The Almanac
October 18, 2006

Slippery slope on Measure J;
vote no

Measure J asks Menlo Park voters if the city should investigate building playing fields at Bayfront Park, a 160-acre tract atop a capped landfill.

While this measure is not binding on the City Council, it would set in motion more study of the idea, which we think is foolhardy and should not be pursued. There are several good reasons:

• Bayfront Park was designed and built in the 1970s for passive recreational uses. If its uneven landscape is developed as playing fields, the park would have to be leveled, temporarily exposing the garbage and leachate collection system. Even when leveled, fields built on a decaying landfill would continue to subside, presenting a serious maintenance problem, even if artificial turf were used.

• At an estimated cost of up to $1 million an acre (an estimated total of $10 million to $17 million depending on how many fields are built), the high cost of fields may prevent other recreation programs from moving forward.

• Bayfront Park, which is adjacent to the Bay and the Don Edwards Wildlife Refuge, should remain in passive open space. It offers sweeping views of the Bay and is home to many species of birds and other wildlife. Lighted playing fields, and all the associated impacts of multiple sports teams and spectators, would not be compatible with the current use.

• If the city is sincere in its desire to add playing fields, and if a new council is willing to commit funds, why not partner with sports league officials to purchase playing time at private schools or other venues? In addition, the recent study by the Parks and Recreation Commission showed that more field space can be squeezed from sites already owned by the city.

It is a shame that the council majority continues to push for any type of development at Bayfront Park, raising false hopes that it is simply open space ready for development. (Remember the failed golf course proposal?) In reality, this is a former landfill that is decaying and subsiding every day. The sooner playing field proponents realize that this is a losing proposition, the sooner they will devote their considerable energy to finding other, viable solutions. We recommend a "no" vote on Measure J.

Page last updated September 13, 2010.