Original post made
on Mar 13, 2013
This story contains 502 words.
If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have
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,
to get your online account activated.
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.
Please change the article title to something less sensational.
I agree with Jeremy. It sounds like you'd be buying stale bread at Esther's. Why not say "Esther's busted for using a private recycling company"?
True. The headline is deceptive and Esther deserves better. Her bread is fresh and tasty. Please fix the headline!
I agree. Totally misleading. The Voice header is equal to slander.
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.
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.
The headline is exactly the same as every news station on TV. They want you to read the article, or stay on the station until the commercial ends.
YES, I agree, it is sensational. Slander...fraid not!
Please change the title of this article. Totally misleading and sensational!
Where is this Esther's place that is feeding people recycled bread?
I wont be going ther.
I also vote to get this headline changed to something that is not misleading.
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.
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.
As ole Ronnie would say "Ah, there ya go again." EGADS... is there NO LIMIT to what the govt. (City in this case) will tax ?
THey tax us to take away the garbage and then threaten jail if we give it away...
Just vote NO on all of them... they think they are all little Polosis..
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?
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.
The people at the Voice should really step up and correct the title of this article. You all blew it, and need to fix it ASAP
You are all fish in a stocked lake, a lake that is not managed for your benefit, all appearances to the contrary notwithstanding.
In this story, you get a glimpse of your true situation. It is only a little glimpse. Pause and reflect upon it.
You are serfs in a gilded cage. Yes, it is a beautiful cage. But it is a cage. You are slaves.
This viewpoint is debatable, of course. But if you cannot see any merit in it, then your mind has not yet comprehended the possibilities.
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.
Old Ben -- I always get a kick out of your misguided comments...
This is in Los Altos, not Mountain View.
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
I bet this as something to do with an agreement with the local trash company to not let other groups into "Their" territory.
What other reason would the city possibly have to try and stop this?!
There is no competition for garbage/recycling services allowed in Mtn View thanks to the exclusive contracts with one provider. The whole thing reeks of corruption.
.."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.
I demand to know WHO, specifically, ordered this action. That person should be investigated.
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!
I would guess the Recology truck that empties Esthers dumpsters noticed this other dumpster and the driver reported it. They don't want the competition anymore than the city does.
What a crock.
See what happens when you try to work around the city monopoly on garbage collection? They try to fine you $1000 a day to get you back in line.
Esthers found a cheaper way to discard of their stale bread. Better than just throwing it in the dump right? Not if the city doesn't get a piece of the action first. Pay up suckers.
"Old Ben -- I always get a kick out of your misguided comments...
This is in Los Altos, not Mountain View."
It's MV. Who's misguided now?
... not subject to Recology's exclusive franchise," said Mountain View's solid waste manager, Lori Topley
Who would not agree with the vast majority here about the incompetent title on this article.
The person who wrote it is hardly a journalist if they cannot get the basics who, what, when, where and why right, and their title does not help with interpreting the meaning.
This is below elementary school level ... is there no editor or proof reader, and how is the editor missing this level of incompetence without being as bad?
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.
This headline is terribly misleading and unfair to the bakery.