Town Square

Post a New Topic

Reusable bag ordinance goes into effect Tuesday in Pleasanton, but not Danville

Original post made on Dec 31, 2012

Starting Jan. 1, the reusable bag ordinance is in effect which states that grocery stores, mini-marts, and other stores selling packaged food in Alameda County must provide bags made of recycled paper with a minimum charge of 10 cents per bag.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Friday, December 28, 2012, 2:49 PM

Comments (19)

Posted by Duffy
a resident of Danville
on Dec 31, 2012 at 8:32 am

Stupid! Another example of the law of unintended consequences brought about by government meddling!

Posted by Shopper
a resident of Danville
on Dec 31, 2012 at 8:59 am

Why dont politicians stick to important issues?!!!! I'll sure
do all my shopping in CC county.

Posted by Samantha
a resident of San Ramon
on Dec 31, 2012 at 9:51 am

More stupid gov involvement!! Just crossed alameda co off the list BUT will shop--go thru the checkouts--then change my mind and leave---if enough ppl did this--chg would occur---remember--al gore flies in his private jets to his numerous warm mansions but u gotta watch your thermostat!! And--mooshel tells us to eat grass clippings while she gorges on caviar and lobster and foie gras!! Wake up!! Oh yeah--they all keep their PRIVATE health ins while we are turned into soylent green.

Posted by Julia
a resident of Alamo
on Dec 31, 2012 at 10:05 am

Another brain law...

By the way fools in Alameda County...What natural resources are you thinking are maybe thinking of trees. Allow me to explain something to you brain dead mind. The paper mills DO NOT cut down trees to make paper bags. They plant fast growing trees in a controlled environment for the purpose of manufacturing paper.

Reduce litter...I am assuming you think these paper bags made of recycled other paper bags will self destruct after we bring it home. Your brains are resting between you legs.

Reduce the cost to the public for litter cleanup...Has anyone driven through Alameda County...A dirty place now and it will always be like that.

The people are screwed again... This is what I would do. Tell the clerk no bags please. And YES I WANT HELP TO BRING MY GROCERIES TO MY CAR...AND YES I WANT YOU TO UNLOAD MY GROCERIES FROM THE CART AND PUT THEM NEATLY IN MY CAR...ALL 55 ITEMS. you shopping in Contra Costa County...

I'm reminding all "we the people" the Incumbent Politicians must be changed like a diaper...and FOR THE SAME REASON.

Have a wonderful new year...

Julia Pardini from Alamo

Posted by Janabirdie
a resident of Alamo
on Dec 31, 2012 at 1:11 pm

Don't forget to wash your reuse bags after each trip to the store and did you know to designate the bags...meat, diary and produce to reduce contamination?

Posted by Joe
a resident of San Ramon
on Dec 31, 2012 at 3:27 pm

Way to go Alameda. I'm looking forward to the day Contra Costa Country will also stop this senseless waste and contribution to litter.

Posted by Julia
a resident of Alamo
on Jan 1, 2013 at 12:00 pm and others like you should have you brain cells checked.

What a foolish comment...Reduce litter...wake up.

Julia Pardini from Alamo

Posted by Shopper
a resident of Danville
on Jan 1, 2013 at 2:46 pm

I totally agree with you Julia. Joe, how about you paying the extra 50 or 60 $$$ @ .10 a bag over a years time. Thats what it will cost me. U environazis really do need a head exam!

Posted by John
a resident of Danville
on Jan 2, 2013 at 7:34 am

The voters who democratically voted to pass this law appear to have made their point. For ten cents a bag look at all the brain dead people complaining. You spend ten cents when you start your car. You probably throw away at least ten cents of food at every meal. But it gets you to think!! Two bags... That will be an extra twenty cents
Get a life a conscience and use the money you save by bringing your own bags to buy a few more brain cells

Posted by Diver Dan
a resident of Danville
on Jan 2, 2013 at 8:07 am

On a more questionable note. Are Walmart and Target included in this, both sell groceries? And if they are is it only for the groceries or are all items covered? Anyone??

Posted by Clara
a resident of Danville
on Jan 2, 2013 at 2:11 pm

What absolutely stupid libTARD comments!! Julia and shopper are RIGHT on....Samantha is correct--- to the environAZIS here-- boo hoo-- did u forget to calculate the cost to the environment etc with Barry flying back to Hawaii a second time in a weed? Joe should recycle his body waste in his garden compost heap to be true to his cause --- read up on Hitler-- he was big on supposed environmental/nature love.

Posted by Clara
a resident of Danville
on Jan 2, 2013 at 2:14 pm

Ha ha the "weed" typo above is so appropriate for Barry! Also--- hope ppl of Danville know of the big lib push to put in high density/low income (aka crime ridden) housing in our Danville.

Posted by Sylence Dugood
a resident of Danville
on Jan 2, 2013 at 6:04 pm


You're dual posts are quite impressive. You've proven to at least myself that sophomoric stupidity is clearly not the privy of adolescent young men but can be exhibited by all alike.

If you utilize 50 to 75 bags in a year's time, you'll spend an amortized grand total of $7.50 (max). Given that most of the 'blue haired' patriots on this blog tend to drop $4-$6 every other day on a fancy cup of coffee, I'm not feeling anyone's collective pain.

It was not that long ago that we used to bring our soda bottles back to the store after consuming them. For many of us kids, milk would be conveyed and consumed in reusable containers only to be retrieved every other day or so. The use of reusable containers (sacks if you must) is not 'new school' it's retro or 'old school'. The changes we see around us, like the ones we saw when we collectively moved to a convenience-based society in the 80s, are thankfully not targeted at aging consumers in the 94506 zip code. They are for the generations that will follow-us. They have to clean-up our mess.

Posted by JT
a resident of Danville
on Jan 4, 2013 at 7:06 am

Conservatives should be truly ashamed. Environmental stewardship is not just the realm of one political " brand" vs another. But it would appear that when you brand your hide with a scarlet "R" that you hide your moronic inane intellectually inferior views behind your bogus notions that tradition and values are yours and yours alone. Your brain isn't even worth ten cents. And if you have kids in school they probably think you are idiots for not being supportive of reusable bag laws. Don't believe me? Did you ever tell your parents they were taking an idiotic position?

Posted by The Anti-Julia
a resident of Alamo
on Jan 4, 2013 at 8:29 am

There's a particularly eye-opening book that I just can't wait to tell Julia from Alamo about. It's called Cradle to Cradle, and its sensible proposition is that we ought to be manufacturing things with their re-use in-mind -- from the conception stage. In this country, we're only now returning to a credle-to-grave mentality, in terms of recycling -- it's good, but far from optimal, from a systems perspective.

Re-use beats recycling by a mile in terms of resource efficiency, and if you build your BMW with an eye toward eventual dis-assembly and re-use in a next generation vehicle, it affects materials and process decisions in fundamental ways -- all potentially positive. Same with houses, computers, everything else. It's a circle-of-life notion that our ancestors lived-by -- and so will our grandkids and their progeny. After they've mined our landfills, they will wonder at the profligacy of us all -- and especially Julia.

Go to sleep, Julia.

Posted by Julia
a resident of Alamo
on Jan 5, 2013 at 12:14 pm

This message is directed to the Anti-Julia resident in Alamo.

Wake up my dear neighbor and realize what life is all about. You tend to focus on Julia...that's fine because if you really listen you will realize while you focus on me, you let all the important issues of life pass you by. That by the way my friend is what the starving beast wants you to do and you and many other naive people do it well...

Just take a look at the current politicians you voted into office. They are brainwashing you and you love it. All of you are the type that keep visiting the feed trough and taking from others. And you really deserve NOTHING.

Re-use beats recycling....I agree, but not to the degree you are pushing. The solid waste industry should abandon all recycling is a waste of money...very big money and collect our generated trash with one collection truck and deliver it to a WTE Facility (Waste to Energy) Facility.

Thank you listening, This is your friendly neighbor Julia from Alamo

You stayed tuned may may just learn something valuable.

Posted by Sylence Dugood
a resident of Danville
on Jan 5, 2013 at 2:18 pm

Julia (ergo the greater masses),

I believe that your most recent perspective may have convinced me to alter a certain mindset regarding solid waste remediation. You forced a long forgotten recollection, on my part, of assisting a grandfather in the greater Orange County area BURN his rubish and household refuse when there were more oranges in that region then people. Perhaps, this is what you would consider a best practice.

I think you may have enlightened us all to a better way. I just cannot imagine what this community would do without such Illuminati as yourself.

Thank-you for listening. Your most kindly neighbor Sylence from Danville.

Posted by Mike
a resident of Alamo
on Jan 6, 2013 at 2:04 pm

Waste to energy is certainly better than a landfill for some things (things that are hard to recycle or re-use), but not to the degree that a post above is "pushing it". It doesn't work well for metals and burning most oil-based synthetic materials (plastics, synthetic fabrics) produces harmful, polluting compounds that take "big money" to only partially ameliorate. Even forgetting those things, waste to energy still has its own harmful waste products that must be managed.

Recycling is ECONOMICALLY ADVANTAGEOUS in the cases where it can be used because it takes only a fraction of the total energy and COST to recycle/re-make a material than it did to make it originally. Re-use is even more efficient in energy and cost. Because waste to energy only recovers about 15-25% of the energy in the material, the energy recovered from a recyclable material or reusable product is far more than lost in making the material over again from scratch.

Composting versus burning yard waste is a more complex issue, so I won't try to deal with it here.

Some seem to be against things just because they think those of a different political persuasion are for it or because they think the only reason it's being done is because the government (i.e. their enemy) is requiring it. But as noted in a prior post, recycling and reuse are old, traditional ideas, not some sort of new assault on our personal freedom.

Posted by Derek
a resident of Danville
on Jan 9, 2013 at 3:21 pm

The bickering above notwithstanding, is no one on either side of the argument bothered that Allied Waste refuses (no pun intended) to accept plastic bags for recycling? Some grocery chains will take them, but even then - or if you find a stand-alone recycle center that accepts bags - how many really get "recycled"? How many still go into landfills?
Royal Robbins, North Face, Bauer, and a number of other outdoor clothing makers had pile jackets and pants produced from recycled bags, but the offerings have decreased since at least 2000 or 2001. There aren't that many in the catalogs these days. Maybe it was too expensive to convert bags to textiles? In any case, if the only thing plastic bags are going to do is clog up the ocean, we should be looking hard at alternatives. A drippy package of pork chops at Safeway needs an outer wrapper for sure, but perhaps some waxed product not made of plastic would work as well.

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

How we eat away at our open space, even in Palo Alto
By Sherry Listgarten | 5 comments | 7,100 views

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought . . .
By Chandrama Anderson | 9 comments | 3,651 views

Feds retreat quickly from natural gas ban, not so California
By Tim Hunt | 4 comments | 900 views

Now we're cooking with gas
By Monith Ilavarasan | 4 comments | 798 views

Becoming a Dental Specialist
By Elizabeth LaScala | 0 comments | 507 views