When it comes to planning for the future, one would expect a city to have a clear and coherent capital improvement plan, especially for major infrastructure projects. Unfortunately, the reality in El Cerrito is far from ideal. Around 2010, budget documents pointed to three significant projects: a new senior center, a new library, and a new public safety building. Fast forward to today, and what do we have? A series of half-baked proposals, a lot of money spent, and little to show for it.
The voters made their voices clear when they defeated the 2016 library measure. Despite this, the city council persisted in trying to sell various library proposals to the public, most of which lacked substance and failed to address the real needs of the community. The senior center, once deemed a necessity, has now been all but erased from the city’s priorities. This decision was made without meaningful public input, and it leaves one to wonder: what happened to the promises made to our seniors?
More recently, the city decided to purchase a piece of property at a significantly inflated price—$1.5 million, to be exact, despite an appraisal valuing it at $1.29 million. The purchase was justified by council member Lisa Motoyama, who argued that it was a strategic acquisition for the city’s portfolio. Yet, in the same breath, Lisa voted to rent out the portables that were once used as a senior center. How does this align with the city’s long-term strategy, if there even is one?
The reality is that capital improvements have been put on hold because the city simply cannot afford them. Despite spending a considerable amount of money last fiscal year to purchase the property, the current budget document projects a declining unrestricted general fund for the next few years. Moreover, the city is burdened with an $85 million Unfunded Actuarial Liability (UAL) pension liability, a financial strain that further complicates the city’s ability to invest in meaningful infrastructure.
It’s also worth noting that the purpose of the newly acquired site remains unclear. During a recent meeting, council member Quinto suggested that it might be a good site for a future public safety building. However, without a clear plan or timeline, this suggestion feels more like wishful thinking than strategic planning.
Addressing these items on a case-by-case basis is neither strategic nor in the best interest of the community. A piecemeal approach to major decisions like these only adds to the confusion and uncertainty, preventing us from achieving the cohesive and forward-looking vision that El Cerrito desperately needs.
One more thing: during the meeting, it was curious to observe how public participation was managed. While the El Cerrito Booster was called upon with a mere wave of his hand, one might wonder if the average citizen would receive the same treatment. Do they need to fill out a form to speak, or is there a different standard for certain individuals? Transparency and fairness in public meetings should not be optional—they should be the norm.
As we move forward, it’s crucial for the city to articulate a clear and realistic capital improvement plan that aligns with the community’s needs and financial realities. Half-baked proposals and unclear priorities will only lead us further down a path of fiscal instability and unmet promises.
El Cerrito Committee for Responsible Government (ECCRG) 