Author: Jeff Elliott

postcard-crop

A HATED CORNER OF COURTHOUSE SQUARE

Jeff Elliott Leave a comment

What does a town do after suffering a traumatic event? Try to quickly forget or make an effort to remember? It was mid-December 1920, after the sheriff was murdered and his killers were lynched. Santa Rosa seemed to want to move on; Christmas was two weeks away and most everyone had better things to do than stew over those horrific events.

Yet there were some who couldn’t let it pass. Sheriff James “Sunny Jim” Petray was extremely popular throughout Sonoma County, known as a cheerful guy with a big heart. He deserved to be remembered and honored – a monument dedicated to him, maybe.

This is the surprising epilogue to the series “THERE WILL BE PRICES PAID” about the aftermath of the 1920 lynching in Santa Rosa. It’s surprising because some were very upset over the design and setting of the memorial to Petray. It’s also surprising because in more than a century we haven’t heard about them getting so worked up – I stumbled across this forgotten history while researching something completely different.

Our story picks up four days after the sheriff’s funeral. The concept of building a Petray Memorial Fund quickly turned to organizing a benefit baseball game between Santa Rosa’s home team Rosebuds and a pickup team of major league professionals spending the winter in San Francisco. Included were indeed some celebrities of the time: “Lefty” O’Doul, “Duster” Mails and “Duffy” Lewis. (I know nothing about baseball so anyone who wants to argue about them pls. squabble elsewhere.) The Press Democrat claimed Babe Ruth might play, which was never likely.

With only two months to organize (game day was February 22) the community came together and pulled it off with remarkable ease. Extra streetcars and buses were scheduled. They formed committees galore; one prepped the grounds at Recreation Park (right behind our present high school) and extended the bleachers; others managed ticket sales by districts. A brass band of forty local musicians formed to play at the courthouse before the game, with Lee Brothers’ freight trucks prepared to cart them over to the baseball field so they could toot more tunes between innings.

The Governor sent his regrets for not being able to attend but the Lieutenant Governor threw out the first pitch, the band entertained and comics performed a warmup show. The “Salient Six” all-stars beat the Rosebuds 2-1.

At $1.00 each, tickets were “going like hot cakes at Davis’ Rotisserie” (per Santa Rosa Republican). The Farm Bureau bought a block so they could attend together, as did the Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce. The sheriff’s office in Eureka ordered 100 and the San Francisco sheriff took 500. Another 700 were sold at the gate. The final attendance was not recorded, but estimated up to 3,000. The total receipts ended up being over $2700, with a net profit of $2400 – over $80k today.

They had expected to raise about $800 so getting 3x as much was quite a windfall. Original memorial plans were modest – just a drinking fountain in front of the sheriff’s office (on Hinton Ave. across from Courthouse Square). But now that there were fistfuls of money available, ideas on how it should be spent rolled in. The Sonoma County Federation of Women’s Clubs lobbied for a double row of trees planted along Redwood Highway, which the Santa Rosa Republican was quick to shoot down:


…to all those who suggest the planting of trees etc it must be remembered that those who paid their money for the tickets to see the game and the players themselves did so with the understanding that the memorial was to be in the form of a shaft [water fountain] or monument and in no other form and their wishes most certainly must be respected above all others no matter how worthy they may seem.

A committee of three was formed to make a decision; it was headed by Judge Seawell and included a representative from Petaluma and Healdsburg. By the end of the year it was announced they had commissioned J. W. Dolliver, architect of the beautiful courthouse, to construct a memorial on the northeast corner of Courthouse Square.

The design would be a kind of proscenium stage, raised a couple of steps above the sidewalk and 24 feet wide, with a drinking fountain on each side. The back was curved and at the top was carved, “Noble Life Crowned With Heroic Death Rises Above Self and Outlives the Pride and Pomp and Glory of the Mightiest Empire of The Earth.” (It was from an 1868 speech by future president Garfield at the first Memorial Day celebration.)

But this was to be no empty stage – a San Francisco artist was separately commissioned to create a statue. “The main figure in the design is the Goddess of Justice, seated, with sword and wreath upon her knee. The whole is to be eight feet high and constructed of artificial stone,” wrote the Healdsburg Tribune. It was so large that sculptor Henry von Sabern used three tons of clay just to build the model.

It was hoped the memorial would be finished in time to dedicate it on the 1922 California Admission Day (Sept. 9) but the sculpture wasn’t quite ready. But by the end of that month it was en route to Santa Rosa, even though it was so weighty von Sabern had to cut it into sixty pieces for shipping.

Within days of its arrival, furor erupted. Critics from Santa Rosa, Petaluma and Healdsburg dumped on both the monument’s design and location. The Argus-Courier said there was broad feeling it was “…out of harmony with the setting, and from its appearance and the inscription it bears will be a constant reminder of a deplorable incident in the city’s history that many believe should be forgotten…the inscription is said to be one in which death is glorified.”

An anti-memorial committee was formed. Lawyers got involved. As construction was underway to build Dolliver’s setting for the statue, an injunction to stop work was considered, but it had already halted.

Proposals were made for a less conspicuous spot. The Healdsburg cemetery where Petray was buried or that town’s plaza, perhaps. Or maybe Burbank Park (the future location of Santa Rosa Junior College). And why not Petaluma? “We have lots of nice parks,” wrote a resident there.

Members of the original memorial committee and their supporters were gobsmacked by the sudden opposition. A model of the design had been on display for months and no one had raised objections. Harold Rosenberg, the Healdsburg representative said firmly there was no Plan B to modify the design or change location.

About a dozen of the anti’s met with the memorial committee and it became clear nearly all of the protest was coming from Santa Rosa. “One speaker stated that a majority of the people of Santa Rosa were in opposition to having the fountain erected on the court house grounds, but, according to Mr. Rosenberg, the committee believes this statement to be far-fetched and not based on fact,” reported the Healdsburg Tribune.

Judge Seawell said at the hearing “he believed the objections made so far had not disclosed the real reasons why some of the citizens do not want the memorial at the court house.”

It really shouldn’t have been a surprise. Exactly six months earlier, the new president of the Rural Cemetery Association had the lynching tree be cut down. She was backed by members of the Saturday Afternoon Club who signed a statement the tree was “a reminder of an episode which it were best for our community that we and the world [to] quickly forget.” About half of the identified people at the hearing for the memorial were clubwomen whose names were also on that statement. Blocking the Petray monument was just another try to make their feelings of shame go away.

Another hearing was held. Months passed. It was May, 1923 and all deferred to Judge Seawell – who was now on the state Supreme Court – to decide what should be done.

Meanwhile, Santa Rosa held a Prune Festival (!) which happened to reveal the issue was causing bad blood between Santa Rosa and Healdsburg. Architect Dolliver’s platform was mostly finished before the work stoppage and the city was using it as an official information booth, but a rumor spread in Healdsburg that hot dogs were being sold on the site. The Tribune editor demanded “a full and honorable apology” be made: “We here in Healdsburg feel that the spot where the Petray memorial fountain was to have been erected long before this but for the selfishness of a few Santa Rosans, is entitled to at least common decency in its treatment by the grasping county seaters…”

More months passed. Seawell and the other two members of the committee met in August to make a final decision but, darn it, they forgot to tell the “ten or 12 local clubwomen who have interested themselves in the matter” that the time of the meeting was changed.

Several newsworthy items came out at the meeting. It was revealed the anti’s were mainly upset about von Sabern’s statue, not the idea of a memorial to Petray. No, they didn’t like the Courthouse Square location, but weren’t motivated enough to put in the effort to find a different place for it. “Although their leaders had been communicated with repeatedly,” the judge was quoted in the Press Democrat, “…they have never come forward with a suggestion for solving the problem.”

But the big news was that the committee had received warnings the monument would be dynamited if built at that location. While such threats would merit a speedy phone call to the FBI today, in 1923 nobody – including local police – was very concerned. Or at least, didn’t seem to be, judging by the papers.

The committee’s final decision was worthy of King Solomon. A memorial would be built on the corner of Courthouse Square as planned. But if the anti’s could come up with $500 – presumably the commission paid to von Sabern – the statue would be eliminated. They had ten days to raise the money.

That was a lot to quickly fundraise ($9,000+ today) in a small town just to have something not done, and the Healdsburg Tribune crowed the opposition “has simmered down to one or two individuals.” An anonymous letter was sent around pleading for donations so the site could be used as a visitor kiosk that included a public restroom.

Thus sometime in October 1923, construction of the memorial was finished, complete with statue – but there was no dedication ceremony or other acknowledgement of the work being done. Perhaps there was more concern about the mad dynamiter showing up than anyone wanted to admit.

– –

YOU ARE A FAMOUS SCULPTOR, RIGHT?

It seemed like a win-win. The Petray Memorial Committee commissioned a well-known San Francisco artist to create a dignified sculpture to honor our fallen sheriff. For Henry von Sabern it was an opportunity to create something grand, a masterpiece with such artistic merit it would cement his reputation as a California sculptor of renown.

Von Sabern (1883-1947) said he was the son of a high-ranking German military governor (uh, nope) and told people he was formally Count Henry Albert Maria von Sabern. He supposedly studied at Oxford and Brussels University, winning the Prix de Rome scholarship at age eighteen. His monuments and sculptures were found throughout Europe and he was considered the best portrait sculptor in Belgium. There is no evidence any of his claimed achievements were true. No examples or descriptions of any actual artwork can be found prior to the Petray commission.

In the early 1920s he appeared in Bay Area newspapers because he offered reporters erudite (and sometimes gossipy) opinions about art and other artists. He also hosted a popular weekly salon at his studio in San Francisco’s Chinatown where he held forth on all topics regarding the arts. His name was often dropped into articles about his famous friends, particularly writers George Sterling and Theodore Dreiser. (In a 1921 diary entry, Dreiser commented he found Henry “aggressive and a little boring.”)

We know he came to America c. 1910 and traveled between San Francisco and the Midwest; sculptor Heinrich Von Sabern showed up in the 1912 SF city directory. He met an heiress in Chicago who owned a historic farm in Nebraska City (south of Omaha) which included a 52 room mansion. Despite having no apparent knowledge of agriculture and livestock, he worked there as farm manager for several years. After the U.S. entered World War I he was suspected of conducting some sort of “experiments” as a German spy – a common fear even found in Sonoma County and elsewhere at the time.

Even though the Petray monument was a significant commission, he was unable to find meaningful assignments afterwards. In a 1923 profile he complained of being reduced to sculpting mannequins, modeling heads for hat shops and making backgrounds for store display windows.

At least five photographs of various portrait busts from the mid-1920s can be found in newspapers including his model of Dreiser, which is so cringeworthy it’s hard to believe it was made by someone who peddled himself as a great artiste. Perhaps the unspoken reason why our Santa Rosa ancestors were so unhappy with the Petray sculpture was because they were embarrassed to have spent so much money on a supposed famous sculptor who was all talk and no chisel.

dreisersABOVE: The real Theodore Dreiser. BELOW: Henry von Sabern’s bust of Dreiser. Sculpture image from San Francisco Examiner, August 24 1924

What was so objectionable about the sculpture? All we really know is the seated woman was larger than life-sized and holding a sword and laurel wreath. It was placed in front of our county courthouse and there are scads of Lady Justice statues to be found outside of court buildings across the country.

Although all local newspapers referred to it as the Goddess of Justice, it’s more likely von Sabern intended to represent Lady Columbia, which was then enjoying a post-WWI revival. No mention described the statue holding scales or wearing a blindfold, as usual for Justice figures. Columbia usually holds a sword, laurel wreath and olive branch. She’s mostly forgotten today except as the woman in the Columbia Pictures logo who looks vaguely like young Hillary Clinton. (Come here for local history but stick around for the odd bits of trivia.)

There are no photos or drawings to be found, which may seem curious since it was a major work from an artist regarded as significant. As discussed in the sidebar, that wasn’t unusual – no views of any von Sabern sculptures can be found until years later. Yet while Courthouse Square was always a photographer’s favorite, there’s not a single image I can find that includes the statue, even shown partially or in the background to a street scene. That’s quite hard to explain.

Let’s now shift forward 8½ years, to 1932. Santa Rosa’s 20-30 Club took up the statue issue, showing those who didn’t like it weren’t just clubwomen from the lynching era. A Press Democrat article remarked it had been “the center of controversy and objection for years” and later that it “was often subject to ridicule.”

The PD further let drop an astonishing fact – the Petray memorial didn’t mention Petray anywhere. “There is nothing on the memorial now to explain that it is dedicated to the memory of an officer who was slain in pursuance of his duty.” The Supervisors granted permission for the club to remove the statue and replace it with a plaque. Also to be added were concrete benches.

To help raise the $350 estimated to remodel the monument, the club hosted a “Midnight Whoopee Show” at the California Theater. Dance music was provided by Brick Morse’s Collegians “who are famous.” There was also community singing, confetti and streamers, a “singing ball” (huh?) plus a showing of the latest Laurel & Hardy laff riot followed by a comedy about WWI doughboys starring young Spencer Tracy. You would have hated yourself the next morning if you missed all that fun. Swing it, Brick!

“The Concrete Lady” (as it was nicknamed, according to the Santa Rosa Republican) was removed June 21, 1932. What happened to it was never explained. As the job was done in a single day by a local contractor, I doubt it was carefully disassembled into its original sixty parts. Most likely a couple of guys fell upon it with sledgehammers.

The two concrete benches were made and the bronze plaque was mounted on Dolliver’s wall. The inscription said it was in memory of Sheriff James A. Petray: “His was a Sacrifice of Self for Law, Liberty and Home.” And so things peacefully remained for more than thirty years.

Our tale ends in 1966, when they demolished the courthouse and the memorial along with it. In a Sunday feature on court history the Press Democrat included a last look. The benches appear too filthy to sit upon, and it looks like a corner has been knocked off one of them. Whatever greenery they had climbing over it was untended and either dormant or dead. All in all, the thing was the sort of shambles you might spot in the background of a scene from The Munsters.

The Petray plaque was preserved, and now is mounted in the lobby of the sheriff’s office.

 

Post-1932 postcard of Courthouse Square. Image courtesy Denise Hill
Post-1932 postcard of Courthouse Square. Image courtesy Denise Hill

 
Petray memorial with light snowfall, 1947. Image courtesy Sonoma County Library
Petray memorial with light snowfall, 1947. Image courtesy Sonoma County Library

 
Admission Day, 1947. Image courtesy Sonoma County Library
Admission Day, 1947. Image courtesy Sonoma County Library

 

sources
BIG LEAGUE BASEBALL GAME PLAN STARTED HERE TO GET FUNDS FOR JIM PETRAY MEMORIAL MONUMENT

Citizens of Santa Rosa and Sonoma county have expressed themselves in favor of erecting a fitting monument to the memory of its martyred sheriff, James A. Petray, and while the movement has not as yet been organized, plans are now being made to form such an organization. The Republican has had several letters on this subject and the writer of one of these letters who refused to disclose his name sent in $5 last week to start the movement for a monument to be erected in the memory of the late sheriff.

Yesterday Duffy Lewis, of Boyes Springs, who was a great admirer of Petray called on Walter Nagle. While Nagle and Lewis were talking over some their mutual friends in the major leagues, and talking on general topics of the day, the conversation veered to Sonoma county’s sheriff.

MONUMENT NEEDED

“They should erect a monument to such a glorious man to perpetuate his name,” said Lewis.

“Just the thing,” said Walter Nagle, “and I believe a good way to do it would be to play a ball game some fine Sunday here and donate the proceeds to a monument fund.”

“Great” said Lewis, “and I’ll you what do I’ll do; I’ll not only play in such a game, but I’ll bring up a team of big leaguers to play your team, and we should be able to put it over. I can get ‘Lefty’ O’Doul, of the New York Highlanders, Sammy Bohne and a fine assortment of players, and I believe Jack McCarthy, one of greatest umpires that ever wore a mask, and a former Santa Rosa ball player would volunteer his services as one of the umpires…

…Nagle agreed with Lewis and even elaborated on the idea or a fitting monument for Sonoma county’s martyred sheriff. He said that if a fund committee was organized properly that he felt it would not be a difficult thing to get a local theater to help out, secure excellent talent and give a “Petray monument” performance some afternoon…

– Santa Rosa Republican, December 18 1920<

BABE RUTH MAY PLAY BALL HERE

Plans Going Forward for All-Star Game to Start the Petray Memorial Fund.

Details of the plans for the proposed Petray Memorial ball game will be worked out within the next few days. “Duffy” Lewis, one of the most prominent figures in baseball, was in Santa Rosa yesterday to confer with Manager Walter Nagle of the Rosebuds. Lewis reports that he has a team of big league stars that he will bring up here to play the Rosebuds any Sunday Nagle says the word. He says that the ball players and newspaper writers around the bay are all anxious to help.

The team that will appear here will be under the management of Harry Wolverton of Coast League fame.

If satisfactory arrangements can be made with the Petray family the matter will be taken up with the board of supervisors.

Among some of the stars that it is planned to bring here are Roy Corhan, Justin Fitzgerald, “Lefty” O’Doul and Sammy Bohne. It is possible that Babe Ruth may also appear.

– Press Democrat, December 30 1920

 

MONEY POURS IN FOR PETRAY GAME TUESDAY

– Press Democrat, February 19 1921

And to all those who suggest the planting of trees etc it must be remembered that those who paid their money for the tickets to see the game and the players themselves did so with the understanding that the memorial was to be in the form of a shaft or monument and in no other form and their wishes most certainly must be respected above all others no matter how worthy they may seem.

– Santa Rosa Republican, February 26 1921

JUDGE SEAWELL TO HEAD PETRAY MEMORIAL BOARD

…The meeting was held in the office of Sheriff John M. Boyes, and was presided over by Walter H. Nagle. It was deemed advisable to name a committee of three members instead of a large committee. Nagle stated Monday evening that $2400 had been raised by the benefit ball game played here on Washington’s birthday. This is the net total after paying all expenses. There are several persons that still have tickets out and have not sent in an accounting. The committee requests that these people make a report immediately, as they wish to wind up the financial affairs of the tickets as soon as possible. This showing of $2400 is especially gratifying, as at first it was expected to raise only about $800, the final expectation before the game was $2000.

– Press Democrat, March 29 1921

SELECTED MEMORIAL FOR LATE SHERIFF

With a beautiful and appropriate design selected by the committee in charge work will begin immediately on the Petray memorial to be placed in Santa Rosa in honor of the memory of James A. Petray of Healdsburg, former sheriff of Sonoma county, killed in the discharge of his duty as an officer a year ago. Selection of a design and material was made by the committee, consisting of Judge Emmet Seawell, H. B. Rosenberg of Healdsburg and Dr. Thos. Maclay of Petaluma during a visit to San Francisco early this week.

This will be in the form of a crescent, placed across the northeast corner of the county courthouse grounds. The curve of the crescent, forming the back of the memorial, will be 24 feet long and on it will be seated a statue of the Goddess of Justice. The statue will be eight feet high.

Within the curve will be a slightly raised floor of stone, and at either end will be placed a drinking fountain. The whole will be made of pressed stone, a composition [sic: composite] material capable of high finish and said by the committee to be attractive in statuary work.

The committee has approximately $2400 to devote to the memorial, the money having been raised several months ago.

– Petaluma Daily Morning Courier, December 3 1921

PETRAY MEMORIAL MODEL INSPECTED

The plaster model of the James Petray memorial seat, to be erected in Santa Rosa, was inspected on Monday by H. B. Rosenberg, Judge Emmet Seawell and Dr. Thomas Maclay of Petaluma, who went to San Francisco to see the model by Sculptor Von Sabern, who has the contract for the memorial. The main figure in the design is the Goddess of Justice, seated, with sword and wreath upon her knee. The whole is to be eight feet high and constructed of artificial stone.

– Healdsburg Tribune, February 16 1922

PETRAY MEMORIAL ARRIVES AT SANTA ROSA

All parts of the beautiful James Petray Memorial monument have arrived in Santa Rosa and are awaiting the completion of the foundation before being erected. The work of laying the concrete at the northwestern corner of the courthouse grounds is progressing rapidly and it is stated that the actual erection of the magnificent sandstone monument will be started the latter part of next week.

The monument, which was transported to Santa Rosa in sixty pieces because of its great weight, is being stored in the basement of the courthouse.

– Petaluma Argus-Courier September 27 1922

OPPOSITION TO LOCATION OF THE PETRAY MEMORIAL

Opposition to the proposed erection of the Petray memorial in front of the court house, which has been growing ever since the big statue arrived here in sections from San Francisco, has reached a point were injunction proceedings are to be sought with the idea of delaying further work until the matter can be more fully considered. Attorneys are to be consulted today regarding the best method of procedure, it was announced last night, following a conference of those interested in preserving the present sightly appearance of court square.

Opposition to the erection ot the memorial at the corner of Fourth street and Hinton avenue almost directly in front of the court house, is said to be based principally upon the fact that its character and general appearance will be out of harmony with the setting, and from its appearance and the inscription it bears will be a constant reminder of a deplorable incident in the city’s history that many believe should be forgotten. As a counter suggestion, it is proposed that the statue be erected in the Healdsburg cemetery, where brave Sheriff Petray lies buried, or in Burbank Park, recently acquired by the City of Santa Rosa.

Since its arrival here the memorial has been stored in the basement of the court house, awaiting the completion of the foundation, work upon which is now under way. The memorial, which was shipped in sections, is made of some sort of composition resembling red sandstone and will stand 10 or 12 feet in height and is nearly as wide as it is high. Resting upon a broad pedestal is the upper section of a woman’s figure representing Justice, and the inscription is said to be one in which death is glorified.

– Petaluma Argus-Courier September 28 1922

THE PETRAY MEMORIAL

It is doubtless through complete misunderstanding of the basic idea and the carrying of it out which rules certain people who feel it their duty to instruct the committee and the people at large who are raising the memorial fountain on court house square in memory of Sheriff Petray, who was killed in line of duty.

Civic pride is more than a decorative ideal. More than anything else it stands for the performance of the public duty intrusted to him by every man however obscure or humble. Our sheriff here fell in the simple carrying out this part of the protection of the public entrusted to his charge. He fell like the Unknown Soldier without a word and bravely as a man can die.

In Sonoma county there was among the people a sentiment calling for some memorial of this man. The money was raised and the memorial was wrought through the energy and judgment of the committee headed by Judge Seawell, and now the work is ready to be set in its place on a corner of the court house square.

The memorial statue is a seated figure of Justice with sword and wreath with a fountain at each side of the enclosing wall so placed as to be easily reached by the passers-by. There is beauty as well as utility in this fountain and the judge and committeemen should be congratulated upon the success they have been enabled to achieve with no great sum of money.

There is a small model of the memorial which is to bear a brief inscription to James A. Petray and all who desire to see it should be at the meeting called in Judge Seawell’s court room Friday afternoon of this week at half-past two o’clock.

There is need in this time of confusion for anything to urge on the public mind the duty of honoring the law and obeying it. The Petray memorial fountain will speak for law and order and at the same time adorn and beautify the green before the court house. It is certain that the true benefit of the people will be conserved by this statue and that those who now at the last moment obstruct further action to put the memorial in place will upon reflection see things in a more broad and patriotic light.

– Santa Rosa Republican, November 23 1922

OPPOSE ALTERATION PETRAY MEMORIAL

The difficulty over the erection of the Petray Memorial on the court house grounds in Santa Rosa is having a reflex action among Healdsburg people, which is not conductive to furthering of wholesome relations between the two cities. Healdsburg people feel that the action by those who are opposing the continuance of the plan of erecting a memorial fountain at the northwest corner of the court house lawn is not based on a broadminded foundation, and a resentment is felt at what is considered a slur on the memory of the departed sheriff, whose demise in the line of duty was so tragic. While a beligerent protest is not being made by local people, there is considerable feeling over the objections coming from the county seat. The committee selected to erect the memorial acted entirely in the open. They considered many plans and locations, finally deciding and having a model made of the selected fountain, which was on display for many months. Harold Rosenberg, local member of the committee, does not feel that any change in the plans should be made, and he is opposed to any alteration unless something decidedly better is proposed, which he feels is unlikely, as the committee exhausted every effort in attempting to get the best memorial and location.

– Healdsburg Tribune November 23 1922

PETRAY MEMORIAL ‘KICKS’ HEARD BY COMMITTEE AT MEETING IN SANTA ROSA

A dozen persons, more or less, told the Petray memorial committee, meeting in Santa Rosa Friday afternoon, that their reasons for objecting to the placing of a memorial to Sonoma County’s martyred sheriff, James Petray, on the court house lawn. One person spoke in favor of the proposed site.

The reasons stated by the protestants ranged from the artistic — that the memorial statue would ruin the symmetry of the court house square — to morbid — that it would recall a gruesome incident in the county’s history, the slaying of the sheriff and the subsequent lynching of the men responsible.

The committee, consisting of Judge Emmet Seawell, Dr. Thomas Maclay of Petaluma, and Harold B. Rosenberg of Healdsburg, heard the various remarks, and then announced that the matter would be taken under advisement. Judge Seawell is to prepare a written proposition to be offered to will be given out next week.

According to the local member of the committee, Harold B. Rosenberg, the objectors offered no substitute plan whatever. One speaker stated that a majority of the people of Santa Rosa were in opposition to having the fountain erected on the court house grounds, but, according to Mr. Rosenberg, the committee believes this statement to be far-fetched and not based on fact.

Those who spoke against the location included Carl Bundschu, Dr. J. H. McLeod, Mrs. Chas. H. Kellogg, Dr. F. O. Pryor, J. K. Babcock, representing the men’s Bible class of the Christian church, Mrs. Clara Lemon, Miss Pauline Hahman and Mrs. James Gray.

Miss Ada C. Sweet, who spoke for the court house location, characterized the objections as far-fetched. She praised the monument as a work of art, and eulogized the heroism of the late sheriff as reasons for going ahead with the original plan.

Judge Seawell said in his introductory remarks that he did not believe the morbid viewpoint of the memorial project should be allowed to develop. He intimated that he believed the objections made so far had not disclosed the real reasons why some of the citizens do not want the memorial at the court house. He declared that after many months of work on the memorial during which there was no protest, efforts were being made now to “disrupt the plans by eleventh hour objections.”

Mrs. Clara Lemon suggested that the proper place for the monument is in the Plaza at Healdsburg, and Mr. Rosenberg said that he believed the people of that city would be happy to have it there.

“However,” Mr. Rosenberg said, “I consider this protest, coming late as it does, as untimely and unfortunate. I know that there is no man of Sonoma county who is held In higher regard in Healdsburg than Jim Petray.”

– Healdsburg Tribune, November 30 1922

PETRAY MEMORIAL PLAN RESTS WITH JUSTICE SEAWELL
NOTHING HEARD FROM PLAN, HELD UP BY SANTA ROSA OBJECTORS

The erection of the Petray Memorial, or abandonment of the plan to honor the memory of former Sheriff James A. Petray, who died in performance of the duties for the county, still rests in the hands of Associate Justice Emmet Seawell, chairman of the committee to which was entrusted the placing of the memorial on the lawn of the court house in Santa Rosa.

The base of the memorial group stands on one corner of the lawn of the court house square: the figure is in Santa Rosa ready to be put in place; all money raised for the purpose of erecting a permanent monument to the county officer who was shot dead when he and other officers went to arrest members of the notorious Howard street gang in connection with the San Francisco assault case. But at present nothing is being done, so far as can be learned, to either place the memorial as planned or to give up the project and remove the base already put in place.

…Not until the committee had decided upon the location, had selected the memorial and contracted for its construction. and the base had been put in place, did opposition to the project arise. Then a group arose to make loud and lingering protest against it.

After two hearings, in which the question was aired pro and con, Judge Seawell took the matter under consideration, with the announcement that he would, within a week or two make a decision one way or another. That was some months ago, but since that time nothing has been done and nothing has been heard from the now associate Justice of the State Supreme Court.

Among both groups, the group favorable to the memorial and that which opposes it, the matter seems to have been forgotten. But there are still some who are asking, day after day, what is to be done.

– Healdsburg Tribune, May 24 1923

COMMITTEE AT SECRET MEETING TAKES FINAL ACTION ON MONUMENT; MAY ELIMINATE FIGURE OF JUSTICE

Final decision to complete the Petray Memorial monument on the northeastern corner of the courthouse lawn, but without the figure of justice if that part of the memorial can be eliminated within the available funds, was reached yesterday afternoon at an executive session of the committee, which is composed of Justice Emmet Seawell of the State supreme court, Captain Thomas Maclay of Petaluma, and Harold Rosenberg of Healdsburg. No one attended the meeting but members of the committee and J. W. Dolliver, the designer of the monument. Newspapermen and one or two others present to hear the deliberations were asked to retire before the committee took action. The meeting was held in the afternoon, in a room of the Occidental hotel.

The meeting had been called for 11 o’clock in the morning, but late Thursday afternoon was postponed. However, members of the committee forgot to tell anybody about the postponement, with the result that a group of ten or 12 local clubwomen who have interested themselves in the matter presented themselves at the hotel in the morning, only to be told that the meeting had been postponed.

RESOLUTIONS ADOPTED

The women did not appear at the afternoon session. Following is the resolution adopted by the committee after some two and a half hours’ discussion: “Whereas, The placing in the courthouse square of a memorial to the memory of the late James A. Petray, former sheriff of Sonoma county, has been opposed by certain citizens as an inappropriate place therefore; and “Whereas, None of the objections now made were made to this committee or any member thereof until after the material and labor for the construction of said memorial had been contracted for, and its construction partially completed, the cost of which corresponded to the entire amount subscribed for its construction; and Whereas the placing of said memorial has long been delayed with a view to changing the place of its location provided another suitable location should be furnished by those who opposed its location in the courthouse square and Whereas, No location or place has been offered or tendered to this committee by those who opposed the construction of said memorial upon the courthouse square; Now Therefore, it is the sense of this committee that it is its imperative duty, after notice that it would meet on this day, to finally dispose of, and determine said matters; Therefore, said committee now in session, by resolution has passed, instructs its chairman and its architect, J. W. Dolliver, to begin and press to a completion the construction of said memorial originally planned upon the place originally selected; It is further provided, that it the statue of justice which occupies a place in said memorial, and to which certain objections have been made may be eliminated therefrom and the same appropriately completed within the funds subscribed and pledged and for the purpose for which contributions were made, or further in the event said change shall exceed the amount so subscribed, and additional contributions should be made to meet the excess expense necessary to make said change said chairman and architect are authorized to eliminate said figure from the memorial as now designed. The chairman and architect are directed to begin the work of finally completing said memorial at the expiration of ten (10) days from this date and prosecute the same to speedy completion regardless of whether or not the change herein contemplated shall be provided for.”

– Press Democrat, August 25 1923

PETRAY MEMORIAL TO BE DYNAMITED SAY LETTERS RECEIVED BY PETALUMAN

Letters stating that the Petray memorial monument will be dynamited if erected on the court-house lawn were received some time ago by Captain Thomas Maclay of Petaluma, a member of the memorial committee, he revealed here yesterday at the committee meeting, called for final decision on the matter of a site for the monument.

Despite these warnings, the committee decided unanimously to go ahead with the monument as planned, with the provision that if the figure of Justice can be eliminated within the funds available or subscribed within the next ten days this change will be made.

Captain Maclay declared that he had received several intimations that the monument will be destroyed. Other members of the committee also said they had received criticisms of the proposed monument, but none which went as far us to threaten radical measures.

All members of the committee spoke of the fact that in the year elapsed since the last public meeting there had been no constructive suggestions on the part of those opposed to the placing of the monument on the court-house grounds, although their leaders had been communicated with repeatedly.

“Some people see the viciousness and sordidness in things, but never the ideals or the other beautiful phases,” Judge Seaweil said. “I would not for anything wound the feelings of people among whom I have lived most of my life, but after this matter was decided upon and the work started a few people worked themselves up to hysteria, and I cannot but believe they adopted the wrong mental viewpoint.

The women of the State were up in arms over the gangster outrages which preceded Sheriff Petray’s death, and at the time he was shot it was recognized that he lost his life at the hands of men who had attacked that which womenkind holds highest, virtue. Then, after the work was contracted for and started a few of our citizens saw red and raised vociferous objection, but to my knowledge they have never come forward with a suggestion for solving the problem.”

Walter H. Nagle, the only one at the meeting except committeemen and newspapermen, reported that one of the objectors had agreed to raise $500 to pay the [cost] of taking the monument away altogether, but committee members declared that this would not reimburse those who had contributed toward the monument.

Mr. Dolliver said that owing to the delay in constructing the monument some of the cement and other materials had become worthless, so that it will now cost more to complete the memorial than it would have at first. I. F. Lippo, the contractor, is to receive a second $500 payment immediately, and the balance of his contract will be paid upon completion of the work. This second payment will bring the amount expended from the committee funds up to $1500, and will leave $1,047.45 for other expenses.

– Press Democrat, August 25 1923

BELIEVE WORK WILL START ON PETRAY MEMORIAL REST BENCH HERE NEXT TUESDAY

According to the terms of the resolution passed at the meeting here a week ago by the Petray Memorial Committee the 10 days allowed by the committee men for the subscribing of a fund to remove the statue from the monument at the corner of the courthouse lawn will be up Monday and it is believed work on the erection of the rest bench will start the folowing Tuesday or at some date very soon thereafter.

Word was received from Judge Seawell chairman of the committee this morning that he has heard nothing from the objectors since the posing of the resolution and although it is not definitely known it is generally believed that the contingent “knocking” the memorial has not succeeded in raising the necessary fund for the alterations.

An anonymous circular letter containing a copy of a letter sent by Judge Seawell to Carl Bundschu regarding the proposed change of the statue for ornamental designs marked “Special and Confidential” has been broadcasted recently in an effort to raise the $500 stated in Judge Seawell’s letter as necessary to omit the figure of Justice.

A footnote to this letter reads as follows, “The Festival Week showed it (the memorial foundation) was an ideal location for a rest room and information booth. Those and the ice water privileges would be worth a great deal to people in the city residents and visitors.”

– Santa Rosa Republican, September 1 1923

The Tribune is glad to see that the opposition to the Petray Memorial in the courthouse lawn in Santa Rosa, has simmered down to one or two individuals and that the fountain will be erected as planned. We hardly thought that the opposition amounted to anything, despite the frantic efforts of the Santa Rosa morning newspaper some time ago to create the impression that the whole city was rising up in protest.

– Healdsburg Tribune, September 6 1923

PETRAY MEMORIAL WORK IS STARTED-ORIGINAL PLAN, INCLUDING STATUE, IS USED.

– Santa Rosa Republican, September 13 1923

SHOW FUNDS TO BE USED TO REBUILD PETRAY MEMORIAL

The proceeds of the midnight frolic held tonight at the California theater is dedicated to Sheriff James A. Petray will be turned over to the 20-30 Club to be used in remodeling the Petray memorial on the courthouse lawn – a lasting tribute to the memory of a county officer who died in performance of his duty.

Authority was given the Santa Rosa 20-30 Club at a recent meeting of the Sonoma county board of supervisors to remove the figure of Justice, central piece of the stone memorial, and to replace it with a bronze plaque, set in a concrete background of approximately the same height as the figure. Concrete benches will be placed against the stone wall that forms a half circle facing the northeast corner of Fourth street and Hinton Avenue and the whole will be colored to match the original stone.

In addition to the alterations in design, the memorial under the 20-30 Club’s plan, will when remodeled explain what the memorial is for. There is nothing on the memorial now to explain that it is dedicated to the memory of an officer who was slain in pursuance of his duty.

The plaque to be placed by the club will tell that the monument Petray, give the dates of his birth and death, and conclude, “His was a sacrifice of life for law, liberty and home.”

William Herbert, local architect, has given the memorial considerable attention and study, with the result that a design was worked out by him which will be followed by the Club in their remodeling work.

The re-building of the Petray Memorial has been one of the major programs of the local club, and while the organization has been considering the plans for some time, no definite announcement was made until every detail had been planned.

Associate Justice Emmet Sewell of the supreme court, Thomas Maclay, Pelaluma capitalist, and Harold Rosenberg, Healdsburg merchant, who composed the original memorial committee were first consulted before the plans were announced. Each of these men have endorsed the proposed change.

– Press Democrat, March 5 1932

PETRAY MEMORIAL PROJECT STARTED

“The Concrete Lady” which for several years has been the central feature of the Sheriff Petray memorial on the northeast lawn of the courthouse was removed today by William Brown, preparatory to remodeling the memorial as a project of Santa Rosa Twenty-Thirty Club…The contract was let some months ago to Brown who will install the plaque which was cast at a foundry here. Concrete work to match the stonework of the memorial base will support the plaque and will form two ornamental benches on either side of the bronze…

– Santa Rosa Republican June 21 1932

Read More

designedforcars

THE CITY DESIGNED FOR DRIVING CARS

Jeff Elliott Leave a comment

Communities are delicate things; once they start to crumble, it can be difficult to make them whole again. So in a spirit of optimism the first annual “Congress for Community Progress” was held at the Flamingo Hotel in March 1963. Formed by the Santa Rosa Chamber of Commerce, its avowed mission was to “unify community thought and action” around ways to improve the city, according to general chairman Judge Hilliard Comstock, while avoiding “rehashing mistakes of the past.”

The 268 participants – drawn from downtown business interests, social clubs, churches, unions and the City Hall bureaucracy – were split into seven panels. Some of their recommendations had little or no chance: An arts festival intended to draw visitors by the hundreds of thousands, a volunteer-run “central service club” for all elderly and handicapped residents, donations of large plots of land for new parks and baseball fields, and a “United Crusade” to collect donations for all local charities.

In contrast, the streets and traffic panel did not indulge in daydreams. They pushed to lobby for a bill in the state legislature for higher gas and road taxes, plus an upcoming municipal bond vote that would fund over $1 million in streetwork. “There’s nothing wrong with Sonoma County and Santa Rosa’s road, street and parking problems that money won’t cure,” promised Press Democrat editor Art Volkerts.

Much has been written here about Santa Rosa’s urban renewal misadventures during the 1960s and 1970s, which culminated with the city bulldozing a third of downtown so a private developer could build the mall. Should you be unfamiliar with that sad story, here’s a short recap or Gentle Reader can plunge into the extensive series about it all, “YESTERDAY IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER.”

But before we began tearing those buildings down, there was another civic program that set the stage for Santa Rosa destroying its Shadow of a Doubt character in the name of progress. That was the city’s embrace of a street improvement plan to supersize many of our streets, both commercial and residential. Because of it, Santa Rosa gradually turned from “The City Designed for Living” into “The City Designed for Cars.”

– –

SANTA ROSA TRAFFIC IS A MESS

To be sure, Santa Rosa had downtown traffic problems in the 1950s. Browse the PD from those years and you’ll find frequent mention of traffic snarls, traffic jams and it otherwise being a general traffic mess. Some of those woes were of the city’s making – for example, the main bus stops were at the corner of Mendocino and Fourth Streets. In 1953 they took away a second parking spot on each side of Mendocino to make it easier for the buses to pull in and out, but that did little or nothing to ease congestion caused by them stopping at the busiest intersection downtown.

Jaywalking was also a persistent problem. (O Pepper, where for art thou?) The 1954 solution was to install “scramble” traffic light systems on Fourth Street at the B St. and D St. intersections. Now part of the timing cycle stopped traffic from all directions so pedestrians could cross in any direction, even diagonally. Some might recall Santa Rosa revived the concept at the Fourth and D intersection in 2007-2008 to mixed reviews; so it was in the mid 1950s. Then the police department liked it but drivers didn’t. The PD wrote, “Now almost any evening from 5 o’clock to 5:30 you will find a maddening, blaring, stalling, stop-and-go traffic jam.”

The scramble SNAFU was just another example of Santa Rosa’s stumbling management of the street situation, according to the city’s Planning Director. At a 1955 meeting he complained there were no studies being done as to what was the best course of action, with changes being made piecemeal based on “someone’s opinion” about what would improve matters. This led directly to the hiring of Jackson Faustman.

As so often happened with the later urban renewal projects, trouble can be traced to the city hiring an expensive out-of-town consultant who likely had never set foot in Santa Rosa.

The 1957 decision was to hire Jackson Faustman, a traffic engineer in Sacramento, to write an analysis of Santa Rosa’s traffic situation with “specific and detailed recommendations for the solution of both existing problems and those that will occur in the immediate future.” The report alone would cost the modern equivalent of $33,000.

Dr. Faustman would additionally make about half that much every year going forward for being available, with the odd proviso that he teach “a young man with the capacity and desire to be trained as a traffic engineer…and train him to the point where he can take over the traffic problems of the city and eliminate the need for consultation service.” (I’m sure it’s just sloppy writing in the Press Democrat, but raise your hand if you also think that reads like the city was seeking to force some kid into indentured servitude.) The job went to 36 year-old “Woody” Hamilton, who was already a city assistant engineer of some sort.1

Faustman delivered his first report to a city commission a few months later (Hamilton was credited as co-author). His primary recommendation was to make Mendocino Ave. three lanes of one way northbound traffic between Fourth St. and College Ave, with B St. being a matching three lanes headed south. City officials batted the idea around for more than a year while Faustman kept hauling in charts and warning that otherwise there would be such gridlock by 1970 no one would be able to reach downtown.

The city gave him a hard NO on the one way streets, but Faustman said from the beginning that was just the means to achieve his real goal: Increasing traffic capacity of major streets “by 50 per cent or better.” And to that end, in late 1958 he revealed his new Master Street Plan to widen 33 streets.

The Jackson Faustman proposal for widening Santa Rosa streets. The numbers are his recommended priorities for the projects. Press Democrat, November 27 1958
The Jackson Faustman proposal for widening Santa Rosa streets. The numbers are his recommended priorities for the projects. Press Democrat, November 27 1958

He helpfully offered a map showing which projects he thought should take priority, given his belief it would cost about $8 million. In today’s dollars, that worked out to about $87M – and that was before Woody Hamilton pointed out a few weeks later that Faustman was wrong and the true estimate was a million over that (figure $98M total today).

Even for the Press Democrat, where the editors never saw a construction project they didn’t like, this as a staggering amount of money for a non-emergency public works program. There was no chance the newspaper, Chamber of Commerce, and their other cronies could twist arms of voters into passing a $9M bond measure expected to require about twenty years to complete. It was also more than the city could legally put on the ballot.

The traffic commission approved a slightly modified version of the plan and estimated the cost of just the top ten projects would be about $2.8M.2 Our Grand Poobahs began musing about a bond that might cover at least that much if it were sweetened with promise of a new library, a new park and maybe a new city hall.

But spending all that money on even a scaled-back widening campaign was an affront to Santa Rosans who had been waiting years, even decades, for the city to perform basic street work, as the PD acknowledged:


There would be no money for work on mile after mile of local streets which now lace the city without sidewalks, curbs, or gutters, and without adequate base to serve the needs of heavy, modern traffic. These streets will have to be brought up to standard – if they ever are – by assessment against property owners…

Homeowners paying for their own sidewalks and whatnot? Well, yeah, the city had a long history of doing exactly that. A half century earlier there was quite a fuss about Santa Rosa forcing people to hire cement contractors to lay sidewalks in their front yards. Failure to do so meant the city would hire someone to do the work and put a lien on your house for the expense.

The city was still doing that in the mid-1950s, only now it was forcing residents to pay by means of assessments. And as that newspaper article continued, City Hall was considering using assessments to help fund street widening:


…Along major streets, where widening and resurfacing projects are to be scheduled, owners will also pay some small share, but city officials have not yet completed studies to show how much of the projects could be paid for by assessment.
– –

WHAT’S AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT?

In California, local governments can designate a particular area as an “Assessment District” for infrastructure work done within its borders. Usually most of the cost is billed to property owners within the District and paid off over many years via property tax surcharges.

District projects are supposed to provide specific improvements to the area which can only be provided by the government. Examples include bringing in sewer and water lines or constructing streets for a new subdivision. The money is not supposed to be spent on anything that benefits the overall community, such as parks, swimming pools, public schools, libraries or city/county offices.

An Assessment District can blanket all/most of a city or be limited to a few buildings on a certain street. There are usually public hearings before the District is approved but there will probably not be a public vote required.

It’s likely the suggestion “owners will also pay some small share” gave more than a few folks the nervous jimmies. Most of the widening projects were expected to cost over a hundred thousand dollars, with some past a half million – even a “small share” could be more than the value of someone’s house (theoretically).

There was already an ongoing 1957 lawsuit against the city for abuse of assessments. Sixteen residents on Pacific Avenue between Bryden Lane and King St. found they were expected to pay the full cost of sidewalks, curbs, gutters and most of the street paving – plus the loss of a slice of their front yards because the city also made their street about 25 percent wider. They charged the city with fraud because it was the general public, not they, who would benefit from the work, and thus was against state law (see sidebar). The case would not be resolved for twelve years.3

Despite all the hype around the Faustman report and the silly prediction of a 1970 gridlock apocalypse, nothing really happened over the next four years. Santa Rosa tried to pass a bond in 1961 that included $5.5M for streets and storm drains but it failed badly, drawing a pathetic 30 percent approval.

By the time they tried a bond proposal again in 1963, however, the ground had shifted. The city’s Urban Renewal Agency (URA) was no longer treating redevelopment as if it were a contest between architectural firms to see who could come up with the most fanciful and impractical models for Santa Rosa v. 2.0. The Agency was now deciding which actual buildings would be demolished and awarding construction contracts worth big bucks to build something else. Federal and state grant money was also starting to flow in that would pay for redevelopment.

Just before the bond vote, the state road tax bill discussed by the traffic panel at the Congress for Community Progress had passed, with Santa Rosa expecting to get over $128k annually for street work. So the pitch for the new muni bond was combining that road money with half of the city’s sales tax and…presto! The street widening would be paid for without any new taxes.

The Press Democrat gushed, “…[it] may sound like the city has found out how to print its own money without going to jail. Actually, it is so simple that one wonders why nobody worked it out before. Essentially, what the City Council has done is to make positive that existing city revenues at present tax rates will be used to buy worthwhile and needed things instead of being frittered away.” (Memo to self: Search pre-1963 editions of the Press Democrat for ANY suggestion of city frittering.)

Unable to resist a free lunch, voters approved the bond by a whopping 80 percent. But there was apparently enough pushback for the PD to feel its passage was threatened. On the eve of the vote an editorial read, in part:


The campaign has also seen the ugly banner of sectionalism waved by the opponents. They would pit the older sections of our city against the new, east Santa Rosa against west, and north against south. This has happened in other cities, and progress has passed them by while the divided sections voted down bond issue after bond issue because of jealous fear. Now the moment of truth faces the Santa Rosa voter. We trust in his common sense and judgment to see through the smokescreen.

Who were these fear-mongering jealous sectionalists? Alas, the villains were never named in the paper and nor were their positions described, which makes me wonder if the editor was denouncing straw men, particularly since so much ink was spent in promoting the bond as if passage was a civic duty. Subscribers were encouraged to send pledges to vote for it; reporters and photographers covered doings of a pro-bond group calling itself “Forward Santa Rosa;” so many wrote in support that the letters section sometimes spilled over to the next page. One example from Santa Rosan Al Ridste:4


…It is a radiant, joyful thing to realize that we can build a new front for the city. In this lovely community “designed for living” there are rare potentialities. It is a move in which everyone can win eventually. It will, of course, cause some growing pains for some and some of the usual disturbances that always comes with change, but after what will not be too long a time, there will be gladness and pride in the new look and the new usefulness of whole locality…

The bond specified ten street improvements to be completed during the first tranche of work but curiously, only two of the projects resembled anything found on Faustman’s famous priority list. Presumably traffic engineer Hamilton, the URA and others decided an update was needed because the city’s needs had changed over the four years hence, which is quite reasonable. But after the bond passed the city continued tinkering with the work plans. This was when they resurrected a developer’s 1960 proposal to connect Sonoma Ave. to Ellis Street, which culminated in the demolition of Luther Burbank’s home for no good reason.

As the city finalized street plans in early 1964, it became clear assessments were going to be more than a “small share” of the funding. As with the Pacific Ave. situation, property owners were being expected to pay for a huge share of it.

A few years earlier the City Council wrote guidelines for street improvements in assessment districts; adjoining properties would usually pay about 55 percent overall. There were tweaks for residential vs. commercial zoning and public buildings were to be billed for the full price.5

The roar of outrage began when two churches – the First Methodist Church and St. Eugene’s – learned the city was requiring them to pay for all the street work in front. Later the Junior College received a similar notice.

There were other grumblings. Protests and petitions led to a steady stream of Council assessment hearings that year: Santa Rosa Ave. Montgomery Drive. Chanate Road. Sonoma Ave. The Council had considerable leeway to negotiate costs; some districts ended up owing considerably less than others because the city or URA contributed more than usual.

Othertimes the Council showed little or no willingness to compromise. Councilman Hugh Codding commented other councilmen were “railroading” particular projects thru. His lone Council ally was Charles DeMeo, who said city staff wasn’t presenting facts which might convince residents they should agree with the assessments. Quote the PD, “…why don’t you gentlemen who prefer to overrule the protests come forth with some definite proposals[?]” DeMeo also remarked he “didn’t question the fairness of the staff… but sometimes did question their judgement.”

Codding was taken aback by strong neighborhood pushback from one district:


“It seems obvious to me that the majority of those in the area don’t wish to see the improvements made,” councilman Codding said. “It seems rather foolish to see the proceedings go ahead. I move we abandon action…” Mayor Robert Tuttle quickly gaveled Mr. Codding’s motion “…out of order,” saying “…we’ll see.”

That happened at the big fight over widening Mendocino Ave. north of College Ave. Not only would the district pay a larger percentage (65 percent) but at 84 feet the street would be wider than any of the other projects at the time.6

At a three hour public hearing, it was made clear 9 out of 10 property owners in the district were opposed. “Codding made another motion that the project be ‘permanently abandoned’ until at least 75 percent of the abutting property owners sign a petition favoring the street widening,” the PD reported. Among those speaking against the assessment was Judge Comstock, the chairman for that Congress for Community Progress the previous year where he urged the city to “unify community thought and action.” Now here was the Council saying they didn’t care a neighborhood was united in protest.

Just as the public was caught unawares the city would use assessment districts to fund streetwork, people seemed genuinely surprised when they started chopping down trees growing next to the streets being widened.

A row of catalpa trees in the curb strip fronting Juilliard Park “had to come out there was no choice” according to a city engineer, who told the PD in 1965 catalpas were also “not street trees” and prone to untidiness. Although the paper was told decorative trees would be planted in their place, today there are no trees there at all except for some unlovely arborvitae set back in the park lawn several feet away from the street.

Hundreds of other street trees must have been taken out, but only the loss of those catalpas earned a brief notice in the Press Democrat, perhaps because someone recalled they had been planted by Juilliard himself in 1916 to acclaim.

More research is needed, but something needs to be written about Santa Rosa’s great tree purge from those years. A 1967 report called for a new master tree plan where there were to be no mature trees next to streets at all. By then nearly half of the street trees that had been planted in the previous twenty years were gone or about to be removed, many replaced by shrubs in planters.

1966trafficAnd lo, the city of Santa Rosa cut the trees, widened major streets, and charged neighbors for the pleasure of taking away some of their property. As the statistics show, daily traffic on most of the remodeled streets went up dramatically. Those who had planned this gazed upon their works and called it good because Santa Rosa was now more efficient.

(RIGHT: Traffic increases on Santa Rosa arterial routes 1961-1966. Press Democrat, September 25, 1966)

Our resident experts believed better efficiency was critical because they thought Santa Rosa was about to grow big, fast. The U.S. Commerce Dept. predicted in 1962 the greater San Francisco Bay Area population would be the size of Chicago’s by 1980. Santa Rosa’s planners took those estimates and declared over that timespan the number of people living here would more than triple.7 Our local Chamber of Commerce even produced a film on the topic – in color, boasted the Press Democrat – shown at the Congress for Community Progress. (For the record, our city planners guesstimated too high by over 50,000 people. We didn’t hit their projections until 1999.)

Dr. Faustman and city staff produced reams of studies concerning street loads, peak hour traffic volumes, circulation plans and such, all with the aim of relieving those expected 1980 traffic jams. The rallying cry was “Get the through traffic off local streets,” as a city engineer put it, turning the widened major streets into arteries that would move cars between different parts of the city as fast as possible.

But in practice those arterial streets were really connectors between shopping centers. Sonoma Ave. would make it easy to drive from downtown to Montgomery Village (there was no highway 12 expressway yet). A wider Mendocino Ave. made it an easy trip for downtown shoppers to check out sales at Coddingtown. And directly southward of Courthouse Square there was Santa Rosa Ave. with its miles of flashy neon signs.

– –

THE HIGH PRICE OF WIDE STREETS

Urban planning critic Jane Jacobs mainly wrote about the road problems in New York City c. 1960, but if she had taken a peek at the Santa Rosa situation five years later she might have used us as the poster child for street planning gone wrong. To expand on her points about arterial streets:

* CROSSTOWN BARRIERS   They act as barriers, making it difficult and dangerous to cross against traffic.

* JAMS OR SPEEDWAYS   They only work as smoothly as promised under optimal traffic loads – too many rush hour cars and they choke up and when traffic is light some drivers treat them like expressways, speeding far faster than is legal.

* BIKE AT YOUR OWN RISK   Even when there are bike lanes – a hit-or-miss situation all over Santa Rosa – both speeding vehicles and traffic jams make arterial streets hazardous for bicyclists and electric scooter riders, often leading them to shift to sidewalks where they feel safer but creates a set of risks for pedestrians.

All in all it was a great traffic plan for moving shoppers around town as well as a great demonstration of confirmation bias. Faustman and the others did not consider whether that plan would ultimately be a good thing to do in Santa Rosa, even if the population did balloon in the future – the point of their studies was only to show how their predetermined objectives could be achieved.

It was also an example of backward thinking. Going pavement crazy might have seemed like a swell idea during the heyday of 1950s Car Culture, but it was now the mid-1960s and there was growing consensus that overbuilding streets made cities less livable.

Jane Jacobs’ 1961 widely read book on the failures of contemporary city design, “The Death and Life of Great American Cities” has a damning chapter on the topic. “Traffic arteries…are powerful and insistent instruments of city destruction,” she began. Now more than sixty years later it’s even more apparent her views were prophetic.

Were Faustman and Santa Rosa’s decision makers not reading the trade journals and popular magazines where the old views on urban planning had been challenged for years? Residents here certainly weren’t informed there might be a downside to turning some streets into virtual freeways.

Much of the streetwork took place amid the flush of major projects around town, among them knocking down the Carnegie library and the courthouse, the entombment of Santa Rosa Creek into a culvert and starting construction for the elevated portion of highway 101. Widening a few streets and cutting down a bunch of old trees was hardly worth a moment of thought.

But for those today who nostalgically yearn for “old Santa Rosa,” the decision to completely surrender our main streets to automobiles stands as a milestone. The damage it did to the town is unrepairable: The uglification, increased noise and pollution, the splitting apart of established neighborhoods. It may not have been the dumbest thing we ever did – but then again, maybe it was.

 


1 His father, Woodman Hamilton Sr. was a pottery maker, and the work from his Glen Ellen Pottery studio was so highly regarded in the 1930s that it was exhibited at fairs to represent craftsmanship in Sonoma County.

2 A breakdown of costs for all projects can be found in the January 20, 1959 Press Democrat.
3 The Pacific Ave. Assessment was for $53,000. The lawsuit was won by the city, then overturned by the state Supreme Court. In 1969 it went again before the City Council to reassess the properties, although most of the original plaintiffs had moved or were now dead. See: December 25, 1969 Press Democrat.
4 Alfred Ridste was the father of movie star Carole Landis who died in 1948. He and other members of the family alleged she was murdered by actor Rex Harrison, with whom she was having an affair.
5 No copies of the 1958 version of the city policy manual can be found at the library or in the city archives, as far as I can tell, and I did not consult the 1957/1958 minutes of the City Council when the policies were written. My observations are drawn completely from information given in the 1964 Press Democrat.
6 The usual widening for major streets in those Santa Rosa projects was 64′ on 86′ right of way, with secondary streets 40′ on 60′ right of way. The original traffic plan called for 6 foot median on the widened major streets. See: Press Democrat, August 28 1962
7 “Between 1960 and 1980 it is estimated that the population of the Santa Rosa planning area will increase from 36 per cent to 43 per cent of the total county population. Assuming a county population of 295,000 in 1980, we can estimate a population increase to about 135,000 in the Santa Rosa planning area.” Press Democrat, August 28 1962

 

TOP: Section from “Traffic Jam” by Earl Mayan, Saturday Evening Post cover, April 28, 1956

Read More

2429 - burbankhome

TEARING DOWN BURBANK’S HOUSE

Jeff Elliott 3 Comments

Let’s play a game: Try to name a city more self-destructive than Santa Rosa.

We split the town in half (twice!) and hid the downtown creek from sight, although it was the natural feature beloved by all. We encouraged demolishing historic neighborhoods, plowing ahead with urban renewal even after that kind of planning was widely discredited. And if you wanna see someone’s blood actually boil, take an older person down to Courthouse Square and ask them to point out the courthouse.

There’s lots more. We needlessly widened many streets to better accommodate cars during the 1960s. One of those street projects was so outrageous it demands special attention because it involved the demolition of Luther Burbank’s home. That happened just a few days before the annual Rose Festival – technically the Luther Burbank Rose Festival, of course – and where that year’s theme was “Our American Heritage.” Oh, the irony. Ironies.

The history of Burbank’s lost house was told here earlier, so there’s no need to rehash all the details. But briefly, it was built to his specifications in 1906 and remained his home until he died there twenty years later. The ground floor was almost entirely used as his office and on its front steps he was photographed with Thomas Edison, Henry Ford and other luminaries. Once the home was built, he referred to the place we now call Luther Burbank Home & Gardens as the “Old Homestead,” or the “Experimental Farm.”

The seeds for its destruction were planted in 1960 when a New Jersey consulting firm hired by the city proposed connecting Sonoma Ave. to Ellis St. As with so many of Santa Rosa’s urban renewal plans, there was no good reason given why this should be done.

Their design – which can be seen in a previous article – would have diverted Metanzas Creek into Santa Rosa Creek around E Street.1 The city could then reclaim the filled in lower part of Metanzas to create a new park or maybe “a civic center perhaps to include a new City Hall, Chamber of Commerce building, and state offices.” Although there was a later squabble over the route of the Sonoma/Ellis connection, it was always going to cut through the property with Burbank’s home.

Comparison of 1920 and modern maps highlighting the approximate location of Luther Burbank's home. Some street misalignments are apparently errors by the 1920 cartographer. (Image: SantaRosaHistory.com)
Comparison of 1920 and modern maps highlighting the approximate location of Luther Burbank’s home. Some street misalignments are apparently errors by the 1920 cartographer. (Image: SantaRosaHistory.com)

Years passed and the city’s Urban Renewal Agency (URA), an appointed group of mostly downtown businessmen who had no background in policy or planning, was at the helm of Santa Rosa’s redevelopment efforts. Funded by federal grants, they bought 27 properties between Santa Rosa Ave. and E Street including the Burbank home, which had changed hands several times since his death. When the Agency took it over, the place was the Salvation Army office along with its nursery/kindergarten.

In early 1963 the URA started the gears in motion to demolish those buildings – but then a monkey wrench brought everything to a halt when the Press Democrat printed a letter from Dr. Gertrude Van Steyn.2 It read, in part:


…I believe that voices should be raised loud and clear against the destruction of this monument. As the readers well know, this home with Mr. Burbank and his little white terrier are very familiar. They have made Santa Rosa quite famous and the mention of Santa Rosa, Calif., most always brings to the mind of strangers as the home of Luther Burbank. I for one am very much in favor of preserving historical monuments such as this for the generations to follow. I staunchly believe that all the citizens of this city should firmly voice their disapproval of Urban Renewal Plans destruction. I believe our city slogan should be The Home of Luther Burbank, and let’s make it so.

Amazingly, not a soul involved had an inkling they were about to destroy Luther Burbank’s world-famous house.

“This is dynamite,” said Cal Caulkins, Santa Rosa’s leading architect at the time and then a member of the URA. “We’d better not do anything with this until we find out what the city plans.”

While awaiting the City Council’s opinion, the Press Democrat and URA scrambled to downplay Burbank’s connection to the home. Why, it barely had any significance at all: “Luther Burbank did not live but a short time in this building, Trent Harrington, URA executive director, said. Instead, Mr. Burbank lived for many years in a home just across the street, on Tupper st.”

Another PD article seemingly tried to claim Burbank lived such a long time ago and was such an obscure figure his relationship with the house might never be determined:


…questions were not so simple to answer. They sent city officials, authorities on the life of Mr. Burbank, and other interested citizens scurrying to history books and records in an effort to find the answers. It’s understandable why time might blur the records, for there are really two Burbank homes, one right across the street from the other… History on the Burbank Gardens structure is quite clear. But the picture becomes muddled when it comes to finding out something about the property across the street…

Yet aside from all those photos of Burbank posing with famous people on its porch, despite a slew of postcards portraying just the house and even a 1948 beer ad (only fifteen years earlier!) which ID it as “his California home,” it was unknown “how much history is involved in the old house” per the PD. Too bad the newspaper and URA also ignored that Luther’s widow, Elizabeth, was still alive and living at the Old Homestead. Apparently knocking on her door to ask about the place was just too much work.

budweiserburbank(RIGHT: Perhaps Santa Rosa should have asked Budweiser which residence was Luther Burbank’s home)

The PD did print a few remarks from J. B. Keil, the nurseryman who was caretaker of the Burbank Garden for over two decades. He deftly recited the history of the home and said there were rare trees there including South American Maytens, a Caucasian Wingnut (hold the jokes, please) and a “weeping” walnut which was not identified by the reporter. His opinions on preserving the house were not given.

Additional letters appeared. A realtor commented, “When the new home was built across the street on Tupper, which is now occupied by the Salvation Army, it never seemed to have the feeling of warmth and welcome to it, and it never held the appeal that the old home and the old gardens did. Now, progress is making its way very rapidly…I don’t think the public should get at all alarmed about the possibility of the new Burbank home being torn down. Should it remain, with all of the development which is to go on, someday it may sit there and it might have the appearance of a monstrosity.”

A man who grew up on Tupper Street and was among the throngs who witnessed famous people paying homage was horrified Santa Rosa planned to destroy the house: “…I cannot understand why the people of Santa Rosa can permit this defilement of a place that should be a national shrine. This place should be preserved as part of our national heritage; lesser landmarks have been so preserved. I implore some person or some group in Santa Rosa to give some serious consideration to what will be lost forever if this plan of destruction takes place, then do something to stop it.”

Meanwhile, the City Council asked the Civic Art Commission to weigh in along with the Burbank Commission, a Chamber of Commerce committee formed about ten years earlier to oversee the transition of turning the Burbank Gardens into a public park.

The Civic Art Commission voted unanimously for demolition because the URA chairman told them the Old Homestead had more historical significance. Any significant trees should be moved to a new location – never mind that moving mature trees about a half century old would be a daunting and expensive task, if possible at all.

The Burbank Commission – which included Elizabeth Burbank – agreed, though the wording in the PD story suggested she actually hoped the URA or someone would move it elsewhere to be saved: “Mrs. Burbank did not object to having the house removed by the Urban Renewal Agency or by any worthwhile organization who wished to move it to another site and restore it.” After all, back in 1933 she had initially leased the home with the understanding “Luther Burbank’s office and the room in which he died will be preserved for all time.”

But the Press Democrat dismissed any notion the home was worth keeping: “Another solution is for some private interest to buy the building and move it to another location. But the old home is now run down, and action such as this would incur the extra expense of remodeling.” An editorial that appeared after the Council’s vote for demolition doubled-down on the URA’s determination that getting rid of the building was the best option: “The Salvation Army building has little or no historic significance, and would represent an unjustified maintenance burden to the taxpayers of the city if it, in addition to the Luther Burbank home, was moved to the grounds of the Burbank Memorial Gardens.”

And so it came to pass. On April 2, 1964, Santa Rosa bulldozed the home of Luther Burbank.

There’s quite a Believe-It-Or-Not! coda to this story, and you may want to make sure the windows are closed as to not frighten the neighbors when you scream: The house could have been left alone, had Sonoma Ave. connected to Santa Rosa Ave. just ten feet further north.

An option for saving the home was hinted just as the URA was first coming to terms with the discovery of it being famously connected to Burbank. In the April 16, 1963 PD, their Executive Director Trent Harrington “mentioned the possibility of moving the house 10 feet or so from its present position, thereby saving it from destruction.” Unfortunately, everyone focused on the difficult job of moving the building and as far as I can tell, no one suggested the easier choice of shifting the planned street route instead.

And that was a reasonable design change. Later in 1964, after Burbank’s house was already gone, some members of the URA griped the street plan was “inadequate” because both sides of Sonoma Ave. were supposed to have “a park like appearance.” On that occasion Harrington “suggested moving the proposed street northward ’10 feet or so’ and therefore creating a ‘wider park-like appearance on both sides of the street,'” according to the PD. Of course, that meant Sonoma Ave. wouldn’t be perfectly aligned with (what was) Ellis St. and the URA seemed to have something of a mania about that.

So here we are today. Burbank’s beloved home is gone forever and in its former backyard there’s a City Hall parking lot and a nondescript tiny plaza. The building stood approximately where Sonoma Ave. has a northbound turn lane. About where the much-photographed porch steps used to be there’s a sign warning motorists there is to be no stopping at any time. And next to it is a parking meter. How very Santa Rosa.

The Luther Burbank memorial parking meter
The Luther Burbank memorial parking meter

 


1 In 1963 the URA decided both Metanzas and Santa Rosa Creeks would be entombed in concrete culverts

2 Dr. Gertrude Van Steyn was a well-loved and admired family physician in Santa Rosa from 1939 to 1981. The medical office she built at 651 Cherry St. still exists and has a notably large porch, which was needed because she saw patients on a walk-in basis, never scheduling appointments. Her family had a Sebastopol ranch but she attended Santa Rosa schools so she likely had many opportunities as a child to see Burbank and hear him speak. She died at her Santa Rosa home in 2010 at the age of 95.

 

Title photo courtesy the Sonoma County Library Luther Burbank Home & Gardens Collection

Read More