Where? AFAIK gated neighborhoods are common all across the US, and in many cases (though not all) the roads within such neighborhoods are still owned by the city.
edit: after looking into it, it appears that one common scenario is for an HOA to enter an agreement with the city where the city continues to provide street services on the community streets even though the streets are owned by the HOA. I'm not sure if that was the situation with my parents hood, but it certainly muddles the water a bit.
>With regard to law enforcement, the Texas Penal Code defines a “public place” as any place to which the public or a substantial group of the public has access and includes, but is not limited to, streets ... In Woodruff v. State, 899 S.W.2d 443, 445-46 (Tex. App.–Austin 1995, no pet.), the defendant was arrested for driving while intoxicated on the grounds of Bergstrom Air Force Base. The court held that Bergstrom was a public place, even though it was fenced and the only entrance was through a guarded access gate. Is a gated community a place where a “substantial group of the public” has access? The answer is unclear. Some city police departments may adopt a policy to respond to certain types of calls from gated communities, but not others. Again, the problem involves the provision of public funds for private purposes, which is prohibited by the Constitution and state law.
From http://www.jgradyrandlepc.com/local-governmental-entities/ga...
Here in Toronto, the libraries are open to the public. Borrowing material or using their online facilities requires membership, still known as "having a library card," and for that you need to live, work, or study in Toronto.
(Update, courtesy xatt: There are also paid memberships available for those who don't qualify for free membership, approximately CAD10/month: https://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/using-the-library/your-l.... But physical access to the library is free to everyone.)
I also think there are other allowances, such as if you care for a relative who lives there, but the gist is:
1. Anybody can walk in and use the physical library, and; 2. There are additional resources for those who have a connection to the jurisdiction.
There are similar things around community centres. During public swim, everybody can swim. During certain programs, you may need to be a member of the facility. I am aware that some physical parks have special programs, and you may need to register with the city and be a resident to use them.
But the park itself is public, and anybody can go there. You just may not be able to drop into an outdoor yoga program.
So clearly, we have a two-tier system, and the broadest tier is literally "everyone." The second tier is the size of a municipality.
In a certain very generous sense, Toronto's libraries, community centres, and park programs are similar to "gated" parks for a neighbourhood, as they have some features/programs that require membership and/or some connection to the municipality.
But in another, they are manifestly different. Neighbourhood parks are usually set up to exclude "the wrong people." They're about constructing gated communities, with all the classist and racist implications associated with these structures.
Whereas, public libraries are exactly what they say on the tin: They're for the public. Rich, poor, from near, or far.
https://www.torontopubliclibrary.ca/using-the-library/your-l...
I'm surprised at that. Here in the UK you can generally get a temporary library card pretty easily (as in, walk up to the counter and fill out a form and get one there and then easy) if you don't live in the area
I think that the reality for the underclass in the US is that in theory, public services, voting, parks, community centres, education, jobs, and so forth are equally available, but that is not how it works in practice.
What would be the solution to the much bigger problem you're bringing up? Perhaps the problem is that we allow our citizens to become poor in the US, not that we have some of our public facilities located near rich people?
This is also emblematic of Palo Alto for me: hypocrisy through and through. Residents make a big fuss about being liberal: signs up on every other house declaring the occupants' high-minded support of illegal immigrants, gay, transgender, and bi people, the "reality" of science, and so on. At the same time, the city rips up comfortable benches on the sidewalks and puts in benches that are so uncomfortable, they make you think why the city bothered with this stuff (as you can guess, they are there to discourage homeless/indigent people from sleeping on them). City residents also made a big fuss about a neighborhood (private) girls' school from expanding enrollment (lots of flimsy reasons given, but the real reason is that the increase in traffic would have made a small dent in already astronomical home values).
I could go on and on, but on the whole, my take on this: Serves them right, and they deserve to lose. We need more cases like this to show these people they still live in the United States.
In a nutshell, the basis is: - Restricts right of travel, which is considered a fundamental right that has been repeatedly reaffirmed by the Supreme Courts of both the state and the country. - Restricts free speech: people are being barred from exercising political speech (or speech of any kind) inside the park. - Restricts freedom of assembly: Peaceful gatherings in the park to discuss these things are barred.
Basically, the beef is with the ordinances that fine and enforcement that harasses people who will enter the park anyway.
EDIT: There is another interesting basis: One of the plaintiffs is a black store owner (store located in Palo Alto), who pays taxes to the city (that presumably contribute to the upkeep of the park), but still can't enter the park, because she lives in Menlo Park, a neighboring town. So what is the basis for excluding her from the park? It seems to me that 'residents pay taxes but others do not' is not a valid argument for barring access to nonresidents, if you consider the plaintiff's complaint.
Also, do the merits of the case change if the plaintiff was a white store owner? Why is their race relevant?
Palo Alto is a neighbor of East Palo Alto, which is on the (less desirable) bay shore. There have been racist covenants and exclusionary policies applied towards colored people in the past in Palo Alto, resulting in Palo Alto becoming majority white and East Palo Alto becoming majority colored. All of this is known fact, and lends credence to the complaint.
Personally, I think the case has merit even without the race aspect. But the race aspect certainly bolsters plaintiffs' arguments.
If that’s what they win on, then it isn’t somehow the end of residency-restricted public parks writ large, it’s probably the end of residency restricted public parks near EPA.
It would helpful to be more specific or name some names. I've entered libraries across the U. S. having never once been asked for a card of any sort.
I know universities are somewhat of a different environment, but it does point out that restricting public access to publicly-funded property isn't as wildly farfetched and unacceptable as some other comments in this thread portray.
Whatever article/amendment of the US Constitution proscribes restriction to local parks on the basis of residency would ostensibly also proscribe any public government institution from discriminating on the basis of residency.