Reopening Islais Creek at Turn of 20th Century

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 7 of Peter T. Seculovich in San Francisco

After the dramatic public confrontation between Seculovich and John Reynolds over leadership of the Islais Creek Property Owners Association, both men seem to have stepped back. Seculovich published a refutation of at least some of Reynolds’s charges three months later, but after only a few more appearances advocating for Islais Creek, he was silent on the subject for nearly ten years. As the two men shared the goal of restoring shipping to Islais Creek and improving their Franconia Landing properties, their differences seem to have derived from incompatible personalities. Each had adherents. Reynolds perhaps founded the San Bruno Road Improvement Club for which he became spokesman. Seculovich attracted more 100 men to sign an 1884 petition to the Board of Supervisors asking for him to be reimbursed financially. But we lack information about the sustained membership of either organization.

The prospects for Islais Creek marsh properties waxed and waned: Four lots from Gift Map 4 fronting on Islais Channel sold for $1,000 in 1890. In 1894, nine similar lots were offered for $90 with “easy terms.” A year later, Lot 330 in Gift Map 4, near where the San Bruno road crossed the creek, sold for $150 and a larger parcel for $325 (Chronicle, 11/14/1890; Call & Post, 8/12/1894, 3/23 and 7/17/1895).

In 1895, as Seculovich neared age 70, the threat of new railroad bridges crossing Islais Creek brought him back into the public arena. Railroad proposals were a constant in San Francisco, both street railways, operated by numerous different private companies, and long-distance railways. The only access by land to San Francisco was from the south, so railroads had to either pass through developed neighborhoods—or cross Islais Creek and marsh. The use of city streets involved both grade changes and traffic that annoyed residents, increasing the pressure for crossings of the marsh. Of the many franchises granted, often for political reasons, few were exercised, but in the mid-1890s more serious proposals for short-line railroads emerged from a subsidiary of the Southern Pacific to Santa Barbara and from a Santa Fe Railroad Company subsidiary to Santa Cruz. The Call & Post, stirring the always-simmering public suspicion of railroads, ran a lengthy article based almost entirely on discussions with Seculovich, identified as president of Pennsylvania Avenue and Islais Creek Property Owners Association. The reporter’s grasp of the history seems limited, for he stated that navigation had been open on Islais Creek until 1885, although the Long Bridge had cut it off by 1868. But he accurately lays out Seculovich’s arguments about the Act of Union guaranteeing free access to navigable waterways, and goes on to describe Seculovich’s current intentions:

Several times in the past property owners along the neglected channel have made abortive attempts to secure such legislation as would again open the stream to navigation, but owing to lack of co-operation accomplished nothing. The Property-owners’ Association, of recent organization, now proposes to take a hand in the fight, and, if the plans of President Peter T. Seculovich are followed, they will at least make it interesting for the Southern Pacific. “It is our purpose to peacefully remove the obstructions placed across Islais Creek by the Southern Pacific if we can,” said President Seculovich yesterday, “though if passive measures fail we will resort to such legal proceedings as the case demands. We have addressed a communication to the Congressional and State delegation, now inspecting the waterways and ports of California, with a view of securing their co-operation in the passage of an act that will reopen Islais Creek to navigation. If we fail to secure a substantial promise from them, then it becomes a question of legal proceedings against the Southern Pacific.” (Call & Post, 10/4/1895)

Seculovich resumed his rounds of official bodies with a request to the Board of Supervisors to “recommend to Congress at its next session the reopening of Islais creek for commerce and navigation.” He added, “The opening of the stream will furnish a drainage for the country adjacent to it, a necessary sanitary arrangement.” On behalf of the Islais Creek Property Owners Association and three improvement clubs, he presented “a long petition” to the State Harbor Commissioners asking for the creek to be “be restored to the condition in which it was years ago, when boats used to navigate it almost as far as the San Bruno road.” He also wanted the commissioners to make “a donation of $10,000 to show the board’s good faith.” But the commissioners “refused to take any stock in it.” “The scheme had been agitated for over twenty years,” their chief engineer told them, but it was not practicable: “Islais Creek can be stepped across by any active man. It would cost over a million dollars to make it navigable by a whitehall boat.” Seculovich replied that his petition would go to Congress in any event. The following day, he addressed the Board of Health “on the necessity of opening up Islais creek as a sanitary measure,” which the board agreed to look into (Chronicle, 11/19/1895; Call & Post, 11/20/1895; Examiner, 11/21/1895).

The Chronicle summarized the situation at year’s end:

Islais creek is a small waterway in the southern portion of the county, which extends from the south bay shore to the San Miguel ranch. The Potrero and Bay View Railroad Company, which is an offshoot of the Southern Pacific Company, was instrumental in getting the Legislature to close the channel to navigation.

The act closing Islais creek was passed nearly thirty years ago, and since that time, vessels have not been able to pass beyond Kentucky street.

The Legislature, about sixteen years ago, passed another act declaring Islais creek an open waterway. No effort was ever made to enforce this act, and the Southern Pacific has maintained the obstructions at Kentucky street, which keep Islais creek closed to navigation. (Chronicle, 12/16/1895)

Seculovich also petitioned Congress for $10,000 to remove the obstructions in Islais Creek. The Call & Post published an encouraging letter he received from California’s Senator Perkins:

Washington, D.C., December 9, 1895

Peter T. Seculovich, 3241 Mission street. San Francisco

Dear Sir: The Islais Creek petition and bill, which you announce have been sent to Congressman Maguire, will be pushed by him in the House, as it is a very meritorious measure.

When it reaches the Senate I shall take pleasure in doing everything possible to secure its passage. Very truly yours,

George C. Perkins

From Congressman Maguire came: “I will present the memorial of the association to Congress, and will determine within a few days the proper course to pursue with respect to the introduction of a bill or resolution to carry out its purpose.” Congressman Grove L. Johnson promised, “I will gladly co-operate with Senator Perkins and Representative Maguire in any measures they may offer to the advantage of your association. These gentlemen are men of weight and prominence in Congress, and if they champion your measure it will undoubtedly be successful.”

“We have been fighting to have this creek made navigable as nature intended for the past twelve years,” Seculovich told the Call & Post,

and we shall continue the battle for twelve years longer if necessary that we may accomplish our purpose. But the question is likely to be settled, now that our Representatives in Congress have taken hold of it with a seeming determination to force it to a conclusion…. Fully 700 acres of land, having a valuation of $1,000,000, are involved. With the creek cleared of obstructions it would give ten feet of water in the channel at full tide, and ferry-boats and other vessels could run up to Fifteenth avenue without difficulty. (Call & Post, 12/27/1895, p. 4)

San Francisco Call & Post, 1895.

As with his earlier efforts, Seculovich attracted support. The mayor appointed him, together with the entire Board of Supervisors, as delegates to the California River Improvement Convention then meeting to consider port improvements and choose representatives to travel to Washington to “present before Congress in the most effective way the necessity for spending some of the Government money in improving the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and their tributaries, Petaluma Creek, Napa River, Islais Creek and Alviso Slough.” Seculovich gave a speech at the convention, but as far as we know, did not travel to Washington (Call & Post, 12/31/1895, 1/15 and 1/16/1896; Chronicle, 1/15/1896; Examiner, 1/16/1896, p. 11).

Seculovich opened a second front in his campaign against the railroads: He had discovered that the original 1865 franchise required the Potrero and Bay View Railroad to pay the city $50 per year per car, but neither the original company nor its successors, by then the Southern Pacific, ever paid this fee. “In a rough way,” Seculovich said, “I should say that the Southern Pacific owes the City something like $100,000.”

The claim might be set up by them that this feature of the franchise was abrogated by the Supervisors. If such should be the case I have only to say that they had no legal nor moral right to extend privileges or donate anything. Their only duty was to receive. I intend to bring the matter to the attention of the proper authorities; then if they do not take it up I propose to do it myself. (Call & Post, 12/29/1895)

A week later the Call & Post ran another sympathetic article:

There is one organization, known as the Islais Creek Property-owners’ Association, of which considerable has appeared in this paper of late, that is moving on the railroad batteries with the intention of storming the works and getting something like justice.

Peter T. Seculovich is president of the association, and acting in that capacity, discusses the shutting off of Islais Creek from the sea, in all its ins and outs.

“If the officials of California who draw magnificent salaries from the State cannot take care of the taxpayers and property-owners we will see whether or not the United States will. I do not propose to disarm myself entirely by exposing our lines of campaign, but there is a great deal more to come of this matter and we will fight it out until something in the shape of justice is delivered the property-owners, who were here before the Southern Pacific of Kentucky decided to remove us from the sea.” (Call & Post, 1/5/1896)

Encouragement came from Washington in a telegram from California congressional representatives: “Appropriation of $10,000 would probably be made by Congress to start the improvement of Islais creek” (Chronicle, 1/13/1896).

But nothing came of these efforts. In San Francisco, discussion continued about alternative routes for the Southern Pacific: city streets or bridging Islais creek somewhere upstream of the Kentucky Street embankment, then crossing the marsh on pilings or fill to Mount St Joseph and a tunnel into Bay View (Call & Post, 4/10/1896). Perhaps due to larger economic issues, urgency faded.

All sources for this 10-part article appear at end of Part 10.

Return to Part 6 • Continue reading Part 8