"greenhouse gas emissions...could be reduced"

But Mr. Trump said there's no such thing as climate change.

it is really sad that our City Council approved this rate increase. The reason given was that Recology has been running a deficit. Well, geez -- garbage (& recyclables & compostables) pick-up is a SERVICE, and should be provided by a government agency, not a for-profit company. For profit companies should not be in charge of any essential services unless:
1. They are highly regulated by commissions that are truly impartial, and not bough-and-paid-for puppets
2. They are audited regularly
3. They are never required to make a profit.

And about that $60,000 Recology said they lost in one year:
That is chicken-feed for a city teh size of Menlo Park to subsidize with no questions asked.

And -- the $25 MILLION that Mr. Arrilaga wants to give the city of Menlo Park for upgrades to our City Library must be spent on much more important things, such as paying for any and all deficits experienced by Recology. THAT is a much, much better use of Mr Arrilaga's proposed donation. Now -- if he refuses to allow his money to be used for more important things, well -- that is his choice, as it is his money, but it would speak very, very poorly of his standards and priorities.

Yet our City Council has always approved every single development that any wealthy and powerful developer has ever applied for -- no exceptions. This greatly increases the amount of garbage and increases the amount of greenhouse gases. Does anyone other than me see the huge contradiction here?

Good grief -- "Zero Waste"? That is not possible. So -- our City Council is going to allow Recology to eliminate picking up the contents of the black carts, and then punish customers who have no other choice other than to put their garbage into the recycling or the compost carts? If so, how awful!

Hey -- Menlo Park City Council: Why not provide incinerators that would be used by some decent and well-run government agency that would burn up all bio-hazardous wate and all waste that cannot be recycled or composted? Such incinerators could easily generate electricity. This is done in Europe, and I read that these incinerators are even located in nice parts opf town -- because they apparently emit no objectionable smalls or noises.

Reliable high-quality garbage pick-up is one essential service that all cities must provide. NO exceptions.

One more thing: I read some time ago that, on average, around half of the volume of everything that is dumped in any landfill is construction debris. The "Build! Build! Build!" mania in this area has got to have caused a lot of construction debris to have been dumped into whatever landfills are used to dispose of that debris.

So focusing only on residents and not also on big developments when trying to lessen waste is wrong, and will not do much to lessen the amount of stuff that goes into landfills.

Louise68:

a minimum of 50% of construction debris MUST be diverted from the landfill. In other words recycled. Depending on the landfill the debris is taken to the diversion rate varies from 60% at the minimum for most up to 90%. So, construction debris is not our problem in the landfills, garbage is.

Menlo Voter --
OK, if that is true -- that garbage accounts for most of the volume in landfills, and it may well be -- just exactly what are we residents supposed to do with it, other than put it into the black carts? What do you plan to do with your garbage? Got any ideas?

The only practical answer is for the garbage company to properly deal with it and
dispose of it is to incinerate it, but only after all recyclables and compostables are removed from that garbage.

Look -- no one can create infrastructure all by himself or herself. And we need and deserve to have practical ways to dispose of garbage and things we no longer need or use, ways that do not automatically punish us for not using infrastructure that does not even exist.

Louise68:

we could do what Palo Alto does (or at least they used to). All garbage and recyclables go into a single container. All of the contents go into a truck and when taken to the dump it is sorted and recyclables are pulled out of the waste stream going into the landfill.

Louise68 -

You mentioned that you wanted to divert Mr. Arrilaga's $25 million library donation:

And -- the $25 MILLION that Mr. Arrilaga wants to give the city of Menlo Park for upgrades to our City Library must be spent on much more important things, such as paying for any and all deficits experienced by Recology. THAT is a much, much better use of Mr Arrilaga's proposed donation. Now -- if he refuses to allow his money to be used for more important things, well -- that is his choice, as it is his money, but it would speak very, very poorly of his standards and priorities.

This may come as a surprise to you, but some of your fellow citizens and residents, especially children, LIKE going to the library. Because educating and staying informed is important, our libraries are one of the most significant and highly utilized resources a city can provide.

And who are you to decide how Mr. Arrilaga spends his money and directs his donations? It's HIS money and if he wants to donate it to the Humane Society or Red Cross or even to a new library, that's HIS choice, not yours. That you would even consider having your government override his directions says more about you than Mr. Arrilaga's "priorities."

If my memory serves me right, didn't City Manager Alex McIntyre (under Council scrutiny) get a huge pay raise a couple of years back sighting his great negotiations with Recology in behalf of the City? Today his salary is $20K higher than the CA Governor, and that doesn't include the $17K we contribute annually to his retirement fund. Maybe Mr. McIntyre should pick up the increase.

The justification for the hike is that South Bay Waste Management Association is charging other cities more. I would like to understand if there is any competition here, or does Menlo Park just pay whatever the Association says? Has the council discussed other options? I can't tell from this article.

I take my containers to the curb about once a month because I live frugally.

It's not fair that I have to pay the same as households that are out there every single week with full bins, as if the effects of their consumption didn't matter at all.

There ought to be a category for my level of use, and at a reduced price.

Noticed they've had two people riding in our trucks for a job that used to take one. Anomaly, training, or a union action causing the increase in costs?

What are the other cities paying? Redwood City EPA? I bet it’s cheaper with bigger bins. Can anyone answer this? Are there free pickup days? That’s when we know if we are being railroaded.

@ The voice:
The answer to what other cities are paying can be found on Page 10 in the 2015-2016 budget for Recology/Rethink Waste. Note that this is in the form of a “Staff Report”, but it seems to be complete. Here is the link:

Web Link

When you look at the chart on Page 10, you will see that people in Menlo Park pay only $23.40 a month for a 32-gallon garbage cart, which is among the lowest rates in the entire county! Please look at what the people in East Palo Alto pay each month for that same 32-gallon garbage cart: $40.77!

Yes, “the principle of the thing” is important, but, really -- this eems to me to be a “tempest i a teapot”, because we are arguing over a monthly bill that is currently only $23.40 for a 32-gallon cart -- less than a dollar a day.

It looks to me as though we here in Menlo Park are getting pretty good value for only $23.40 a month.

Menlo Park has too much trash especially in downtown. Makes the city feel dirty. Need to invest in more trash receptacles and an anti-litter campaign. It’s turned into a dump.