national register nomination for boulevard park historic
national register nomination for boulevard park historic
national register nomination for boulevard park historic
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
prominent features of both City Beautiful neighborhoods and Progressive campaigns <strong>for</strong> urban health. Both<br />
were departures from earlier Sacramento suburbs, typically sold with graded but unimproved streets and<br />
sidewalks and no connection to city sewer and water supplies. The need <strong>for</strong> connection to city water and<br />
sewer systems was a primary argument <strong>for</strong> annexation of Sacramento’s original suburbs in 1911, but since<br />
Boulevard Park was entirely within Sacramento’s city limits, no annexation was necessary to utilize city<br />
utilities.<br />
Alley Parks and Grant Park<br />
City Beautiful advocates commonly promoted the value of public <strong>park</strong>s. While large regional <strong>park</strong>s were<br />
preferred, small <strong>park</strong>s in existing urban neighborhoods provided islands of respite. The <strong>park</strong>s located in<br />
alleys were intended as private areas to be utilized by the adjacent property owners, rather than public<br />
<strong>park</strong>s. The legal issues complicating the use of the block now known as Grant Park probably spurred the<br />
developers to return the block to the city rather than subdivide it to their original plan. While the creation of<br />
Grant Park was probably not the original intent of the developers, it provided a public <strong>park</strong> at the least<br />
valuable end of the property. This amenity suited City Beautiful principles not only in its function but also<br />
its aesthetic symmetry, located at one end of the neighborhood between the two landscaped <strong>boulevard</strong><br />
streets.<br />
Legal Disputes over Grant Park<br />
According to a thesis prepared by John A. Patterson, the block that became Grant Park was involved in a<br />
series of land disputes and court cases. In 1849, a group of Sacramento businessmen including Sam<br />
Brannan challenged the legal basis of John Sutter Sr.’s title to the land upon which Sacramento was built.<br />
William Mesdick, a <strong>for</strong>mer City Recorder, sought out John Sutter Jr. and proposed a scheme to return some<br />
of the properties to Sutter Jr’s ownership by transferring lots to Mesdick <strong>for</strong> which Sutter had not been paid<br />
by Brannan. One of these blocks was the Grant Park block. Mesdick returned to Sacramento and filed a<br />
claim <strong>for</strong> the block, in order to challenge the legality of Brannan’s claim in court.<br />
The first test case decided <strong>for</strong> Brannan, so Mesdick appealed to the Cali<strong>for</strong>nia Supreme Court, who found<br />
<strong>for</strong> Mesdick. The court also stated that third parties who had purchased their lots in good faith were<br />
guaranteed retention of title. Mesdick then sold the property to a Mr. L.H. Foote in 1863. Mr. Foote sold<br />
the property to Eli Mayo in 1868. In the same year, the State Agricultural Society’s racetrack property was<br />
extended to include the <strong>park</strong> block.<br />
Mr. Mayo filed suit against Robert Allen, operator of the Union Park racetrack. Mayo won the suit, but Mr.<br />
Allen responded by leasing the property from Mr. Mayo <strong>for</strong> the sum of ten cents. In 1873, Allen and the<br />
Union Park Association surrendered their interest in the racetrack to the State Agricultural Society, leasing<br />
the track to a Mr. A.A. Wood. Mayo brought suit against Mr. Wood in 1874, but this time Wood won the<br />
decision. The court claimed that Mayo had failed to prove right of possession, a decision that survived a<br />
further appeal by Mr. Mayo. Mayo made a second appeal to the State Supreme Court, who found that<br />
Mayo’s deed from the previous owner was legal, but that neither could have held legal title because the<br />
square was deeded directly to the city in 1849.<br />
Probably due to this complex series of legal proceedings, <strong>for</strong>gotten by 1905, the Park Realty Company<br />
originally planned to subdivide the Grant Park block, but later recognized the city’s ownership of the lot.<br />
The issue of this public square was raised in a Sacramento Union article entitled “Who Owns The Square?”<br />
The following text is from the referenced article:<br />
“In old Agricultural Park there were included certain public squares. When the realty companyu purchased<br />
the <strong>park</strong> it was unable to find that the city ever deeded one of these squares to the Agricultural Society o0r<br />
its predecessors. The land lies between Ba nd C and Twenty-first and Twenty-second streets. It was one of<br />
140