In January 1908, the Rev. N.M. Parsons of the Susanville Methodist Church began the first official prohibition movement in the town. The issue had informally been discussed since the early 1880s when there was a local chapter of the Women’s ChristianTemperance Union. Parson began his campaign by focusing on the social ills caused by alcohol. He circulated petitions to have the issue placed on the next municipal election ballot, scheduled for April 11, 1908. The  City Trustees accepted Parsons’ petitions and placed the matter before the voters. There was one stipulation: it would be an advisory measure as to whether saloons should be banned.

It was a widely debated topic. The 1908 budget for the town was $3,498. There were two main revenue sources. One was the property tax assessment and it generated $1,815. The other was the liquor licenses which provided $1,424 to the town’s treasury. The town was operating on very lean times, with no spare funds for civic improvements.

Once thse figures were revealed, Parsons’ ballot measure was doomed. After all, if the City lost the money generated from liquor licenses, the only alternative to make up for the loss would be to increase property taxes. That appeared to be the voter’s consensus. The issue generated the highest voter turnout to date with 157 votes cast. The results: 110 votes to remain “wet” and 47 “dry.”

Donate

When Susanville was incorporated as a city in 1900, it had one glaring problem—it had no funding mechanism in place. During the debate whether to incorporate, proponents made it clear there would be no property tax. It was their belief that the City could operate on revenues generated from business license fees, especially the lucrative fees set by the state on saloons. Lassen County still collected the liquor license fees on the five saloons in Susanville. The County fathers were not going to give up this money without a fight, and they did.

It was a messy legal battle. It would force the City to impose a property tax assessment until the liquor license issue was resolved. In August 1903, the City imposed a tax levy of 40 cents per $100 assessed value.Of course, there were critics and even talks of disincorporation.

Relief would soon arrive. On August 25, 1904, the California Supreme Court ruled in Susanville v Zimmerman, et al that the town’s saloon owners had to pay the license fees to the City.

Never miss a story, click here.

In 1891, Congress passed the Forest Reserve Act, the beginning of today’s national forest. It was a slow process to create individual forest reserves and even to change name to national forests.

At the December 29, 1902, the City Council (known as trustees then) meeting they took their first political stance and passed its first resolution, after all the city had only been existence less than two years. At issue was the federal government’s establishment of the Lassen Butte and Diamond Mountain Forest Reserves. The council, as was in the case of many municipalities and counties where large tracts of public timberlands were located, opposed the reserves for fear they would be detrimental in the case of future economic needs. The resolution stated in part: “Whereas the establishment of said Forest Reserves will be fatal to the prosperity of this Town; in that they are calculated: 1, to defer the investment of capital in this vicinity for the manufacture of lumber and other products; 2, to prevent the building of any railroad to connect this place with markets of the county; 3, to cause the surrender of all title lands within their limits to the Government, thereby greatly reducing the assessable property and public revenue there from.” 

Never miss a story, click here.

Note:  This is a perennial post, because it has merit and in my opinion they should be banned permanently. In Susanville’s early years as an incorporated city, it was remarkable what the council did. One of their actions, I still support today, and that is the prohibition of fireworks. The first time they banned fireworks was in 1906, following the aftermath of the San Francisco earthquake and fire. It was also a nod to the insurance companies who suffered tremendous loss from that event. It was their belief, as well as many other communities, that this preventive measure would reduce the risk of fires.

In 1912, the City once again banned fireworks. The Lassen Advocate applauded the city and wrote: 21 June 1912 – “No Fireworks on the Fourth. We desire to congratulate our Board of Town Trustees on their action in placing the ban on all kinds of fireworks on July 2, 3, and 4. This action has been taken by large and progressive cities for years past, and we are greatly pleased to note that the smaller places are falling into line. Fireworks do no good and may do a world of harm. Fires may be started that will blot out blocks of cities or towns; little boys and girls all over the United States have lost fingers, hands eyes and in many instances, their lives from the dangerous pinwheel and firecrackers. Let them yell all they will, let them spend their money for ice cream, candy—anything on earth but the fireworks.”

In 1916, the Monticola Club appeared before the Susanville City Council asking for a ban of fireworks for the 4th of July. Their answer was no. The council assured that the utmost care would be done, but they were not going to deprive children of the festivities. In 1926, due to the tinder dry conditions,  the City banned fireworks for fire, health and safety reasons.

Spread the word, and encourage a friend to subscribe