Keeping Islais Creek Navigable - Revision history

Lisaruth: Protected "Keeping Islais Creek Navigable" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))

2025-11-18T20:41:46Z

Protected "Keeping Islais Creek Navigable" ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite))

← Older revision	Revision as of 13:41, 18 November 2025
(No difference)

Lisaruth at 20:41, 18 November 2025

2025-11-18T20:41:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:41, 18 November 2025
Line 69:		Line 69:
	In early January 1883, the Board of Supervisors met to clear up unfinished business before the seating of a new board. A proposal to pay for removing obstructions in Islais Creek and preparing plans for a drawbridge “out of any money belonging to the city not otherwise disposed of” incited lengthy debate, which ended with yet another postponement. The new board proved disappointing, the ''Chronicle'' reporting, “Islais Creek Improvements Nipped in the Bud.” Money was short, and “The order providing for the improvement of Islais creek was indefinitely postponed.” The new session of the legislature in Sacramento saw a bill introduced to (yet again) declare Islais Creek a navigable waterway “to the southwesterly end of its channel”—a point perhaps intentionally left vague. Other proposed bills would repeal the 1868 legislation protecting the railroad bridge, require the Harbor Commissioners to clear the creek of all obstructions to navigation and authorize the construction of drawbridges and other improvements, the drawbridges to be free of tolls (''Chronicle'', 1/6/ and 1/23/1883).		In early January 1883, the Board of Supervisors met to clear up unfinished business before the seating of a new board. A proposal to pay for removing obstructions in Islais Creek and preparing plans for a drawbridge “out of any money belonging to the city not otherwise disposed of” incited lengthy debate, which ended with yet another postponement. The new board proved disappointing, the ''Chronicle'' reporting, “Islais Creek Improvements Nipped in the Bud.” Money was short, and “The order providing for the improvement of Islais creek was indefinitely postponed.” The new session of the legislature in Sacramento saw a bill introduced to (yet again) declare Islais Creek a navigable waterway “to the southwesterly end of its channel”—a point perhaps intentionally left vague. Other proposed bills would repeal the 1868 legislation protecting the railroad bridge, require the Harbor Commissioners to clear the creek of all obstructions to navigation and authorize the construction of drawbridges and other improvements, the drawbridges to be free of tolls (''Chronicle'', 1/6/ and 1/23/1883).

	Perhaps riding an uptick in public hostility toward railroads, the Potrero and Bayview Street Railway having been acquired by Southern Pacific, the Islais Creek Property Owners Association petitioned the Harbor Commissioners not just for a drawbridge but to remove the Long Bridge altogether. From the wording of the request, we can assume the unidentified spokesman for the association was Seculovich. The commissioners referred the matter to their attorney (''Examiner'', 1/12/1883, p. 1). A few days later, the Board of Supervisors authorized the city surveyor to prepare plans for improving Islais Creek (''Chronicle'', 1/16/1883, p. 4). When Seculovich again urged the Street Committee to replace the bridges over Islais creek with draws. the committee decided to inspect the creek for itself. The ''Examiner'' waxed poetic about the proposed “Supervisors’ Picnic Along the Banks of Islais Creek”:		Perhaps riding an uptick in public hostility toward railroads, the Potrero and Bayview Street Railway having been acquired by Southern Pacific, the Islais Creek Property Owners Association petitioned the Harbor Commissioners not just for a drawbridge but to remove the Long Bridge altogether. From the wording of the request, we can assume the unidentified spokesman for the association was Seculovich. The commissioners referred the matter to their attorney (''Examiner'', 1/12/1883, p. 1). A few days later, the Board of Supervisors authorized the city surveyor to prepare plans for improving Islais Creek (''Chronicle'', 1/16/1883, p. 4). When Seculovich again urged the Street Committee to replace the bridges over Islais creek with draws, the committee decided to inspect the creek for itself. The ''Examiner'' waxed poetic about the proposed “Supervisors’ Picnic Along the Banks of Islais Creek”:

	<blockquote>The visit to Islais Creek is to verify Peter Seculovich’s statements regarding that noble stream. Seculovich is an enthusiastic and urbane gentleman known to the Legislature, the Harbor Commissioners, to successive Boards of Supervisors, and to the newspapers, as the “Friend of Islais Creek,” although an unfortunate typographical error did once make him the “Fiend” of Islais Creek. Mr. Seculovich wants the Supervisors to send to Sacramento a resolution urging the passage of Assembly bill No. 4, introduced by Assemblyman O’Connor, which, in effect, turns the creek over to the Harbor Commissioners to dredge it. Besides his indefatigable efforts before the various local legislative bodies of California, it is said that Mr. Seculovich has an appeal to Congress ready to be forwarded. His extensive maps and his not unfavorable comparison of Islais Creek to that tortuous brook known as the Petaluma river, on which a national appropriation has been squandered, have excited the curiosity of the Street Committee. They have decided to navigate the creek at low tide. The aromatic balm of a Butchertown breeze blowing over the San Bruno mud flats will be apt to make these adventurous servants of the city sigh for a sachet of the sweet-smelling assafetida before they return. (''Examiner'', 2/16/1883, p. 3)</blockquote>		<blockquote>The visit to Islais Creek is to verify Peter Seculovich’s statements regarding that noble stream. Seculovich is an enthusiastic and urbane gentleman known to the Legislature, the Harbor Commissioners, to successive Boards of Supervisors, and to the newspapers, as the “Friend of Islais Creek,” although an unfortunate typographical error did once make him the “Fiend” of Islais Creek. Mr. Seculovich wants the Supervisors to send to Sacramento a resolution urging the passage of Assembly bill No. 4, introduced by Assemblyman O’Connor, which, in effect, turns the creek over to the Harbor Commissioners to dredge it. Besides his indefatigable efforts before the various local legislative bodies of California, it is said that Mr. Seculovich has an appeal to Congress ready to be forwarded. His extensive maps and his not unfavorable comparison of Islais Creek to that tortuous brook known as the Petaluma river, on which a national appropriation has been squandered, have excited the curiosity of the Street Committee. They have decided to navigate the creek at low tide. The aromatic balm of a Butchertown breeze blowing over the San Bruno mud flats will be apt to make these adventurous servants of the city sigh for a sachet of the sweet-smelling assafetida before they return. (''Examiner'', 2/16/1883, p. 3)</blockquote>

Ccarlsson at 03:32, 28 October 2025

2025-10-28T03:32:05Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:32, 27 October 2025
Line 128:		Line 128:

	Shortly thereafter, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in the long-pending appeal of the trial court finding that the Potrero and Bay View Railroad wrongfully obstructed navigation in Islais Creek. In deciding in favor of the railroad, the court looked to the provisions of state legislation that Seculovich and others had preferred to ignore. According to the timeline found by the court, in April 1866 the state legislature granted rights to the street railroad along this route, which necessarily included a bridge. In 1868, the legislature added the requirement that the company “construct a draw in the bridge on Kentucky street, at its intersection with Tulare street, whenever the parties interested shall pay the expense of constructing such draw, and provide for maintaining the same.” If the state had the constitutional power to authorize the building of the bridge, the court reasoned, it would follow that the bridge could not legally constitute a nuisance. Turning to the Act of Congress admitting California to the Union, which provided “that all the navigable waters within the State shall be common highways, and forever free,” the court noted that the US Supreme Court had made clear the clause only meant to “insure a highway equally open to all without preferences,” preventing private parties from excluding the public or exacting tolls for navigation. In authorizing a bridge, as in the present case, “to promote the convenience of the public,” California, like all the other states, had “plenary power over bridges over navigable streams unless and until Congress acts on the subject” (''Chronicle'', 6/25/1885, p. 2).		Shortly thereafter, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in the long-pending appeal of the trial court finding that the Potrero and Bay View Railroad wrongfully obstructed navigation in Islais Creek. In deciding in favor of the railroad, the court looked to the provisions of state legislation that Seculovich and others had preferred to ignore. According to the timeline found by the court, in April 1866 the state legislature granted rights to the street railroad along this route, which necessarily included a bridge. In 1868, the legislature added the requirement that the company “construct a draw in the bridge on Kentucky street, at its intersection with Tulare street, whenever the parties interested shall pay the expense of constructing such draw, and provide for maintaining the same.” If the state had the constitutional power to authorize the building of the bridge, the court reasoned, it would follow that the bridge could not legally constitute a nuisance. Turning to the Act of Congress admitting California to the Union, which provided “that all the navigable waters within the State shall be common highways, and forever free,” the court noted that the US Supreme Court had made clear the clause only meant to “insure a highway equally open to all without preferences,” preventing private parties from excluding the public or exacting tolls for navigation. In authorizing a bridge, as in the present case, “to promote the convenience of the public,” California, like all the other states, had “plenary power over bridges over navigable streams unless and until Congress acts on the subject” (''Chronicle'', 6/25/1885, p. 2).

			''All sources for this 10-part article appear at end of [[Peter T. Seculovich Passes#sources\|Part 10]].''

Ccarlsson: Ccarlsson moved page Defending Islais Creek's Navigability to Keeping Islais Creek Navigable

2025-10-26T03:33:55Z

Ccarlsson moved page Defending Islais Creek's Navigability to Keeping Islais Creek Navigable

← Older revision	Revision as of 20:33, 25 October 2025
(No difference)

Ccarlsson at 20:58, 25 October 2025

2025-10-25T20:58:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:58, 25 October 2025
Line 6:		Line 6:

	<big>'''Part 3 of Peter T. Seculovich in San Francisco'''</big>		<big>'''Part 3 of Peter T. Seculovich in San Francisco'''</big>

			[[Image:Peter Seculovich and Jennie Golden Gate Park ca. 1905.jpeg\|350px]]

			'''Peter Seculovich and Jennie in Golden Gate Park, c. 1905.'''

	With the Pennsylvania Avenue threat averted, Seculovich turned to the obstructions already in the creek. Perhaps he had discovered he had a taste for organizing and advocating, or perhaps, in his mind, the windswept salt marsh bordering Islais Creek was overlain by memories of the Adriatic harbors of Dubrovnik, Trieste and Venice bustling with commerce as they had for centuries. At a meeting in January 1881, the property owners association approved his motion to appoint himself a committee of one “to go to Sacramento to urge upon the Legislature the necessity of enacting a Law requiring the removal of all obstructions across the creek” and authorized funds to pay his expenses (''Chronicle'', 1/10/1881, p. 3).		With the Pennsylvania Avenue threat averted, Seculovich turned to the obstructions already in the creek. Perhaps he had discovered he had a taste for organizing and advocating, or perhaps, in his mind, the windswept salt marsh bordering Islais Creek was overlain by memories of the Adriatic harbors of Dubrovnik, Trieste and Venice bustling with commerce as they had for centuries. At a meeting in January 1881, the property owners association approved his motion to appoint himself a committee of one “to go to Sacramento to urge upon the Legislature the necessity of enacting a Law requiring the removal of all obstructions across the creek” and authorized funds to pay his expenses (''Chronicle'', 1/10/1881, p. 3).

Ccarlsson: Created page with "''' Historical Essay ''' ''by Stephanie T. Hoppe'' ''Stephanie T. Hoppe is a former staff counsel to the California Coastal Commission and a great-great-granddaughter of Peter Seculovich.'' '''Part 3 of Peter T. Seculovich in San Francisco''' With the Pennsylvania Avenue threat averted, Seculovich turned to the obstructions already in the creek. Perhaps he had discovered he had..."

2025-10-25T20:56:49Z

Created page with "''' Historical Essay ''' ''by Stephanie T. Hoppe'' ''Stephanie T. Hoppe is a former staff counsel to the California Coastal Commission and a great-great-granddaughter of Peter Seculovich.'' <big>'''Part 3 of Peter T. Seculovich in San Francisco'''</big> With the Pennsylvania Avenue threat averted, Seculovich turned to the obstructions already in the creek. Perhaps he had discovered he had..."

Show changes