In September 1933, the City of Susanville had transferred the right-of-way of Main Street to the State of California. This was in accordance with State legislation for integration of city streets that were part of the state highway system. In the beginning all worked well.

After World War II when life returned to somewhat normalcy, the City learned a few lessons of what they could and could not do—the hard way. In 1947, to alleviate congestion on Main Street, the City proposed to install stoplights at the intersections of Main with Lassen and Weatherlow. When the State Highway Division learned of this, it objected. The State said Main Street did not meet the requirement of 100 cars per hour passing through the intersections. Their solution to relive the congestion, introduce parallel parking on Main Street, then striping to make four lanes—two in each direction. That went over like the proverbial lead balloon with the merchants.

Over the next couple of years it was a highly debated topic. The resistance group was no match for the State.. In 1949, State Highway Engineer R.N. Putnam informed the City that it must discontinue angle parking on Main Street.

On July 10, 1950, the City Council moved forward to adopt parallel parking for Main Street. The Council no doubt was concerned that if it was not in compliance with State law, the State conceivably could withhold the City’s apportionment of gasoline tax money. The parallel parking ordinance went into effect on August 10.

There was, of course, public uproar. It was not until the summer of 1952, the issue had simmered down, and slowly everyone adjusted to the fact that parallel parking was here to stay.

Subscribe

Susanville’s main thoroughfare has been an interesting political foot ball since the town incorporated in 1900. Initially, the major debate was fire issues. As the town progressed, some wanted civic improvements, others did not. Of course, those opposed, while they wanted nice items such as sidewalks, gutters, and paved streets, they did not want to pay for them.

The town’s Main Street would be and still is a contentious issue. The bickering between California Highway officials and the City began in 1920. The issue then, was the during construction of Highway 36 and its approach into Susanville.

The first battle was the approach. The City refused to give the State Highway Department the right-of-way to the town’s Main Street. The state would only build the highway to the city limits. To connect the highway to Main Street resulted in a nasty “S” curve. This was an internal problem with the city and problems with property owners not willing to grant right-of-ways to correct the situation.  The retaining wall entering Susanville was the scene of numerous wrecks. But changes were on the horizon when the cash strapped city made a major concession that has ever since affected its main thoroughfare.  More about that tomorrow.

Tim

It was on March 20,1987, the nurses at Lassen Community Hospital, then affiliated with St. Mary’s reached an agreement ending the eight week strike. Stephanie Kruse representing St. Mary’s stated, “Everhting went very well. It is over.” While union spokeswoman, Noreen Frieling added, “The ink is on the paper. It’s done.”

Tim

Tuesday, is primary election day in California, so I thought it only fitting to have an election story—oh do I have many having spent many years working as a county election official. One of the most disheartening aspects is when there is low voter turnout. The general public is not aware, just how much work and preparation is involved. Okay, enough of my soap box and on to the story at hand.

The April 1930 Susanville City Council election turnout was pathetic, only eighteen votes cast! Robert M. Cook, editor and publisher of the Lassen Mail wrote:

”On Monday of this week three men were up for election as members of the city governing board. Exactly eighteen votes were cast in the election booth. That number on the face of it shows there is no local interest in how the town is run or who runs it. And the men who are on the town council board are the men who say how and where the taxpayer’s money shall be spent.

”It seems reasonable to suppose that interest, more or less, would be cenetered at election time on whom should occupy places on this governing body. The few votes cast last Monday would indicate the reverse.

”Whether or not he or she should cast a vote is up to the individual concerned. And if a person is not concerned to the extent of casting a vote then adverse criticism should cease.

”The job of councilman carries with it nothing but work and grief. There is no salary attached to the office, nor rarely any credit for work done. It is more or less of a wonder that any one would take the office as a gift, let alone having to ‘run’ for it. The different men who hold places on the board should be given a vote of thanks for accepting the responsibility they do. Instead all they get is a lot of knocks by persons who are too indifferent to express their choice of whom they want through the medium of the ballot box.

”The office of councilman is an important one and should not be treated indifferently. If there is not any interest shown in who runs the town and does the work of planning and directing, then you can’t blame the powers that be if no interest is shown on their part.”

Subscribe

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