development

camp-vacation-tl

WHEN WE SUMMERED IN LOST PLACES

Jeff Elliott Leave a comment

In the years straddling the turn of the last century, it seemed everyone in Santa Rosa was coming and going to the Russian River during the summer months. For many of them, however, the appeal of the river area had less to do with water activities than the siren call of rocking chairs in rented cabins, croquet and bowling and billiards with friends from town, hotel service, and for some above all, eating.


View Russian River train stops and resorts c. 1900-1909 in a larger map

RIGHT: Russian River train stops and resorts c. 1900-1909. Blue markers indicate Northwestern Pacific Railroad (NWP) passenger stops; red markers show resorts or other tourist destinations

Much has been written about the river scene from the mid-1920s onward, but info about the first decade of the river resorts is scarce, although they were a central part of Santa Rosa life in early 20th century summers. Where exactly were these places, and what were they like? Why would someone prefer to go to Camp Vacation instead of Summerhome Park? After picking through out-of-town newspaper ads, railroad timetables, maps and atlases and all those “personal mention” columns tracking local residents, I present (what I believe to be) the first cross-referenced map of the Russian River byways during that era.

My early confusion centered upon the tangled names. Some spots were known by two or more – the Olivet train stop became Woolsey and Trenton became Laguna, for instance – and making matters worse, the Santa Rosa newspapers were sometimes sloppy about accuracy. Before Eaglenest became Rionido, then later Rio Nido, it was also in the papers as Eagle Nest, Eagle’s Nest and Eagle’s Nest Camp. And don’t even ask about Camp Six.

It’s also tricky to judge the popularity of any of these places. A new get-away popped up almost every summer during those years, while the paint was still almost fresh on the oldest resort, only about a dozen years old. Time spent anywhere on the river was still a novelty, something to talk about with your neighbors and friends, and the next time you went maybe you’d try another place that you’d heard good things about.

Today it’s hard to imagine the Russian River wasn’t always a tourist destination, but most thanks for transforming a no-man’s-land of redwood stumps into a primo resort area goes to north coast railroad baron A. W. Foster, president of the Northwestern Pacific (NWP). Mr. Foster is best remembered as a heartless supervillain in the 1905 “Battle of Sebastopol Avenue” (although it’s more likely that history has given him a bum rap). As logging was winding down in the mid-1890s, Foster saw an opportunity to cash in on the growing popularity of Sunday excursion trips and vacation rentals, as best told in the often-quoted (but rarely credited) book “Redwood Railways” by Gilbert Kneiss:


To Foster, however, belongs much of the credit for opening up the Russian River country as a vacation land. Informal camping in the forests and two-week rocking-chair sojourns at American plan, pitcher, basin, and thunder-mug resort hotels had long been common. Foster was thinking in terms of summer homes and traffic for the Guereneville Branch where logged out country had left rusty rails. He bought some of the cut-over land, now green an bushy with second growth…[soon] Guerneville converted itself from a hard-drinking, bullwhacking lumber camp to a village of parasols, mandolins, and ice-cream sodas.

It’s not the job of this Santa Rosa-centric blog to tell the story of railroads, but I wish more history was available on how Foster and his railway developed this area. Did the NWP plan and build the resorts, then selling or leasing them once profitable? The intriguing thread tying most of the resorts together was Santa Rosa’s industrious Cnopius family, who were apparently managing nearly all of them at different times between 1896 and 1906. Did they work for Foster? Mrs. L. C. Cnopius (no first name found, sorry) was particularly key to the progress, and her importance was even noted in San Francisco obituaries. Mrs. Cnopius is also known here for being the last direct victim of the 1906 Santa Rosa earthquake.

TOP: Section of the Camp Vacation dining room, 1908. Note the hungry fellow peering through the window
RIGHT: Boating at Camp Vacation, 1907
MIDDLE: NWP Locomotive No. 99, “Coffee Grinder”
BOTTOM: Boarding the eastbound passenger train at Guernewood Park, probably 1909. Note the pile of luggage at the far end

Dining room photo courtesy UC/Berkeley, all others courtesy Sonoma County Library

CLICK or TAP any image to enlarge

The first resort to open was Mirabel Park, which soon became a particularly popular spot for large groups – unions, churches, fraternal organizations – to hold day-long Sunday picnics. So great was Mirabel’s appeal that it threatened the overall success of the area. In the 1900 San Francisco papers it was reported  that “many families fear to take [Russian River trains] owing to the dread of coming in contact with Sunday picnics,” although the railway assured the public that “this road has had no trouble on this score.” Still, they promised to herd picnickers into separate train cars: “In the future, therefore, no one traveling on the California Northwestern Railway on Sundays will come in contact with Sunday picnics.”

Mirabel Park was also somewhat unusual in this era for having a “villa” offering actual boarding rooms. More common were partially-furnished bungalows for rent or sale, should you have the overwhelming urge to buy a tiny shack with no running water or electricity. And these cottages near the river did not sell cheap; ads from real estate brokers listed them for $400 up, about three times more than a place in Camp Meeker.

Bungalows were suited for anyone spending the season on the river or planning to entertain friends, as many people did. But most people vacationing for a few days or so stayed at one of the tent hotels, adults $2/day, $10 per week, children under ten half-price. An advertisement for Camp Vacation describes the accommodations: “To sleep beneath a tent, to pass the day in the open air and have nothing else to do is to camp with luxury. Camp Vacation makes this easy for all. It is a hotel under canvas. Regular hotel service is furnished, but the guests live in tents. The tents are provided with wooden floors, are well furnished and are taken care of by those in charge.”

Meals were included in the deal, and the all-you-can-eat grub seemed to be as much an attraction as the Great Outdoors. In a September, 1908, San Francisco Call how-I-spent-my-summer-vacation writing contest, 8th grader Ruth Moore told of her good times at one of the tent hotels:


My vacation was spent in the beautiful redwood groves of Sonoma county…we arrived at Montesano station about 3 p. m. and lugged our heavy baggage up hill, over stumps, rocks, brush and other obstructions to our camping grounds. Then our troubles were over. Nothing to do but eat, sleep and seek pleasure….

…When I first arrived at the camp I did not have a very big appetite, and I was surprised to see my friends eat. Their table manners seemed to have been left at home. They grabbed everything in sight with both hands. They would drink out of the bucket in preference to using a cup and wipe their mouths on the tablecloth.

But in about three days I was just as bad. I simply could not get enough to eat, and how good everything did taste. I never did get enough of hot cakes and maple syrup any morning…

For Santa Rosans and other locals, the most popular resorts – or at least, the most often mentioned in the newspaper columns – were Camp Vacation, just across the river from Bohemian Grove, and Eaglenest, location of modern-day Rio Nido. The latter included bungalows and a true resort hotel, complete with a “box ball” bowling alley (a cross between a half-length 9 pin bowling lane and and a looooong coffee table, often found in arcades at the time – photo here). Besides four miles of beaches,  Camp Vacation offered tennis courts, and it’s worth noting that tennis and box ball bowling were among the few genteel sports where women could compete against men.

But maybe the best part of those months was having the entire lower river available as your personal playground. When passenger and freight trains weren’t scheduled, the railway used the tracks to offer a kind of trolley service using an ancient steam engine and open railway car recycled from the old timber days. Meeting your friends at a particular swimming hole by catching a ride on the “Coffee Grinder” –  which looked like an oversized toy, and puffed away at less than ten miles per hour – added to summer’s delight.

Even the James Wyatt Oates family joined the river stampede, in their own way. The couple escorted a couple of girls a family friend and her daughter to a 1909 house party at the home of Charles Rule in Jenner, where they visited at least once a year every summer or autumn.

This chapter of the resorts ended in late 1909, when the NWP line finally met the narrow gauge railway that came up the coast. After that the railroad began promoting the “Triangle Trip” Sunday excursion trains from San Francisco, a 150-mile ride with a little stopover at Monte Rio. A day out of the city sitting on trains while watching some nice scenery, then home for dinner. Oh, look, there’s a beach. Those trees look tall. Gee, I wish there was only some way I could stop thinking about work.

NEXT: Big Changes on the Russian River in 1910
 

NO PICNIC CROWDS
To Interfere With Regular Sunday Travel.

The California Northwestern Railway is making heavy preparations for handling next season’s business, and among other things will give special attention to its Sunday travel. The section which this road traverses is more than attractive for short Sunday trips, but many families fear to take them owing to the dread of coming in contact with Sunday picnics. While it is true this road has had no trouble on this score, it is determined to eliminate from the minds of the public all idea of this contact. Although the picnics up the road to Mirabel Park, etc., have in the past been kept separate from the regular travel, there will be none whatever this coming year, and those attending Schuetzen Park will be run on separate boats and trains. In the future, therefore, no one traveling on the California Northwestern Railway on Sundays will come in contact with Sunday picnics.

– SF Call, November 11, 1900

 

I hear that box ball in the bowling alley at Eaglenest has been a fascinating pastime for a number of our society women who have been spending a portion of their vacation there during the past few weeks. So interested did they become, some of them, in the sport, that quite a little good-natured rivalry was aroused as to who could make the highest score. I know one lady who made a record score, but social excommunication is threatened if the newspaper divulges the name. Some of the best players, however, are members of the Irene Club and some of them have been guests of Mrs. Charles A. Wright at her bungalow at Eaglenest.

– “Society Gossip” Press Democrat, August 9, 1909

 

Colonel and Mrs. Oates, Mrs. Dorothy Farmer and Miss Hazel Farmer were included in a house party at Rule Ranch as the guests of Charles H. Rule. Colonel Oates will return the first of the week, but the ladies will remain for several days longer. The hospitality of Rule Ranch is always very cordial.

– “Society Gossip” Press Democrat, September 19, 1909

 

CHANGE NAME OF STATION
Camp Vacation Will be Known as Rio Campo

Camp Vacation  as the name of a railroad station on the Northwestern Pacific is a thing of the past. In future the place will be known as Rio Campo and unless the name of the popular resport which was created by Lewis C. Cnopius is maintained, the name of Camp Vacation  will disappear forever. To the efforts of Mr. Cnopius and the late Mrs. Cnopius Camp Vacation  owes its great popularity as a resort and its wide reputation over the state.

With the changes that come and go. the railroad company has determined to call the station at the place Rio Campo, and with the completion of the bridge near that place there will be no other stops on this side of the river for the trains will continue their journey across the bridge and on down to Monte Rio.

With the coming summer season the loop completed by this bridge will make the redwoods section even more popular than it has been heretofore. Annually thousands of visitors spend their vacations in this delightful section.

The rails are laid on the Monte Rio side of the river, and everything is in readiness to connect the same when the officials give orders for the same.

– Santa Rosa Republican, September 21, 1909

Read More

TANNERY TOWN

Jeff Elliott Leave a comment

A 1909 visitor to Santa Rosa  probably thought it was a cute little town – except for the godawful stink, of course.

The terrible smell came from the tanneries, which pinched downtown Santa Rosa on two sides. To the west was the Santa Rosa-Vallejo Tannery, which was at the modern location of the Hyatt. Just a few streets down from that on West 6th was the small Max Reuthershan tannery, which was likely the source of the high quality leather used by the Comstock family artisan partnership, “The Companeros.” Even closer to downtown was the large Levin Brothers Tannery at the corner of 2nd and F street.* What they had in common was that each backed on to Santa Rosa Creek, from which they could draw an ample supply of free water – and sometimes illegally discharge waste in it.

(TOP: The leather finishing building of the Levin Brothers Tannery, facing Second street, c. 1908.
CLICK or TAP image to enlarge
BELOW: The rear of the finishing building is seen at left, connected by walkways to the section of the tannery with the vats and dryers. The rear of that building was adjacent to Santa Rosa Creek.)

Most (probably all) of the problems concerned the Levin Tannery, which was warned at least twice in the years before the 1906 earthquake to stop dumping its foul tannery vats into the creek. At a court hearing to address charges brought by a Fish and Game Commissioner, an expert testified that the concentrations of lime from the vats killed fish within a few minutes. Used to remove hair and prepare hides for tanning, lime was often mixed with other highly toxic agents such as cyanide.

That Second street tannery was also particularly lax about hygene, throwing hair and scrapings into an outdoor bin, causing the downwind part of town to smell offal (sorry).  After their 1906 court appearances the Levin brothers vowed to clean up their business, but didn’t.

Come January, 1909, the community said enough was enough, and a group of 144 citizens hired a lawyer to present their petition to the City Council. Rehashed were the usual complaints about the stench and that workers were “…discharging the refuse matter, including poisonous chemicals, from its tannery and vats directly into Santa Rosa Creek.” But this petition included a new line of attack: Since the law said all tanneries were prohibited within city limits, the company should be forced to shut down or move.

The petitioners were right: Santa Rosa Ordinance 179 stated that tanneries were a public nuisance and forbidden in town. But that law had been passed back in July, 1900 to block a fourth tannery from setting up shop; it was apparently presumed that the existing tanneries were grandfathered in. (In truth, we don’t know exactly what Ordinance 179 stated; that page – and many others – can’t be found in the city archives, leaving us with just the paraphrased wording presented by the 1909 petitioners.)

The City Council decided to first visit a large tannery in Stockton where they found a well-run operation free of complaints from the neighborhood. After that tour, they dithered for months. There was discussion of writing a new and more specific ordinance regarding tanneries, and again, the Levins promised to be good and obey the law. Mayor James Gray wanted to resolve the matter by fiat of declaring the public nuisance abated and allowing business to go on as usual. The one thing the Council did not want to do was to get tough with the tannery. The mayor was asked point-blank at a meeting if the city ever intended to enforce the law. “No,” he said.

After six months of punting the ball, the petitioner’s lawyer met with the City Attorney, who made a bizarre proposal that bordered on extortion: If Santa Rosa were to enforce its own law, the citizen’s group would have to first put up a  $50,000 bond to indemnify the city “from any expense or loss.” Needless to say,  the petitioner’s lawyer wouldn’t even consider the idea.

This drama came to a climax at a mid-June Council meeting where the chambers were packed with a large audience. A report was read about the meeting between the two lawyers and the citizens refusal to pay a bond. Immediately following that, a resolution was introduced and passed unanimously: Santa Rosa Ordinance 179 was repealed. The city couldn’t be required to enforce  a law that didn’t exist. “The council then took up other business,” reported the Press Democrat, “and a number of the petitioners present left the council chambers, and gathered in knots of twos and threes to talk over the matter.”

The Council did pass a new tannery ordinance two months later, but in the interim there was no regulation of the businesses whatsoever. Heaven knows what the south side of town stunk like on those warm summer evenings.

New ordinance 260 allowed tanneries within city limits as long as they were not “offensive to the senses or prejudicial to the public health or comfort,” wording loose enough to be meaningless. But at least the new law explicitly required tanneries to remove waste from the plant within two days and banned dumping in the creek – although the latter was apparently no longer an issue anyway, as at the June 15 Council meeting it was mentioned in passing that the tannery was emptying such “big quantities” into the sewer line that it was becoming obstructed.

Gentle Reader may be now wondering why the Council, and particularly the mayor, treated the Levin Tannery with such kid gloves, ignoring both the law and public will. It would have been no mystery to anyone living here at the time; this was the largest business in town, and the only partner in the corporation besides the Levin brothers was John P. Overton, former mayor and undoubtedly the richest man in town. To the clique of good old boys who owned most of downtown and the Chamber of Commerce insiders who controlled local politics, the smell of rotting hides was the smell of money.

The Levin tannery was destroyed by fire in May, 1910, but was quickly rebuilt and continued operations until 1953. I’ve been told that it stank up the neighborhood right up till the end. If Santa Rosa had a Latin motto, it would have to be, “Nihil mutat, ergo nulla res mutat:” Nothing changes, so no things change.


*Today, F street is part of Brookwood Avenue, but in the early 20th century F street ended at 2nd, and did not cross the creek. The Levin Tannery was at the current location of 101 Brookwood Ave (stretching on both east and west sides), extending all the way back to Santa Rosa Creek.

AN ALLEGED NUISANCE

Representing 144 citizens Attorney J. Rollo Leppo presented a petition to the City Council calling attention to the existence of an alleged nuisance, namely, the tanning of hides at the tannery of the Levin Tanning Company on Second street, asking for the enforcement of the ordinance regulating such matters. It was also set forth that poisonous matter is being allowed to run into the waters of Santa Rosa creek, the petitioners stating that the same is very offensive. The ordinance was cited as a part of the ordinance.

Attorney Leppo followed up the reading of the petition by an address to the Council, urging that the alleged nuisance complained of existed in a residence neighborhood and not a manufacturing section.

Professor McMeans said the odor from the tannery had been very disagreeable for several years, particularly at night.

August Ketterlin said no better evidence could be offered than to invite the Concilmen to take a walk up that way. He complained of the unpleasant ordor. He said the petition cast no reflection on the shoe factory near the tannery.

John Hood said he and other property owners had offered to buy the site before the tannery opened.

A. P. Macgregory said the odor at times was unbearable, making it impossible to keep the windows open in houses.

Mayor Gray said the matter was one that the whole Council should consider, and should receive attention. Later in the meeting the Mayor and Council decided that they would visit the tannery.

– Press Democrat, January 20, 1909

THE LEVIN TANNERY MUST CLEAN HOUSE
Strict Regulations to Be Adopted by City Council–New Ordinance to Be Prepared at Once

The long-drawn-out tannery discussion came to an end last night, when, instead of declaring the Levin tannery a nuisance and authorising suit for its removal, the City Council announced its determination of adopting strict regulations for the conduct of all such places operated inside the city limits.

When the matter came up, Councilmen Burris, Bronson, Forgett and Steiner, who visited the big Wagner tannery at Stockton last week, reported on the result of their inspection. They said they had found the institution located on one of the principal residence streets and surrounded by the very best class of homes, and yet there was no complaint upon the part of anybody. The reason was that the tannery is conducted as it should be. No offal or refuse matter of any kind is allowed to accumulate, and hair is carefully washed and dried and the sanitary arrangements are carefully looked after. As a result of its visit the committee was thoroughly convinced that a tannery when properly conducted is not necessarily a nuisance, and that with care and the expenditure of some money all cause for complaint in connection with the Levin tannery could be removed.

Attorney J. R. Leppo, representing the petitioners who asked for the tannery’s removal, addressed the Council at length, pointing out the existence of the so-called “deadline” ordinance, and urging that the same be enforced. Attorney Thomas J. Geary represented the Levin people, argued that such drastic methods were entirely unnecessary and pledged the institution under discussion to a strict compliance with whatever regulations might be adopted. John P. Overton, one of the stockholders and directors, also gave the council his assurance that this would be done, and at once Mayor Gray stated that while the people living in that part of town are entitled to be protected, he was of the opinion that the plan suggested would give them full relief, and such being the case the abatement of the nuisance rather than forcing the tannery to move was the proper course to pursue.

When Mayor Gray  had taken his seat, Attorney Leppo asked point-blank whether or not the present ordinance was going to be enforced.

“No,” said the Mayor.

It is understood that an ordinance prescribing the manner in which tanneries are to be conducted is to be prepared at once, and that it will be a strict one. It will be based largely upon the insight on the subject gained by the recent Stockton trip. “The Levins will have to run their place properly, and that is all there is to it,” said Mayor James H.  Gray last night after the meeting. “We do not want to see them injured in a business way or unjustly harassed, but the people living up in that part of town are entitled to protection, and we propose to see that they get it.”

– Press Democrat, March 17, 1909

CITY COUNCIL REPEALS THE TANNERY ORDINANCE
Action Is Taken at the Meeting Last Night

The City Council last night, by unanimous vote, repealed the ordinance in existence for a number of years prescribing the limits in which tanneries could be operated in Santa Rosa. It immediately afterwards passed a resolution calling for the preparatings by the Ordinance Committee of a  new ordinance governing and regulating the conducting of all tanneries, etc., in Santa Rosa. The action taken followed the long drawn out controversy of the Levin tannery.

The rumor that the tannery matter would again be up for consideration attracted a large audience to the council chambers. At a previous meeting the matter had been placed in the hands of the City Attorney, representing the city, for a conference with Attorney J. Rollo  Leppo, representing the petitioners for the removal of the tannery, as to the adoption of a course of procedure, following the vote to estop any further postponement of action on the demanded enforcement of the ordinance.

Mayor Gray called upon City Attorney Allison B. Ware for a report as to the conference held between himself and Mr. Leppo. Mr. Ware stated that he and Mr. Leppo had met and talked over the matter at some length. This was in view of the contemplated enforcement of the ordinance as has already been mentioned. Two propositions were discussed, namely, he said, one of which was for the petitioners to put up a bond of $50,000 to indemnify the city against all damages and handle their own case in the courts through their attorneys, Messr. Cowan and Leppo, for the city to assume all liabilites, require no bond from the petitioners and handle the case entirely through the City Attorney withoug additional legal assistance. Attorney Leppo had stated, he said, that the petitioners would not put up a bond indemnifying the city from all loss or suits and would prefer to have the city enforce the ordinance and take entire charge of and prosecute the alleged violation of the ordinance.

Attorney Leppo, who was present at the meeting, as were also Attorney T. J. Geary and Attorney J. P. Berry, representing the tannery interests, suggested at a previous meeting that the petitioners would be willing to put up a bond to pay “recoverable costs,” such as fees of court reporter and court fees.

Chairman Johnston of the Ordinance [illegible microfilm] handed Clerk Clawson a resolution which he said he desired to offer. Clerk Clawson read the document, which was a resolution repealing the tannery limit ordinance, Councilman Burris moved and Councilman Steiner seconded the adoption of the resolution. Each councilman responded with an “aye,” when his name was called.

Before recording his vote Councilman Fred Forgett stated that he wished to make a little explanation before voting. He said at the previous meeting he voted for no further delay in the enforcing of the ordinance with the understanding as he supposed that the petitioners would give the bond to indemnify the city from all costs or damages that might result. Mr. Leppo said that was not the understanding.

The rule was then suspended and the resolution repealing the ordinance was passed. Then Councilman Barham moved and Councilman Steiner seconded the motion that the Ordinance Committee proceed to draft a new ordinance regulating and governing the conducting of tanneries and factories in the city of Santa Rosa.

The council then took up other business and a number of the petitioners present left the council chambers, and gathered in knots of twos and threes to talk over the matter.

– Press Democrat, June 16, 1909
HELD FOR TRIAL
Levin Tanning Company Must Appear in Superior Court

The Levin Tanning Company, a corporation, was held for trail before the Superior Court Monday by Justice Atchinson on a charge of polluting the waters of Santa Rosa creek. This is the second case against the defendants on a similar charge.

The complaint was made by Deputy Game Commissioner J. C. Ingalls and it charges the defendants with dumping the tannery vats into the creek, despite warnings for a couple of years.

Dr. A. J. Cox of the Stanford University faculty was the principal witness, he having made a number of tests of the water of the creek and experiments and claimed that it would kill fish life. The lime water from the vats killed fish in 14 minutes, while that diluted to four per cent killed them in less than three hours.

– Press Democrat, March 13, 1906
TANNERY WILL MAKE A CHANGE
Levin Brothers to Inaugurate New Plan at Their Tannery

Levin Bros., proprietors of the Levin Tanning company, will soon inaugurate a new feature in connection with their business. They are planning to secure a place out of town for the handling of the hair and scrapings that come from the hides in process of manufacture, and after properly drying and curing, it will ship the hair east. There is a good demand for hair of this knd, which is used in the manufacture of various articles, and also in the building trades.

It is the scrapings above referred to which the hair is attached, that cause the disagreeable odor noticeable in the vicinity of so many tanneries. When dumped out and allowed to remain in the vicinity a stench arises, particularly in warm weather. It is possible that the hair output of the other local tanneries will also be purchased by Levin Bros. and carried away daily into the hills and handled with their own. For some time the inauguration of this new feature of their business has been in contemplation by Levin Bros., but they claim that heretofore the amount of hair turned out has not justified the expense of fixing up to properly handle it. The scrapings will be removed daily, and men will be kept constantly employed at the curing grounds to handle it. Levin Bros. say there will be no cause for complaint over any odors in the vicinity of their big establishment here when they inaugurate the new arrangement, and if they succeed in arranging for the purchase of the hair scrapings of the other local tanneries the same thing may be said of them also.

– Press Democrat, March 29, 1906

Read More

WOULDN’T IT BE NICE TO HAVE A PARK?

Jeff Elliott Leave a comment

Santa Rosa had in 1907 a nice Carnegie public library, a popular skating rink and swimming pool (in winter, a floor was placed over the pool and it became a dance hall), and a couple of small theatres. But it didn’t have a single public park.

The closest thing they had was Grace Brother’s park at the corner of Fourth St. and McDonald Ave, a place where Santa Rosa had celebrated since before the Civil War. But it was privately owned so it wasn’t always open, and by 1907, it was looking seedy; “buildings vacant, old, and dilapidated” was the note on the fire map produced the following year. Santa Rosa also had a ball field or two, including “Recreation Park” (location unknown to me) which appears to have been just a vacant lot; the Rose Parade that year marched around the field because the downtown streets were still clogged with post-quake building materials. Both were far short of what the town wanted.

In February of that year, PD gossip columnist Dorothy Anne took a break from her usual format (announcing weddings, reporting on ladies’ club tea parties, and settling personal scores) to ask eighteen prominent women what they’d like to see in a town park. The answers were thoughtful and offer rare descriptions of what Santa Rosa really looked like in 1907.

Several proposed a park focused on Santa Rosa Creek, similar to the design that architect William H. Willcox had sketched out a year earlier, with a little dam that would allow swimming and boating. Alas, the Creek was apparently quite a mess in 1907, described below as a dumping ground that would require a great deal of cleanup. Later in the year, the local power company would be charged with releasing some sort of fish-killing effluent.

Another idea mentioned often was doing something with the old campus of the Pacific Methodist College, now the site of Santa Rosa Middle School, between E Street and Brookwood Avenue. It might have made a nice, park, albeit flat and square-ish. One woman suggested that an ersatz stream could be added (perhaps by not fixing a few of the town’s perpetually leaking water mains).

Among the surprises were a couple of suggestions to use the old Ridgway property, which would later become the Santa Rosa High School grounds. Two women also thought outside the box and wanted the new courthouse to be built somewhere else, so the center of downtown could become the park.

Of great personal interest was the comment from Mattie Oates that she wanted roses and Virginia creeper to “run in profusion over the trees.” The Virginia creeper vine still climbs the trees around her old home, and turns a brilliant scarlet in the autumn, as shown here on the great oak behind Comstock House. We didn’t know that this was a heritage plant dating back to her garden.

Most fun of all the responses were the snippy remarks of Mrs. T. J. Geary, wife of the city attorney who had told the City Council that the rich were entitled to more water because they paid more taxes). Mrs. Geary snorted, “Don’t I think Santa Rosa ought to have a park? Don’t I think we all ought to have diamond earrings? While fully appreciating their beauty and desirability, I think our needs should be well supplied before indulging in luxuries, When our streets, water supply, and sewers are all improved it will be time enough to talk park.” Cripes, lady, sorry to have asked.

A selection of the replies from that February 24, 1907 Press Democrat:

* Mrs. William Martin: “It seems to me that nature has pointed out the most appropriate spot for a city park. Cleanse and dam up the naturally pretty stream running through the town, lay out the banks tastefully, and tract on either side and you will have one of the most beautiful and central places of recreation possible. It seems a pity that a stream which might be made so attractive should be used as a dumping place for rubbish.”
* Mrs. C. D. Barnett: “In my opinion the best location for a park would be along the Santa Rosa creek, if it were not too mammoth an undertaking to remove the objectionable features. With these taken away the place could be transformed into an ideal park with all the natural beauty which it affords. However, there would be so much to undo before anything positive could be accomplished that it seems hardly practical for Santa Rosa to undertake in the near future. My second choice would be the old College ground, affording as it would seem the best natural facilities for transformation into a park. The grand old trees, the creek bed, where an artificial stream could be directed, the broad stretch of grass, and other natural advantages present wonderful opportunities for a city park which would fulfill all the needs and requirements of such a public improvement.”
* Mrs. Judge Seawell: “My ideas are so extravagant I am afraid to give them to you. I would like to see the Ridgway tract north of town bordering on Healdsburg avenue, made into a park. With drivers through broad lawns, bordered by varicolored flower beds, with fountains and statuary, I think we would have the ideal park of the state.”
* Mrs. E. F. Woodward: “I should like to see two parks, one on each side of the town. The College grounds at the east side is most preferable, and the block bordering Seventh, between A and Washington street at the west side.”
* Mrs. W. D. Reynolds: “I would prefer several small parks scattered [illegible microfilm] the triangle formed by Mendocino avenue, tenth, and Joe Davis streets would be a desirable location for one; the triangle at the corner of College avenue and Fourth street, another. I would like to see the new court house put on the Grand hotel site and utilize the court house square for park purposes.”
* Miss Adelaide Elliott: “Our beautiful new Santa Rosa needs a beautiful new park. We can have it by adopting the fine plan of Mr. Willcox to improve Santa Rosa creek from E street to Main. I agree with him that this is decidedly our most desirable location. Nature has done wonders for us there. Trees, vines, a winding stream that could easily be dammed to hold water enough to make boating ideal on summer evenings…All visitors to Santa Rosa wish to see the home and grounds of our eminent and esteemed friend and townsman, Mr. Luther Burbank. It would be greatly to our credit and satisfaction if we were able to take these strangers through a part of town of which we could be proud instead of being ashamed…”
* Mrs. John S. Taylor: “…[G]ive us back our plaza. No other place can combine utility and convenience with beautiful effect, as could the plaza, used as originally intended as a public park. All large cities have their breathing spaces, lungs, so to speak, in the crowded business sections. We can never aspire to metropolitan effects without city parks.”
* Mrs. T. A. Proctor: “…[T]he only place to my idea is Mr. Ridgway’s field of lively oak trees on the Healdsburg road, already a natural park. But, oh! I am afraid I am like the boy who asked for the man in the moon to play with.”
* Mrs. James W. Oates: “Make parks of the banks of all the creeks near the city; letting roses and Virginia creeper run in profusion over the trees; placing seats beneath the shade of the latter; and keeping the streams of water free from refuse.”

Read More