Saturday, November 2, 2024
HomeHistory StoriesFrom the Files of the Lassen Historical Society: Automobile Parking in Susanville

From the Files of the Lassen Historical Society: Automobile Parking in Susanville

Susanville’s unique ‘middle of the street’ parking in the early 1920’s

by Susan Couso

Fire often ravaged western towns. The hastily constructed buildings fueled destruction. In an attempt to prevent this from happening in Susanville, the town was laid out with a wide main street. That didn’t stop all of the terrible fires, but it did create an expansive lane for travel and parking.

There was no parking problem in Susanville for many years, but as the population increased, congestion caused a lot of irritation. Some people stopped their conveyances in the street and left them there while they visited local establishments, requiring others to veer around the stopped vehicle.

As the years went by and uptown buildings seemed to edge forward towards the middle of the street, vehicles increased in size, and things began to change.

Susanville was bustling with visitors, customers, merchants and residents. The huge drifts of winter snow brought even more difficulty to vehicle traffic. As the snow was piled into the center of the road, the space between the snow berm and the parked vehicles was extremely narrow, and in some cases impassable.

In June of 1920, the city decided to try something new. Marshal Thomas Massey chalked off an area in the middle of the street, from Roop Street down to Gay Street, for parking. This left the sides open for traffic. Unfortunately, people then had to walk from the center of the street, through the traffic, to get to where they were going. It was not a popular idea.

By 1937, the snow berm issue was addressed, and it was decided that angled parking would no longer be allowed, and parallel parking would be enforced. The city met with state officials to determine how to best remove snow from the roadway. Once again, the locals objected. They wanted easier angled parking, which naturally created more parking spaces.

This debate, mainly between merchants and the city lasted until 1950, when the city decided to make parallel parking permanent by passing Ordinance No. 273. The new ordinance designated parallel parking on Main Street, from Roop Street to Weatherlow Street, and the first block off Main Street on each side. Later, Cottage Street was added to the list.

They also prohibited parking in these areas between the hours of 2:00 and 5:00a.m. (Sundays and holidays excepted). Attorney Don Cady led the opposition group but was told emphatically by City Attorney J. A. Nutting that the 1947 Collier-Burns Highway Act did not allow angled parking. The Collier-Burns Act required the state to maintain state highways in cities.

Ignoring this determination, a petition was immediately circulated in the Lassen Advocate, mainly backed by local businessmen, to allow angled parking. The fight was not over! The Chamber of Commerce objected, merchants objected, the citizens objected and petitions were circulated, but the city held fast. Then, the first talks of parking meters began to emerge.

In 1952, the idea had been brought to the public, but there was immediate opposition, so the matter was dropped by the council. Then, in May 1956, the Duncan Parking Meter Company came to the city council and sold them on the idea. There was a lack of information in the meeting minutes and attorney Harold Abbott, supporting the anti-parallel-parking and anti-parking-meter people, accused the city council of conducting business without the knowledge of the public.

But the city moved ahead with their plans. In October of 1956, they received permission from the California Department of Public Works, Division of Highways to install parking meters. This was a new affront to the anti-parallel-parking group, and they acted with expected fury.

In November 1956, the controversial parking meters were installed. In the first five days, the meters brought in $249.27. But a group of local contractors said that this was unfair. They and service vehicles should be able to park for free. A group of local citizens gathered again to protest the meters by asking that Ordinance No. 316, the Parking Meter Ordinance, be repealed. It appeared that they had given up the fight for angled parking at last.

They brought the issue to the City Council and said, “It should be noted that this ordinance does not require parking meters to be placed in any particular place. This matter is purely discretionary with the City Engineer. The result of this is that two members of the city council have businesses within the parking meter zone, yet neither of these places have parking meters in the nearby parking places.”

The city responded that rational for parking meters was that they limit parking without having members of the police force spend time checking cars. Parking was to be limited to “fairly share available parking spaces”. The one and two-hour limits had apparently been avoided by people slightly moving their vehicles.

It was also noted that there is a possibility that the city might face a lawsuit if the meters are removed. The city agreed to pay the parking meter company one-half of the meter income until the meters were paid for. It also agreed that the meters would be removed, at the parking meter company’s expense after a full year’s trial.

If the special election is held and the meter removed before the trial period, it is likely to be sued for ‘breach of contract’ for 12 or 13 thousand dollars. The special election will cost about $700, for a total of $13,700.

Harold Abbott, attorney and spokesperson for the Committee Against Parking Meters, sent a letter to mayor, William Mitchell, asking how the figures were decided. Abbott headed the movement to get the meters to a vote of the people via special election. Petitions were again circulated by the group opposing the meters and presented to the city council. The city took no action under the advice of City Attorney, Don Cady (who had supported the opposition to parallel parking back in 1952) who said that he had received advice from a deputy attorney general in San Francisco that the petition was invalid and did not address the issue properly.

By March of 1957, Harold L. Abbott said that the city’s reluctance to hold a special election to address the parking meter matter, left him no alternative but to take legal action against the city. Abbott claimed that the parking meters were of such inferior quality that they could be easily operated by a common washer or a penny. He stated that there had been no parking problem before and there was no parking problem now. The city had not released financial statistics concerning the meters but Abbott said that the revenue was not what was anticipated.

The pressure was too much for the city, and the council agreed to hold a special election on the issue. In November, the Special Election turn-out was significant, 1,436 of the 2,400 registered voters responded, and the parking meters were voted out with a 931 for removal and a 471 against removal vote. On November 22, 1957, just one year after their installation, the meters were removed.

The 358 meters, which had been removed from Susanville, were offered to Reno for $37.50 each, for a total of $13,425 with a two-year guarantee. The normal price for the meters was $53.75 each. Thus, the great Parking Wars were finally at rest.

Jeremy Couso
Jeremy Couso
SusanvilleStuff.com Publisher/Editor
RELATED ARTICLES
Susanville
few clouds
39.8 ° F
39.8 °
39.8 °
76 %
0.6mph
24 %
Sun
42 °
Mon
55 °
Tue
53 °
Wed
43 °
Thu
39 °
- Advertisment -

Most Popular

- Advertisement -