Spectrum Editorials, letters and opinions
Feasibility for Baylands Editor, We often go out to the Baylands — we love it, especially in the early morning and late afternoon. I hope Measure E passes. A complete feasibility study can then be done. If the project is feasible then several percent of the cost can be creatively spent for Baylands mitigation — perhaps more accessibility and interpretation. If not feasible, we will seldom linger in the ten acres next to our sewer plant. Sam Halsted Kipling Street Palo Alto
Wet compost Editor, This is in regard to Palo Alto’s Measure E, about the undedication of parkland at the Bay for the possibility of an anaerobic digester for sewage sludge and the creation of compost. I do understand that it is the wet anaerobic digester that the proponents now favor. However, I would not want to use compost that has residue of sewage sludge in it. That residue could be toxic, and I would not use it for my tomatoes or other edibles. No one has yet addressed this issue. How safe would such compost, made from sewage sludge and food waste, be for vegetable gardens? And would the compost also include yard trimmings as it has in the past? Natalie Fisher Ellsworth Avenue Palo Alto
Sustainable waste Editor, I sat attentively at the Palo Alto Chamber debate (Oct. 11) over Measure E, regarding Byxbee Park’s 10 acres. I did my best, even wrote down all the opponents talking points (42 total) as to why I should vote no on E. I heard so much fear, uncertainty and doubt, when the meeting ended I couldn’t recall from my notes any rational reason. Voting no was all emotional. If any data was present it was exaggerated. I asked two attendees to give me one main reason why I should vote no. I got repeats of the emotional stuff twice. My vote is yes on E. We need to live and process our waste more sustainably and this is the best option presented. Greg Bell Cowper Street Palo Alto
E proponents ignore facts Editor, Proponents of Measure E carefully ignore facts and reality, appealing to emotions and fond wishes. In fact no facility capable of dry anaerobic digestion of biosolids, food scraps and yard trimmings has been built or operated anywhere. Attempting to verify such a facility is possible will cost tens of millions of dollars. The low range of 20-year operating costs are given as $60 to $96 million with
15 percents from grants assuming land value and rent are zero. The high range is $202 to $294 million. If land value and rent are included the true minimum cost would be $96 to $134 million, and the high range would be $240 to $332 million. The cheapest alternative is composting food scraps and yard trimmings in Gilroy and anaerobic digestion of biosolids at RWQCP which ranges from $77 million to $89 million in the low range and $112 to $134 million in the high range, including land rent. Supposedly undedicating parkland per Measure E is easy to reverse. Even if no facility is built there will be consequences. If conversion of the dump to parkland is delayed for 10 years construction costs certainly will be much higher. Spending excessively on waste processing can destroy a community’s finances. Harrisburg, Penn., recently declared bankruptcy due to hundreds of millions spent on a waste facility that never operated adequately. We can’t afford to risk our financial viability on fond hopes and grand dreams. Vote No on Measure E. Bob Moss Orme Street Palo Alto
Good for the environment Editor, Much has been said about Measure E circumventing the environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act by not preparing an Environmental Impact Report before the vote. As it turns out, CEQA review is not required for proposals placed on the ballot by initiative (Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines). Beyond that, there are common sense reasons for delaying the review, namely that an adequate review cannot be conducted for a “project” that does not yet have a secured location and is not fully defined. In development, like the rest of the economy, uncertainty equals risk; until the 10 acres of landfill next to the sewage plant are undedicated, the proposed composting facility lacks a secure site, making the investment in an EIR a much more risky proposition. If we want the opportunity to attract private sector financing, this will likely be the first step. Similarly, without a secured location, it is much more difficult to determine critical pieces of information like building design, size, site coverage, traffic access, volumes of materials to be processed, etc. When there is a defined project a full environmental review should be conducted according to law. All impacts, including those to air, water, noise, odor, traffic, wildlife, land use, etc. should be identified and mitigated. Perhaps this is why former California Assemblymember John T. Knox, author of CEQA, has endorsed the “Yes on Measure E” campaign. In his
Page 14ÊUÊ"VÌ LiÀÊÓn]ÊÓ䣣ÊUÊ*> Ê Ì Ê7ii Þ
words, “Measure E is good for the environment. That’s why I endorse it.” Lynnie Melena Magnolia Drive Palo Alto
Editorial The Weekly recommends ... Measure D, to repeal binding arbitration, vote yes. Measure E, to undedicate 10 acres of parkland, vote yes.
E is the future Editor, As a parent of a high school student, a college student and a recent college graduate, their support for Measure E came naturally and selfishly. Measure E and the associated development of a local organic conversion facility builds an interesting and engaging future for Palo Alto’s next generation. Students and recent grads rally to Palo Alto’s leadership in green technology — green tech will keep coming to Palo Alto and with the associated opportunities. The project will continue to engage Stanford research where our local treatment and organic management is at the forefront of technology. The project excites the local green tech venture community furthering our business growth in this arena. The project reveals the positive and scientific climate choices that inform discussion in high school environmental studies classes. The project brings the prospect of green jobs to Palo Alto, a common agony for recent graduates. There is no engagement or opportunities by voting no — the ten acres will just sit as disturbed land idle into the future. So as parents, when you look at the ballot choice, talk to your kids. Know that Measure E’s outcome will build a richer environment, economy, and opportunities. There are no guarantees, but as we set the correct course for Palo Alto, supporting Measure E is where to point the future’s compass. Bob Wenzlau Dana Avenue Palo Alto
A tough choice Editor, Measure E was a tough choice. I am passionate about zero waste, climate protection, and open space. I am open to the possibility of siting wind or solar power facilities on what is today dedicated parkland: it is true that climate change is our generation’s defining challenge and we have to be open to re-examining our assumptions. It’s a new world we live in. But ultimately I came down on the side of “No on E.” Ten acres is huge: 40-50 times the average home lot size. The impact of a large processing plant in the baylands will be significant so the tradeoff better be compelling. In fact, San Jose is moving forward on a regional anaerobic digester. It’s great for Palo Alto to be a regional leader but it doesn’t all have to be on our lands. We already commit 170 acres of our baylands to a regional golf course and 102 acres to a regional airport.
Closing the carbon cycle locally is a great goal. But we need to think in the most integrated and holistic way. There is much we can do to reduce the volume of green waste we generate. The right landscape plants, especially bay-friendly native plants, require little pruning and also save time, water, money and fertilizers. In sum, we can work past this dilemma by working on a mix of regional cooperation, city leadership and making changes in each of our households and businesses. Vote no on E. Yoriko Kishimoto Embarcadero Road Palo Alto
Sustainability solutions Editor, Measure E is a good solution to our current garbage problem. Since my home is too small to maintain a compost pile, a local anaerobic digester
will make it possible for me to compost my garden scraps. The separate curbside pickup of such compostables and recycling should bring into sharp relief the truly wasteful parts of our life, like packaging. We have a precedent in using parkland for an important community use: My local park has a chunk taken out of it for the community garden. I am not allowed to go into that part of the park, there is a sign warning me to stay out. The residents decided at some point that the self-sufficiency provided by the garden is worth the sacrifice of a piece of the public park. I believe the same holds true of our need to undedicate a corner of the former dump. Measure E is not risky nor expensive, since it does not require the city to build anything. All the measure does is open up the possibility of building an anaerobic digester on a small piece of the former dump. This
YOUR TURN The Palo Alto Weekly encourages comments on our coverage or on issues of local interest.
What do you think? Do you think the Opportunity Center is a community asset? Submit letters to the editor of up to 250 words to letters@paweekly.com. Include your name, address and daytime phone number so we can reach you. We reserve the right to edit contributions for length, objectionable content, libel and factual errors known to us. Anonymous letters will generally not be accepted. You can also participate in our popular interactive online forum, Town Square, at our community website at www.PaloAltoOnline.com. Read blogs, discuss issues, ask questions or express opinions with you neighbors any time, day or night. Submitting a letter to the editor or guest opinion constitutes a granting of permission to the Palo Alto Weekly and Embarcadero Media to also publish it online, including in our online archives and as a post on Town Square. For more information contact Editor Jocelyn Dong or Online Editor Tyler Hanley at editor@paweekly.com or 650-326-8210.