The disparate impact is surely an outcome of historic policies of racial exclusion. But equally surely, it's not unconstitutional in general for Palo Alto to have nice things because of nasty policies they had in the past. So there has to be some middle ground.
Does the park cease to be nice if non-residents are allowed into it? Should a city be able to decide whether non-residents can use its sidewalks, in order to make the city "nice"?
