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

In the 1960s there was a movement to have a municipal golf course. In 1967, Rollin “Rollie” Doyle Emerson (1917-1976), sold a portion of the family ranch, near Richmond School, to the City of Susanville that the latter developed into a golf course.  The Emerson family had owned  that property since 1874.

Fast forward, in the spring of 2002, Todd Sickles, manager of the Emerson Lake Golf Course, requested that the City rename the golf course to Diamond Mountain. Sickles, who had a long-term lease of the golf course, cited that with the expansion of the course to 18 holes that he wanted to create a new image for the facility and enhance its marketability.  Sickles also cited that the current name is at times misleading, as Emerson Lake is known to go dry, due to its usage for irrigation.  This issue did spark some debate.  Rollie Emerson’s son, Tro, acknowledged the problem with the dry lake, and requested that the family name remain intact and suggested Emerson Meadows.  Sickles, in the meantime, offered to construct a monument in honor of Rollie Emerson for his early day activities with the golf course and in addition, the first nine holes would be known as the “Emerson Nine.”  The City Council was divided on the issue.  Those in favor of the name change stated that marketing and financial aspects should be a priority over the region’s heritage.  On June 5, 2002, the City Council voted 3 to 2, and approved marketing over heritage and granted the name change to Diamond Mountain Golf Course.

Support by subscribing.

In the spring of 1857, there were only two cabins in what would be latter known as Susanville. By summer a nucleus of a hamlet had developed and some thought it should have name.  In August 1857, two names were proposed for the settlement around Roop’s trading post—Natauga and Fredonyer City. The Red Bluff Beacon reported: “The citizens of Honey Lake Valley are divided in opinion as to which names shall be given to their new town at the west end of the valley. Natauga in the Piutah tongue signifies woman and Fredonyer is the name of the gentleman who claims to be the first white man that ever beheld the beautiful valley. A gentleman who arrived here on Sunday last had in his possession an instrument in writing signed by fifty men declaring their preference for Natauga. An equal number are said to be as enthusiastic for Fredonyer. Simple and unimportant as this question is it said is to be creating quite a jealous feeling between the two rival names. They have no politics at Honey Lake and must have something to cavil about.”

Fredonyer City was the chosen name. However, it was more or less ignored and the place simply referred to as Roops. It should be noted that Fredonyer on April 11, 1857 filed a claim to property occupied by Roop with the Plumas County Recorder.

Support by subscribing.