Town Square

Post a New Topic

On Deadline: It's name-calling, fact-enhancing compost season in Palo Alto

Original post made by Jay Thorwaldson, editor emeritus, on Mar 28, 2011

When the City Council officially set a special election for next November on the future of a corner of Palo Alto's baylands last week it opened the season of pre-election name calling and exaggeration that accompanies most elections, local, state and national.

This story contains 795 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.

Comments (11)

Like this comment
Posted by Craig Laughton
a resident of College Terrace
on Mar 28, 2011 at 6:28 pm

"In November, Palo Altans will be asked to decide whether keeping a composting operation local and using it to generate electricity through an anaerobic-digestion system that produces methane gas, which can power electricity generators"


The way I understand it, the voters of Palo Alto will be asked whether they want to undedicate 10 acres of parkland. There is no mandate to force anaerobic digestion.

You seem to have drunk the kool aid of anaerobic digestion, and you also seem to be promoting that solution as a 'best use' alternative for those 10 acres.

Please correct me, if I am wrong, Jay.



Like this comment
Posted by Cedric de La Beaujardiere
a resident of Barron Park
on Mar 29, 2011 at 1:20 am

Cedric de La Beaujardiere is a registered user.

Thank you for your article, Jay. Any name calling is unfortunate, I hope we can all try to keep the discussion respectful, focus on the issues and refrain from personal attacks. I appreciate Emily's and Enid's historic accomplishments to protect parks and baylands, leaving Palo Altans with, if i recall correctly, one of the highest per-capita park acreages in the region. But I happen to disagree with them as to the best use of these 10 acres of the landfill next to the sewage treatment plant. This site is the ONLY place which can allow us to handle our own wastes, reduce our green house gas emissions, and save the city money. This is the only workable site because of its size, its adjacency to the sewage treatment plant, its not being airport or commercial property, and because all the regional solutions outside Palo Alto are more expensive. (For my costs analysis, see Web Link)

A small correction to Jay's quote of Peter: the 12,000 tons of CO2-equivalents is not just trucking, but is the difference between digesting and composting our municipal organic wastes locally versus trucking our food and yard wastes "away" and continuing to incinerate or sewage.
The 20,000 tons CO2 is the approximate difference between the local option of AD and Composting compared to what we are doing now (which is incinerating sewage, composting yard wastes at the landfill, sending some food to Gilroy for composting, and sending most food to the landfill where it releases methane, a potent GHG, to the atmosphere).

Craig is correct that the initiative only makes the 10 acres available "for conversion of organic wastes by biological and/or other equally environmentally protective technology" (Web Link). It does not mandate a particular technology. Wet or Dry AD are the leading contenders, but there are other emerging technologies which _might_ fit the bill.

Like this comment
Posted by svatoid
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Mar 29, 2011 at 8:17 am

Too bad that Jay, in his zeal to complain about name-calling and exaggeration, could not bother to get the facts right in his posting. Talk about exaggeration--Jay could not even get the facts on what we really be voting on in November right!!!!!
Is Jay also claiming that Renzel and Drekmeier are guilty of exaggeration??

Like this comment
Posted by Emily Renzel
a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 29, 2011 at 1:42 pm

I urge voters to visit the Web Link noted above in Cedric de la Beaujardiere's posting and READ the Initiative language. After 10 findings, all but one discussing green energy and compost, with only (h) even mentioning undedication of parkland, there is a property description (for the map Exhibit A) which says,"thence from said True Point of Beginning the following four (4) courses and distances..." I may be reading it wrong, but there appear to be six (6) courses and distances ie. 209.06 feet, 276.48 feet, 180.61 feet, 652.20 feet, 633.72 feet and 671.94 feet. Hmmmm --ever heard of a six-sided rectangle?

Findings (f) and (j) suggest that revenues will flow to the General Fund from this project. The Feasibility Study shows all the revenues flowing to the private developer of the anaerobic facility (AD) for their 25% return on investment. The only monies that could flow to the General Fund would be RENT for the 10.1 acre site, but AD advocates have now been requesting that NO rent be charged for the parkland, because if the true value of the land were included, the project would not be feasible.

Proponents' literature showed a photo of the facility with a Green Roof, so that the true nature of this industrial facility next to Byxbee Park was not shown. No one is mentioning that any more because it would add a minimum of $4-$6 million to the already high cost of AD.

Section (3) makes a blanket amendment to the Baylands Master Plan (2008 update) saying "All language elsewhere in the Plan would be inoperative". That's a Pig in a Poke and totally disrespectful of the thousands of people hours spent planning for our precious Baylands.

Voters should say NO to this ill-thought out proposal and Byxbee Park should be completed as planned.

Like this comment
Posted by curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Mar 29, 2011 at 3:43 pm

curmudgeon is a registered user.

Both Mr Thorwaldson and Ms Renzel make good points. However, my opinion is that truth is paramount.

The proponents of this measure should come clean about two major points:

1. The nicely buried and groomed facility they front on their website has no chance to be built. The city's consultant is not even evaluating the feasibility, let alone the cost, of that option. The facilities actually being considered resemble a cross between a big warehouse complex and an oil refinery. Members of the public can see photos of actual plants at Web Link. Look at the last half of "Attachment H."

2. Its backers need to be clear that their initiative would only remove 10 acres -- an area roughly the size of Pardee Park -- from the Palo Alto park system. It does not mandate that an anerobic digester plant be constructed. They ought, in the interest of truthfulness, to cease their claims that this initiative will build a "garbage-to-power" plant in Palo Alto. It does no such thing.

I highly recommend that voters read the actual text of the initiative.

Like this comment
Posted by Jay Thorwaldson
editor emeritus
on Mar 30, 2011 at 7:44 am

Jay Thorwaldson is a registered user.

Hi -- I actually have not reached a personal conclusion on whether this project should proceed or not. It would clearly intrude on dedicated parkland, particularly visually, through truck traffic and the irritating beep-beep-beep of backing up vehicles moving compost and materials around the site. But images of huge buildings (already produced by opponents a few months ago) clearly exaggerate the impact. It is true the vote in November would technically only "undedicate" the 10 acres, not mandate a particular project or design. But practically speaking there is no other use that anyone would dare put there than the latest design for a low-profile, partly underground (or covered with a ground-level grass roof) facility. The project and its economic and environmental features will be a major part of the campaign, as it was of the signature-gathering effort that led to the initiative election. I am well aware of the bitter fight Enid Pearson led to get parks dedicated back in 1965, and Emily Renzel's consistent efforts to protect and expand such dedications. This proposal should not be taken lightly -- but the project is complicated enough that both sides would do voters a favor by being accurate in their information. -jay

Like this comment
Posted by svatoid
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Mar 30, 2011 at 7:58 am

Good points, Crumudgeon and Jay. The question is, can the out of control environmentalists that are pushing this issue be accurate in their zeal to push through their latest grandiose scheme? I have found that these environmentalists tend to filter everything through their green prism (with the attitude that their belief is the right one and they are "saving" the environment) irregardless of cost and/or impact on the community.
I also expect neither side to flood our mailboxes with mailings about this election nor do I expect to see any signs planted in front yards, since that would be bad for the environment.

Like this comment
Posted by Emily Renzel
a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 30, 2011 at 8:59 am

Dear Jay: We did not produce images of the AD facilities several months ago. The Consultant ARI produced them and they are actual examples proudly submitted by the 7 vendors who responded to ARI's request for proposals. We have to assume that they are somewhat prototypical of what will be built in our baylands. They will not put the buildings underground for several reasons: 1) It is costly to dig down into former landfill; 2) The baylands are prone to flooding and 3) for seismic safety, the buildings will all be pile supported.. As for a Green Roof, it costs a minimum of $25 to $40/square foot and was not included in any of the ARI analyses. I'm still waiting for the web site to download using Curmudgeons link, but you can see the ARI photos at <> by clicking on "anaerobic digestors" I agree with you Jay: It's time for more honesty in this process.

Like this comment
Posted by Emily Renzel
a resident of Crescent Park
on Mar 30, 2011 at 9:01 am

I hope that Curmudgeon and Avatoid will contact me through the website. Emily

Like this comment
Posted by Craig Laughton
a resident of College Terrace
on Mar 30, 2011 at 7:50 pm


Please explain why you will not consider plasma arc as a multi-faceted solution to our Baylands toxic pile? You seem to be locked into a very retro notion of preservation, namely a duck and cover.

We, in Palo Alto, have the ability to REVERSE past practices. We could, literally, return our dump into nearly pristine SF Bay. And we could do it at an economic profit, not a loss. You seem to be fighting old battles, with very old arguments.

Please give me an honest answer, Emily. It is time.



Like this comment
Posted by Parent
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 30, 2011 at 8:12 pm


Plasma Arc would be a good technology to use downstream of the SMaRT station after the sort line picks recyclables out of the waste stream. If we were to implement it in Byxbee Park, we would need to duplicate a facility that we already built and invested a considerable amount.

I think Plasma Arc may be a promising technology, but let's put it at the SMaRT station to leverage money that we already spent along with Mountain View and Sunnyvale. That will also minimize the recyclables that vaporized.

The treatment plant biosolids are still a dilemma to deal with, but the current incinerator is also still a previous investment that still has life left in it. I don't want to see my garbage AND sewer rates go up.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online. Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.

Name: *

Select your neighborhood or school community: * Not sure?

Comment: *

Verification code: *
Enter the verification code exactly as shown, using capital and lowercase letters, in the multi-colored box.

*Required Fields

Sam's Chowder House Palo Alto to become burger chain
By Elena Kadvany | 23 comments | 9,652 views

New York College Tours
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 1 comment | 1,693 views

Family Planning: Both Agree Before Getting Pregnant
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,147 views

Sing and celebrate
By Sally Torbey | 5 comments | 450 views


Palo Alto Weekly Holiday Fund

For the last 23 years, the Palo Alto Weekly Holiday Fund has given away more than $4 million to local nonprofits serving children and families. When you make a donation, every dollar is automatically doubled, and 100% of the funds go directly to local programs. It’s a great way to ensure your charitable donations are working at home.