Editorial: Parkland initiative merely gives options | April 1, 2011 | Palo Alto Weekly | Palo Alto Online |

Palo Alto Weekly

Spectrum - April 1, 2011

Editorial: Parkland initiative merely gives options

November vote will give Palo Alto the chance to consider innovative composting alternatives

Palo Alto residents can be forgiven if they are still trying to sort out why they will be asked to vote this fall on rescinding parkland status of about 10 acres at the city dump before there is agreement on its use.

This story contains 878 words.

Stories older than 90 days are available only to subscribing members. Please help sustain quality local journalism by becoming a subscribing member today.

If you are already a subscriber, please log in so you can continue to enjoy unlimited access to stories and archives. Subscriptions start at $5 per month and may be cancelled at any time.

Log in     Subscribe


Like this comment
Posted by Bob Wenzlau
a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 1, 2011 at 6:59 pm

Bob Wenzlau is a registered user.

I appreciate the wisdom shown by the editorial staff, primarily that the initiative will maintain options for managing our organics.

Yesterday (3/31) at Stanford the university's environmental engineering staff spoke of their long-term vision of technology for the water pollution control plant. The session was part of the City's master plan process for the water pollution control facility. Stanford pointed to transitioning our waste water processes to more energy efficient technologies that could generate energy rather than consume. The technologies would incorporate anaerobic rather than aerobic treatment of the sewage. Drs. McCarty and Criddle are international experts and brought their experiences to inform the planning process. Broadly their comments validated the course that would locally manage these organic residuals. I appreciate our city staff seeking their counsel.

The need for the land the initiative asks was also supported from yet another perspective. As the technology of wastewater modernizes, and the aging components will be replaced, but the wastewater will never cease. Therefore the renewed water pollution control plant would need to be built carefully, and would stress the available property. Therefore, having the land the initiative would authorize fits well with additional constraints that may come to the water pollution control plant.

I also was pleased to hear that the technology and science is being discussed at Paly's AP Environmental class. Having our community consider these new technologies is already spilling to the classroom as our students get enlightened about applied-biology. Having the City move towards the new strategies will have a trickle-down by also helping our students with contextual learning.

Thank you again for this encouraging and well worded editorial.

Like this comment
Posted by Craig Laughton
a resident of College Terrace
on Apr 2, 2011 at 12:26 pm

"I also was pleased to hear that the technology and science is being discussed at Paly's AP Environmental class."

Really? Does mean that plasma arc is being discussed, as being far superior to anaerobic digestion (AD)? Or does the curriculum (fallaciously) describe plasma arc as incineration, as you do Bob? If so, it is not education, it is propaganda...and a big lie.

Environmental science should be based on science, not a "zero waste" political agenda. It is serious business, and it should be treated seriously. I hope that our City Council will look at realistic 'best practices', and avoid drinking the AD kool aid.

BTW, where is Peter D. in this debate (where is Waldo?)? Surely, he must be able to distinguish between plasma arc and incineration.

Like this comment
Posted by More about $
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 2, 2011 at 1:01 pm

The election will cost over $350,000. The story should have mentioned the correct amount.

Like this comment
Posted by Emily Renzel
a resident of Crescent Park
on Apr 5, 2011 at 11:48 am

Your ambiguous editorial on the Park Undedication Initiative (April 1) seems to suggest that it’s okay to undedicate parkland so that some future council can “have the option of moving forward ...if agreement is reached...” on the use.

If any City Council were convinced that use of parkland was needed for a particularly compelling use, it could put the matter to the voters with full disclosure of the purpose as was done with the Winter Lodge Exchange, for example. In this case, voters are being asked to buy a Pig in a Poke by undedicating parkland without a clear plan for its use.

Parkland is either dedicated or not. It cannot be “conditionally” undedicated as is suggested by the Initiative. The land will be just like any other land in Palo Alto and you can be sure that Public Works or some other city department will want to make use of it rather than return it to park dedication in the future. There is no automatic reversion to park dedication if the goals of the Initiative are not achieved.

This latest theme of “creating an option” to use parkland has only surfaced since the unfavorable financial analysis of dry anaerobic digestion. This process has already cost the Refuse Fund about $2 million and will cost millions more if the Industrial Anaerobic Digestion facility is built. Go to <savethebaylands.org> to see how AD’s look.

Voters should reject this Initiative.

Like this comment
Posted by Resident 0.1
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 10, 2011 at 12:21 pm

I agree that voters should reject this initiative.

First we need to confront the big lie that population in the Bay Area has to grow (and large development has to continue) in order for residents to prosper. ABAG is supporting failed policy. I've lived in the Bay Area for 60 years and have watched the growth. Where is the prosperity? In the hands of a few.

We need to keep our dedicated parkland. A water polution control plant needs to serve the region, not only Palo Alto and should not be located in Palo Alto. The people who support the use of dedicated parkland are the same people who believe that development and increased population can continue indefinitely. This is not true. It is true that these people make a great deal of money out of unlimited growth.

There is a period in which economic growth, conventionally understood or no, brings about an improvement of the quality of life. But only up to a point, the threshold point, beyond which, if there is more growth, quality of life begins to decline. And that is the situation in which we are now.

No economy is possible in the absence of ecosystem services. The economy is a subsystem of a larger finite system, the biosphere, hence permanent growth is impossible. And the fundamental value to sustain a new economy should be that no economic interest, under no circumstance, can be above life-sustaining ecosystems.

We should not vote for infrastructure growth and as a result increased taxes, overcrowded schools and congested streets. We need to reject over use of land in Palo Alto.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.