is also a blog about settling this lawsuit.

SUMMARY OF RESULTS: A total of 10 questions were presented to the public. There were over 800 respondents to the questionnaire.

A MAJORITY OF RESPONDENTS:

  1. Want the Foothills Preserve to be reserved for Palo Alto residents only.
  2. Want the City of Palo Alto to actively defend itself against the lawsuit.
  3. Do not believe the lawsuit will damage the reputation of the City
  4. Believe the City should protect its democratic decision making process
  5. Believe failure to defend the City will encourage more nuisance lawsuits
  6. Believe the plaintiff's argument of racial discrimination is not valid
  7. Believe that the area in question should be considered a 'nature preserve'
  8. Do not believe the plaintiff's argument of 'free speech' influenced their preference
  9. Are strongly concerned that the Council decision in 'closed session' lacked transparency

The details of the results are provided below.

 

 

Foothills_Lawsuit_Survey_Header.PNG

Foothills_Lawsuit_Survey_Question_1.PNG

Foothills_Lawsuit_Survey_Question_2.PNG

Foothills_Lawsuit_Survey_Question_3.PNG

Foothills_Lawsuit_Survey_Question_4.PNG

Foothills_Lawsuit_Survey_Question_5.PNG

Foothills_Lawsuit_Survey_Question_6.PNG

Foothills_Lawsuit_Survey_Question_6a.PNG

Foothills_Lawsuit_Survey_Question_6b.PNG

Foothills_Lawsuit_Survey_Question_7.PNG

Foothills_Lawsuit_Survey_Question_8.PNG

Foothills_Lawsuit_Survey_Question_9.PNG

Foothills_Lawsuit_Survey_Question_10.PNG


Showing 1 reaction

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Web Master
    published this page in News 2020-11-02 15:19:53 -0800