1. What is the next step in the City evaluating the Compost facility that Measure?
2. How do we make sure that the "Cost" (market value) of the ten acres is fully accounted for in any financial feasibility study?
3. In general, how do we assure that there is absolute integrity in all the assumptions used to evaluate the project (real financial merit vs. pipe dreams)?
4. How do we as residents make sure that a decision is made quickly, and if the real financial merit of the plant is not feasible, make sure that the park land is rededicated?
5. How do we make sure that a minimum of resources is spent on the evaluation (i.e. if it is clear that the anaerobic digester does not meet financial return goals, stop the detailed study and proceed with returning the land to the park.
Without this type of scrutiny from concerned residents, the City will have enriched numerous consultant friends and delayed a precious park resource without delivering any value.
This post invites the sorting out of facts and updates on the progress of the project, so we can "Compost or get off the pot."
Yes, this kind of community scrutiny is bad news for those who might be hoping that some technology might come along in nine years and make the project work, or that there might be a legal loophole to convert the land to another purpose once the civic memory of the implied promises have faded.
That promise: The City will provide an innovative Composting plant that returns a positive financial return (including the market value of the land)or return it to park land and proceed with the long-delayed recreational vision for our water-front.
The most recent action by the City, and discussion was in the following Palo Alto online story:
Please offer your ideas to enforce a high-integrity and efficient resolution to this issue.
Let logic and reason be our guide.
Timothy Gray Concerned Palo Alto resident