Posted by Jeremy W, a resident of another community, on Mar 13, 2013 at 11:47 am
This article title is unbelievably deceptive: The author seems to be playing on fears of a local restaurant serving second-hand bread to consumers. Esther's bakery is doing nothing of the kind: the bread is "recycled" as animal feed.
Given that 40 percent of food in the United States goes to waste, I think we should applaud Esther's for trying to change this.
Posted by Mary, a resident of the Martens-Carmelita neighborhood, on Mar 13, 2013 at 2:27 pm
This article is misleading and infuriating, as noted by other responses here.
Talk about a tempest in a teapot which seemingly was triggered by franchise concerns more than by public well-being concerns. Talk about jumping the gun and causing undeserved damage to Esther's business reputation.
I am not usually litiginous but I hope she can and will sue for damages.
Posted by Laura, a resident of the Martens-Carmelita neighborhood, on Mar 13, 2013 at 2:29 pm
I agree, the headline is deceptive. Esther's Bakery should be commended for recycling instead of throwing away unsold bread. I've never been to Esther's but I may visit now just to check it out and lend my support.
Posted by Rossta, a resident of the Waverly Park neighborhood, on Mar 13, 2013 at 3:26 pm Rossta is a member (registered user) of Mountain View Online
You are all worked up over the misleading title of the article. It worked - it got me to read it!
Now, I am worked up over the "exclusivity" of our garbage contract. I can be fined for paying someone other than Recology to take away some of my trash? How is it that the city is able to so broadly restrict its residents? Glad to know that the contract is up in July. I will pay more attention and lobby to get rid of this exclusivity/monopoly/extortion scheme.
Posted by CHANGE TITLE, a resident of the Rex Manor neighborhood, on Mar 13, 2013 at 3:39 pm
This title isn't fair to Esthers. Some will just read the headline and think, "Yuk. Never going there." This is a great small business, let's be more supportive. I think reusing the old bread for animals is a great idea.
Posted by Jerry, a resident of the Shoreline West neighborhood, on Mar 13, 2013 at 3:56 pm
Yeah, title is a bit misleading. If I hadn't read the article, I might not want to visit the store. Hopefully that isn't the case.
So if the garbage company is so concerned about its contract why aren't they posting signs that taking recycling is illegal? Or chasing down the guys on bikes who come by and clear out the recycling bins?
Posted by Esther, a resident of the Monta Loma neighborhood, on Mar 13, 2013 at 5:01 pm
Dear friend's & customers,
thanks for your kind words and support.
We just wanted to make a few things clear:
One of the "misunderstanding" is the fact that we DO donate quiet a bit of our breads. Some are picked up by volunteers of the Urban Ministries Food Closet, Meals Program, a church in San Jose; just to name a few. Some are collected by our employees, who also do donate / support people in need with our day-old breads.
ONLY the breads, which are too old and not fit for human consumption (too dry / stale etc.), will then be re-purposed for animal feed. Sometimes we get back too many items and if not collected will be thrown away ... or if possible re-purposed for animal feed.
And FOR SURE we do NOT sell day-old (or even recycled) breads to our customers! Everything is baked fresh 7-days a week.
Thanks again for caring about our city and how it's run.
Posted by Old Ben, a resident of the Shoreline West neighborhood, on Mar 13, 2013 at 8:28 pm
Mountain View is driven by greed and greed alone. The persecution of this fine and noble woman is sufficient to warrant an investigation into just precisely WHO instigated it. That person should be tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail.
Posted by Diane, a resident of the The Crossings neighborhood, on Mar 14, 2013 at 6:06 am
Nikonbob, you stepped in it this time. Actually, the bakery is in Mountain View, the retail store is in Los Altos. Why else would the city of Mountain View have jurisdiction? Old Ben is right. $1000 a day? How did they come up with that tidy figure?
The Voice would have done better to have worded the header such as "City Tries to Strong Arm a Popular Business that Employees People and Follows Green Practices"
The editor should be fired for allowing this travesty
Posted by parent, a resident of the Waverly Park neighborhood, on Mar 14, 2013 at 12:31 pm
.."examining a supreme court case..."
What the heck is going on with the Voice? There are more errors in this article than I can count.
I haven't seen a Voice headline this dumb since the one about lots of MVWSD teachers being "preggers" which is a term that I'd previously seen only on supermarket tabloids, for an occurrence that hardly qualifies as newsworthy.
Am adding "go buy some treats at Esther's" to my to-do list.
Posted by 100% bicycle commuter, a resident of another community, on Mar 14, 2013 at 7:48 pm
Haha, so, yes, the title of the article is misleading.
But check out this paragraph: "After being contacted by the Voice, city officials spent a week trying to figure out if [it] could be allowed....A decision was announced on March 8 to allow it." So the Voice was helpful in this matter! Kudos to this newspaper for doing good in our city!
And of course kudos to Esther's for your good bread, that you donate the good remainders to community organizations, and that you recycle the rest rather than turn it into landfill. Bravo!
Posted by Wo\'O Ideafarm, a resident of another community, on Mar 15, 2013 at 8:09 am Wo\'O Ideafarm is a member (registered user) of Mountain View Online
The Voice should be applauded for finally firing their online forum censor. I am stunned and pleased that the postings that criticize the Voice have not been removed. For real community, we need to be able to communicate without some censor mucking around with the course of the conversation.
The next step is for us to stop hiding behind anonymous aliases.