California’s First Councilwoman – Part I

Luella Cover

When we first started Sacramentality in January of this year, I knew I wanted to do more than talk about the vivid present and unfolding future of Sacramento. I also wanted to write about the hazy and forgotten local icons – the heroes, villains, and indifferents – who shaped our city’s identity. Perhaps because the presidential election had so recently concluded, there was one name, of an early political figure, I kept returning to: Luella Johnston.

Luella was an early twentieth century society grande dame who metamorphosed into a local political crusader. She had a transformative impact on Sacramento politics and policy, helping to propel our city into the modern era of municipal governance. She was also a pioneer in the march towards gender equality as California’s first elected city councilwoman.

Early Life

Photo - Sacramento Union - March 1, 1913
Sacramento Union Headshot (1912)

Like many of her era, Luella Johnston (née Buckminster) was not originally a Californian. She was born in New Hampshire in 1861, the daughter of a Union soldier who died in the Civil War. She moved West to California as a child in 1869, ultimately becoming a teacher in San Francisco in her teens before marrying Alfred Johnston in 1884.

Alfred ran a successful Sacramento printing business, the A. J. Johnston Co. He was by contemporary accounts a self-made man and his business flourished. So much so that, by 1891, the Governor appointed him Superintendent of State Printing. A short time later, that position was converted into an elected office, which he won in 1894 and won again in 1898.

By the end of the nineteenth century, the Johnstons were wealthy, well-travelled in political circles, and, thanks to Luella, among Sacramento’s leading socialites.

High Society & The Club of ’99

Society - SF Call - 9-24-1899

San Francisco Daily Call Society Page (1899)

Luella had a knack for organizing people, events, and parties. In 1899 she founded the “Club of ’99” to entertain the wives and daughters of state elected officials. Newspapers recount lavish soirées with distinguished guests, catered suppers, and orchestral accompaniment. These were light and fun affairs receiving the same type of coverage we might read in People Magazine today. “Mrs. A. J. Johnston wore a dress of blue taffeta, silk trimmed, with white satin bowknots and lace,” gushed one account.

The Club of ’99 was purely social, and might even be described as frivolous. It embodied the acceptable role for high-society nineteenth century women. And while the ladies may have been surrounded by politics, they weren’t themselves to participate in politics.

From Socialite to Activist: The Tuesday Club & the Emergence of Women as a Political Force

But that was about to change. With the turning of the century, America’s women were becoming more political. There’s a notable shift in the historical record when Ms. Johnston’s interests moved on from parties to politics. The socialite became suffragette and civic reformer.

At first, the Tuesday Literary Club was just another entry in Luella’s social calendar. Founded in 1896, the club was originally a weekly reading group for prominent Sacramento housewives. But, as club ranks swelled from a few dozen to a few hundred, members started discussing, studying, and engaging with the problems of the day in Sacramento.

Painting of Tuesday Club Clubhouse circa 1912

Painting of the Tuesday Club Clubhouse (circa 1912)

Luella Johnston’s 1899-1901 club presidency, reports the Center for Sacramento History, was the catalyst that “changed the mission and direction of the organization.” Under her tenure, the club started getting involved in civic affairs and – heavens! – even lobbying city officials for change. A reading group no more, the club shortened its name to the “Tuesday Club” and adopted a mission statement to “encourage all movements for the betterment of society.”

City vice became the Club’s primary target. Early twentieth century Sacramento had not quite shed its Wild West past. Prostitution was rampant, writes Sacramento historian Steven Avella. Similarly, “saloons, gambling, illegal lotteries, opium dens, and bars that stayed open all night were as hard to erase as original sin.” Who better than women, then-regarded as the “moral guardians” of the home and society, to take on these mostly male failings? The club scored its first victory in 1900 when, under Luella’s leadership, it convinced the city council to ban any new bars in residential areas, improbably besting the politically-powerful saloon owners. The law became known as the “Tuesday Club Ordinance” and lasted until its obsolescence with Prohibition.

Tuesday Club Ordinance - Sac Bee - 9-15-1911

Sacramento Bee Cartoon (1911)

Other successes quickly followed, reports the Center for Sacramento History: “The club petitioned the city trustees for a matron at the city jail, started a cooking school for young girls, [and] convinced the city to establish McKinley Park in East Sacramento.”

The Tuesday Club had become everything the ’99 Club was not: a political player.

An Organic Union: The Woman’s Council

These accomplishments galvanized other women’s groups in the city. In 1904 Luella organized a coalition of 30 women’s clubs known as the “Woman’s Council” to act as a more purposefully political, sister-organization to the Tuesday Club. (Thereafter the Tuesday Club retreated to being once-more a primarily social and philanthropic organization. After a 117-year run, the Club disbanded in 2014.)

Woman's Council Constitution

Woman’s Council’s Constitution

The Council was an immediate success. The log of its early activities report win-after-win in early Sacramento’s rough-and-tumble politics. For example, in 1904 the Council proposed and helped pass a bond to create a high school. In 1905, the Council successfully petitioned for the city hospital to hire a receiving matron. In 1906, the Council convinced the city to add name plates to every street in the city.

Luella was president of the Woman’s Council from 1907 through 1909. These were energetic and successful years. Contemporary Council log books report that, “again and again,” local elected officials, business associations, and neighborhood organizations asked the Council to “plan and promote campaigns for City improvements,” including street electrification, installing public drinking fountains, adding residential mailboxes, working on city canals, and building a public swimming pool.

The Council pushed the city administration to be more modern and to professionalize. For example, in 1907, at Luella’s instigation, the Council brought University of Chicago professor Charles Zueblin to Sacramento to deliver lectures on the new science of city planning. His lectures enthralled the business community and launched Sacramento’s “modern period of city planning” as a succession of planners were hired to map out the future of different city neighborhoods. (For his efforts Zueblin, for a time, became known as the “father of Sacramento’s civic planning.”)

But of all Luella’s accomplishments with the Council, she was personally proudest of having convinced the city’s schools to require the teaching of “manual training” (e.g. woodworking) and “domestic science” (e.g. cooking) courses to all children. A former teacher, Luella viewed education as her lifelong calling. This was a sweet victory: she had been advocating for practical education since 1901, when, under her presidency, the Tuesday Club launched a free girl’s cooking class to, in her words, “further the education of women for the responsibilities of life.”

Single Mom & Businesswoman

Alfred had passed away in 1906, just prior to Luella’s Council presidency. The Governor, Secretary of State, and State Printer all closed their offices for a day in his honor. At age 45, Luella became a single mom of five children, three of whom were still minors.

She also became the head of the A.J. Johnston printing empire, undoubtedly one of the few women in the city actively running a major company.

It’s hard to imagine how someone could find the time to be a single mother, executive, and civic reformer with only 24 hours in a day. I get the sense that Luella simply felt she had no other choice: there was too much that needed to be done.

The Fight of a Generation: Women’s Suffrage

California Next Postcard

Postcard: “California [Was] Next” (sent 1918)

1911 had the potential to be a life-altering year for California’s women and Luella was not going to sit it out. For the second time, the men of California would be deciding whether or not to give women the vote.

A decade and a half prior, in 1896, California voters (all men) voted down a proposed amendment to the state constitution which would have granted women the right to vote in state and local elections. The campaign for women’s suffrage had fared particularly poorly in major cities in the northern half of the state, including Sacramento where 60% voted against. Saloonkeepers and liquor interests, influential in working class areas, had staunchly opposed the initiative, fearing (correctly, as it turns out) that enfranchised women might push for prohibition.

Success in California in 1911 would be a springboard for a national constitutional amendment to secure for women the right to vote in all elections. A second defeat might devastate the movement.

Recognizing the need to reverse the vote in the northern cities, state suffrage organizations reached out to the Woman’s Council to co-lead the campaign in Sacramento. According to late Sacramento historian Dian Self, Luella was a “leader of the get-out-the-vote effort” for the campaign. The Council allocated funds for outreach and conducted an extensive persuasion campaign: it included street oratory, sending speakers to church groups and civic clubs, placing campaign materials in storefronts, distributing handbills to homeward-bound schoolchildren, house-to-house canvassing, and concerted lobbying of labor unions.

In the evening of October 10, 1911, the polls closed. They had done it: women had won the franchise. Sacramento County voters, reversing their prior opposition, voted 52% in favor.

The women of Sacramento had once again shown their political muscle, but this time in direct political campaigning. It was experience that would soon come in handy.

A Singular Moment: Progress Seizes Sacramento

Late 1800s to early 1900s California politics were dominated by the Southern Pacific Railroad. The “SP” was one of the most powerful economic forces in the state. It had an interstate rail monopoly in Northern California and jealously guarded this prize against competition or government regulation. Politicians were greased to support the railroad’s interests, and opposed them at their peril. As one late nineteenth century journalist wrote,

it didn’t matter whether a man was a Republican or Democrat. The Southern Pacific Railroad controlled both parties, and he either had to stay out of the game altogether or play it with the railroad.

By 1901, author Frank Norris nicknamed the railroad the “Octopus” because its tentacles of influence reached to every area of the state. “The Southern Pacific,” notes the Economist, “bribed and cajoled legislators, judges, journalists and mayors.”

Octopus - The Wasp (Aug 19 1882)

The Wasp Cartoon (1882)

This included Sacramento local politics, where the SP was particularly influential. Sacramento was strategically important to the railroad. The SP’s sprawling Sacramento railyards employed more than 2,000 workers and, per local historian William Burg, “produced everything from hand tools to full-sized steam locomotives and was the main repair and supply facility for Southern Pacific’s national system.”

City Hall at the time was controlled by a political patronage machine lead by Mayor Marshall “Boss” Beard and Councilman Edward Carraghar. Both were firmly in the railroad’s pocket. In 1907, for example, the council thwarted an effort by the Western Pacific to build a new rail line into the city which had threatened the SP’s monopoly.

However, across the state and in Sacramento, the tide was beginning to turn against the Southern Pacific. Hiram Johnson, a Sacramento native, was elected governor in 1910 promising to curtail the power of the railroads and to move the state forward “calmly, coolly, pertinaciously, unswervingly and with absolute determination, until the public service reflects only the public good and represents alone the people.” The Progressives, as they came to be known, swept into power in 1911 and enacted a series of wide-ranging reforms intended to blunt the SP’s power.

Locally, Progressives were also riding a string of victories. They had recently passed a referendum, over the Council’s objections, to let the Western Pacific into the city. And, although they had failed to defeat Beard and Carraghar in the last election, they had passed a new city charter, significantly changing the structure of Sacramento city government and its elections.

1912 would be the first election under the new charter, and the Progressives, mobilized as the “Municipal Voters’ League,” were eager to evict the SP cronies who had held office for so long. “The question” for voters, wrote the sympathetic Sacramento Bee, “is between the forces of the Machine and the forces of Good Government.”

Block-by-Block: The 1912 Campaign

1913 Map

Map of Sacramento (1913)

The 1912 election was marked by many firsts. In descending order of importance, this was the first city election that:

  • Women could vote in.
  • Included the newly annexed suburbs of East Sacramento, Highland Park, and Oak Park.
  • Would be held under Sacramento’s new charter, which created a five-member council with greatly expanded executive powers.

Add to that another first: Luella was the first candidate that year, man or woman, to pull candidacy papers for city council.

Suffragettes had sometimes run for office, for example Mayor, Governor, or President, to make a rhetorical point about gender inequality; these were half-hearted campaigns at best because they had no delusions of actually winning. Luella’s was not.

Her whole life had prepared her for this moment. On paper, you’d be hard-pressed to find a more perfect candidate: leading citizen, business owner, former president of two of the city’s largest civic organizations, accomplished reformer, and conversant in all the major municipal issues.

Perfect, of course, except for her gender. One Bee story reported the difficulty she was having in overcoming the “peculiarity of some male temperaments – they will not admit that a woman has brains enough to hold public office.” Like many women before and since, Luella would repeatedly have to justify her intrusion into the male world. “My interests in civic questions has taken me out of the usual lines,” she once acknowledged, “for I have worked on the clear water problem, levee improvement, economy of administration, fire protection and general civic issues of importance to the whole city.”

Her stump speech centered on eternal political themes; it could just have easily been delivered in 2012 instead of 1912. She pitched herself as a law-and-order candidate, citing public safety as her top priority and pledging firm enforcement of all city laws (a possible allusion to unenforced bans on gambling and prostitution). She told the Union that bolstering the Sacramento River and American River levees must “come before every other consideration.” (Still an important cause today.) Her platform encompassed many issues, reflecting how attuned she was to the municipal challenges of the day. She campaigned on municipal ownership of utilities; developing William Land’s land gift as a great park; and adopting the latest reforms in public education.

Finally, to the city’s women, she promised to “do all in my power and within my province to maintain the laws bettering the condition of women, and will bend every effort in that direction.”

The Municipal Voter’s League quickly endorsed her, praising both her civic accomplishments and her “marked executive and constructive ability and well-balanced judgment.” The Women’s Council also publicly endorsed her, then promptly held a tea party with “fashionable gowns and picture hats” to begin registering women to vote. Campaigning can be fun. The Sacramento Bee, a vocal enemy of the incumbent council, lavished her campaign with positive coverage, praising Luella “as a woman of progressive ideas and sound judgment, level-headed and full of energy.”

Complementing and perhaps dwarfing these endorsements was Luella’s own formidable organizing prowess. She assembled a “Women’s Precinct Organization” to run her campaign and drive newly enfranchised women to the polls. Sixty-four women – a veritable campaign army, even by today’s standards – enlisted as precinct captains for her campaign. On election day, her volunteers staked out polling stations to hand out endorsement cards and organized automobile house calls to bring women to the polls.

And go to the polls they did. The Sacramento Call reported that “the big vote in the residence district was due largely to the fact that the women got out in force.” Female turnout exceeded expectations. One poll-worker joked to the Sacramento Union that women were only voting for the free car rides; a female voter overheard him and “immediately emerged from the [voting] booth, went up to the clerk, took him to task for his remarks and demanded an apology. … That ended the talk about joy riding for the afternoon.”

With the dust settled and the votes tallied, the Municipal Voters’ League’s slate had prevailed with a clean sweep. Luella was elected. It was a stunning victory for local Progressives and the city’s women. As one paper effused,

The women of this city have taught the men a lesson in practical politics. By organizing a machine of their own, they routed the professional politicians, defeated all five candidates put up by the Southern Pacific Machine … and swept into office the five commissioners of their own choosing. … Among them is Mrs. Luella B. Johnston, head of the women’s machine…

Cartoon - Municipal League Wins - 5-20-1912

Sacramento Bee Cartoon (1912)

An Historic Win

Luella was the first woman elected to the Sacramento City Council. More than that, “Mrs. Johnston is the first woman elected to city office in the state,” reported the San Francisco Call. (While records are sparse, she may even have been the first woman elected to the city council of any major American city.)

Luella was not the first woman elected to public office in California; but I would argue her election was of greater societal importance than her predecessors. Prior to 1912, women were prohibited from running for all state and local offices except one: women were permitted to run for (but not vote in) elections for county education offices. (For example, Sacramento County’s first female Superintendent of Schools was Minnie O’Neil, elected in 1907.) This accommodation was, however, sexist in its own way, reflecting contemporary gender norms that women should be the primary caretakers and educators of children.

What Luella and Sacramento had done was something new.

For the first time, the voters entrusted a woman with general governmental power.

It was the start of a new era.

New City Hall, circa 1912 - Greater Sacramento Publication (1912)

The Recently Completed City Hall (photo circa 1912)

***

Stayed tuned in the coming weeks for Part II, where  I conclude my short biography of Luella by examining her term in office and later years.

Abridged Bibliography

In putting together this account of Luella’s life and 1910s Sacramento I drew heavily on, and am indebted to, the following sources:

 

Who We Are: A City of Dreamers

A blue road sign that says Welcome to California in script, alongside a picture of a California Golden Poppy. Behind the sign is a highway, leading to mountains and a cloudy, but bright horizon.

I was born here in California. We were not wealthy, but my parents had adequate economic opportunities available to them to provide for our family, I had good schools available to me and the community was reasonably safe (although anyone complaining about crime today must have forgotten the early/mid 1990s). Today I have a very good job. My neighborhood has excellent schools and is the safest in the city (more on that later). I have no reason to go anywhere. I love my son more than anything in the world and I cannot imagine how I would feel if I were unable to provide a good life and good opportunities for him here in Sacramento.

I worked hard and made (mostly) good decisions along the way. I have faced and overcome some adversity. But most of my success can be attributed to having born to educated (white) parents in the greatest place in the world. I feel incredibly blessed.

Many have not been so lucky. Their situations were so dire, they made the choice to leave behind the only life they’ve ever known, to risk everything in hopes of giving their families a better life. All because of the luck of the draw of where and when they happened to be born. Some were forced to flee their homes because of violence and economic ruin driven by the drug cartels that thrive because of American demand and our failed War on Drugs. I cannot imagine what it is like to live that why. I cannot imagine facing the choice that Aaron Sorkin so perfectly described:

With the clothes on their backs, they came through a storm. And the ones that didn’t die want a better life. And they want it here. Talk about impressive. – President Bartlet

43 million American residents were born somewhere else, tackling either enormous bureaucratic challenges or a border with 20 thousand agents patrolling it. Impressive. About one-in-four (11 M) are undocumented. Most came as adults, some were brought by their parents as children. About one-in-ten (1.1 M) of the undocumented population were eligible for President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status, allowing these Dreamers to live and work without fear of deportation, in two year increments. About four-in-five (790k) of the eligible Dreamers are currently enrolled, including 223 thousand in California and 8 thousand in Sacramento. (Author’s estimate: Local data has not been updated publicly since the first year of the program, but California’s statewide proportion has remained steady, so it seems likely that Sacramento’s share has as well. This estimate is based on that assumption.)

Our region is lucky to have them. Allowing Dreamers to work could be worth $200 billion to $400 billion nationally over the next ten years, which translates to $2 to 4 billion in Sacramento (Author’s estimate: Assuming a proportional share). In discussing the lower estimate, the conservative CATO Institute wrote that the estimate “is driven by the fact that the ‘Dreamers’ tend to do well in school and as a result do well in the job market after they complete their education.”

Of Sacramento’s 8,000 Dreamers, about 1,000 are currently enrolled and doing well at Sacramento State (A university known for advancing its students economic prospects). Those students will be allowed to continue to attend school and California, which will continue to charge them in-state tuition because that is simply the right thing to do. But without DACA they will no longer be allowed to work legally. Funding college these days is hard enough. Telling students they cannot work and earn the money they need to pay tuition is simply heartless.

Just as I cannot imagine having to make the choices these Dreamers’ parents had to make, I also cannot imagine the challenges these students must be facing or the fear of returning to the shadows or facing deportation. I have had too privileged of a life for that.

Even so, I hope to be able to help. I am asking friends, my fellow alumni and the Sacramento community to join me in making a contribution to Sacramento State’s Dreamer Resource Center. The Center provides a wide variety of legal, academic, personal and financial support to Dreamers at Sac State.

Please join me and tell these students that you have their back. Tell these students that all of the hard work they have put into succeeding in school and making it to college was not for nothing. Tell these students that you believe in their American Dream.

Any amount helps, $5, $20, $50, $100, $500, $1,000. Just $30 would cover tuition for the equivalent of one class session. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation.

Who We Are: A Union Town

Happy Labor Day

Nothing like Labor Day for us to get back to work. Minor issues like the birth of a child impeded our ability to keep up with the site for a few months there. We will have some catching up to do over the next few months and, happily, we have a fantastic new member of our team, Caity Maple, to help us make that happen. We have some fantastic guest writers lined up to write from time-to-time as well.

But for now, in honor of Labor Day, let us talk about organized labor and the Sacramento in our continuing series, “Who We are.”

For too long, Sacramento has struggled to not just find, but to really celebrate, our identity. We have grappled with an identity crisis. Whether it is our Sac’o Tomatoes cow-town roots or perceptions that we are little more than a pit stop between San Francisco and Tahoe, too often we find ourselves with a chip on our shoulder, trying to keep up with the Joneses but distracting ourselves from the fantastic, unique, comfortable city that we all share. Throughout this series, I use data to explore different aspects of Sacramento to try to help us understand — and celebrate — Who We Are.

Union membership has been in a well-documented decline for the last half century. Nationally it dropped from about 1 in 3 in the mid-sixties to 1 in 10 today. California’s membership levels have declined as well, dropping from a similar 1 in 3 to about 1 in 6 today. Meanwhile, despite declines in California, overall, and nationally, Sacramento’s union membership has remained basically flat (with significant year-to-year fluctuations) over the past thirty years.

LaborDecline

Source: UnionStats.com

This isn’t solely a product of Sacramento’s concentrated state workforce, although the majority of Sacramento’s public sector are union members. Over eleven percent of the private sector workforce is organized as well, 73% higher than the national average and 26% higher than the state.

DSC07282The decline in union membership has been linked to the decline in the middle class wages, lower non-union wages and increased inequalityalthough not everyone agrees.

Here in California, however, we can see that inequality play out pretty clearly across the state’s various metropolitan areas. The lower the union membership, the higher the inequality. Sacramento and Riverside have the highest union membership among large metros, while having the lowest levels of inequality.

UnionInequality

Source: Author’s Analysis based on UnionStats.com & Economic Policy Institute data

On this Labor Day, while celebrating the important victories labor has won for all working Americans, we in Sacramento can also celebrate organized labor’s sustained strength in our city.

Full Disclosure: The author has been a member of the United Food and Commercial Workers, the United Auto Workers and is currently a member of SEIU, Local 100.

How long can sports survive its business side?

The NFL’s last domino for the time being has fallen. After the Chargers and Rams left St Louis and San Diego in favor of sharing the nation’s second largest media market and with the City of Oakland having clearly moved on (Mount Davis’ ROI proved pathetic after its PSL financing mechanism fell apart), the Raiders are now moving to Las Vegas. Each of these franchises left countless passionate, loyal fans behind for the promised riches of a larger market and a new stadium.

8220739_web1_las-vegas-stadium---0702_8220739

I have been a pretty big sports fan for most of my life, but today I worry about the next generation of sports fans and the games themselves. At the end of the day, what are we rooting for? The players increasingly come and go. The owners are just some random billionaires. What’s left? The laundry? Personally, I root for the teams that I root for (Oakland Athletics, Golden State Warriors & San Francisco 49ers) largely out of the nostalgic connection to my childhood. I cannot wait to take Henry to his first Sacramento Kings game and expect I will develop more of a connection to the team as they become a part of Henry’s childhood.

I never cared that the Coliseum was looked down on by the league or minded sitting in the nose bleed seats. I have fond memories of sitting huddled under a blanket at chilly April night games with my family. I never cared that the Run T-M-C and later 90s Warriors teams were terrible defensively, I just enjoyed how much fun it was to watch all those points being score. The first NBA game I ever went to saw the Warriors and Nuggets combine for 320 points . What kid wouldn’t love that?

I have struggled to maintain my connection over the years as the A’s have continuously threatened to move away (made worse by my childhood hero facing steroidal disgrace). Would I still root for them? Would the laundry’s connection to my childhood be enough, even if they were no longer from my hometown? Probably not. So should they stay there perpetually despite the MLB choosing to relegate them to small-market status because of favorable territorial rights bestowed on the Giants? That’s a harder question to answer. The Las Vegas Raiders answered that forcefully, breaking the hearts of many longtime, loyal Oakland fans. The The Los Angeles Chargers and Rams broke their San Diego and St. Louis fans’ hearts just as callously over the last year.

Should we blame them, given the economics of the situation?

That’s a tough question to answer. But I will answer it this way: Professional sports, as a business, has always been built on the loyalty and irrational exuberance of a prideful, local fan base. That was a good business for many, many decades. It made a lot of people a lot of money, while bringing pride, joy and sometimes the most beautiful kind of suffering to their communities. Over the last two decades, though, professional sports have gotten a major taste of national TV dollars. With that taste, they have become addicted and are shifting their business model to ensure they get more and more. Loyalty matters less because they are cashing in when you are tuning in, no matter which team you root for. But there are two problems with that model (aside from any ethical questions):

First, the centralized national TV model is dying and ESPN is a big part of what is driving consumers to cut the cord. The technology on this is accelerating and the current model is unlikely to survive to the end of the next decade — it might not even survive this decade. Once we’ve shifted to an a la carte system, the NFL, etc will either have to put up a serious financial barrier to entry for fans, in order to generate TV revenue, or else figure something else out.

Second, if you cut the relationship between communities and their sports teams, you are going to stunt the development of future fans. My friends in Oakland and San Diego are not likely to teach their kids to love the Raiders or Chargers. Most of them will probably largely just forget the NFL exists. If you live in San Diego and can go to the Beach in November, why would you spend that time in front of a TV? I love football, but I love football because of the 49ers. If you cut off that relationship, football is meaningless to me. I couldn’t care less about college football. Why? It’s the same sport, that doesn’t make sense. Simple, I went to non-BCS colleges, so I have never developed a connection to and really could not care less how it plays out. If the A’s move from Oakland, Henry will never watch their games or likely any others. He will never grow up with a relationship to Major League Baseball and he’ll find something else to do with his time and money. He may not even grow up with a relationship to Minor League Baseball, given the Rivercats own lack of loyalty. I’m not sure if he’ll be better or worse off because of it, but I’m pretty sure MLB will lose out just like I’m pretty sure the NFL is losing out by alienating the 17th and 20th largest metropolitan areas in the country. But hey, Mark Davis, Art Spanos, and every other NFL owner, just got a little richer, so I guess the economics work out in the short run.

At least one NFL owner, Stephen Ross of the Miami Dolphins, seems to get it, in casting the lone ‘No’ vote, he said:

My position today was that we, as owners, and as a League, owe it to the fans to do everything we can to stay in the communities that have supported us until all options have been exhausted. I want to wish Mark Davis and the Raiders organization the best in Las Vegas.

As he so often does, Jack Ohman succinctly cut to the heart of the issue:

FutureofSports-Ohman

I have said it before and I will probably say it again, it is much too soon to meaningfully claim Sacramento’s new arena to be a financial success or failure. That said, I am glad that with the Kings’ new home locked in, my son will not have his little heart broken by the Kings leaving his hometown for at least the next several decades.

Of course, any readers now yearning for a simpler time in sports may wish to attend the State Library’s upcoming event, “Sacramento Baseball from the 1870s to the River Cats” on April 5th.

FutureofSports-LibraryBaseball

Who We Are: A City of Trees

For too long, Sacramento has struggled to not just find, but to really celebrate, our identity. We have grappled with an identity crisis. Whether it is our Sac’o Tomatoes cow-town roots or perceptions that we are little more than a pit stop between San Francisco and Tahoe, too often we find ourselves with a chip on our shoulder, trying to keep up with the Joneses but distracting ourselves from the fantastic, unique, comfortable city that we all share. Throughout this series, I use data to explore different aspects of Sacramento to try to help us understand — and celebrate — Who We Are.

In seeking “to make sure that everyone on Interstate 5 knows that Sacramento is America’s Farm-to-Fork Capital,”Sacramento’s friendliest water tower has managed to stir up some controversy. It has riled up a number of this author’s neighbors in Nextdoor Pocket and received a thumbs down from at least one bicyclist. Not surprisingly, Ray Tretheway, the Executive Director of the Tree Foundation prefers the old version.
“It symbolizes why people think so highly of Sacramento – because of its glorious tree canopy. It’s the best (motto) for today and for the future.” – Ray Tretheway
OHMAN031217colorOur city’s Pulitzer Prize winning political cartoonist, Jack Ohman also offered a number of colorful alternatives (click the link to see all of them). The State Hornet even suggested the tower “can go fork itself.”
 Ironically, when the water tower was originally painted in 2003 (at the behest of then Councilman Robbie Waters), the city turned down ideas focused on agriculture to run with the “City of Trees” motto instead. Today, having come to embrace our agricultural heritage, proponents of the change point out that Sacramento is America’s only Farm-To-Fork Capital (most similar cities prefer the term ‘Farm-to-Table‘) but that it is one of many that claim the moniker City of Trees.
Sacramento’s urban forest has been recognized as among the best in the nation and even the world. With 23.6% covered in trees, Sacramento has it made in the shade with the Sacramento Tree Foundation and SMUD encouraging us to do the planting.. Our city was also among the original cities designated as a “Tree City USA” by the Arbor Day Foundation in 1976. Sacramento State was even named a “Tree Campus USA.” Clearly, while we are not the only City of Trees, Sacramento is among the very most deserving of the title.
treepedia-73bf7b84
Trees are also very much worth celebrating. They cut pollution, increase land value and even make you feel younger. They offer incredible bang for the buck in dealing with modern infrastructure and environmental concerns, especially carbon dioxide and other air pollution. The name is also the inspiration for the City of Trees music festival, adding to the cool factor. They also make our city a particularly good destination for an urban hike.
tomato-345280_960_720One would hope that Sacramento could be both pro-tree and pro-fork. Celebrating our agricultural and culinary heritage should not have to come at the expense of our urban forest. One wonders if, with a bit more artistic/desktop publishing creativity, both of these identities couldn’t be celebrated side-by-side. Better yet, give the trees back their water tower and create something new to celebrate our beloved tomatoes. Perhaps our city could take inspiration from Chicago’s cows or Austin’s guitars and create a public art program celebrating both our love of forks and tomatoes?
SacramentoGISTreeMapWe should also take care to frame these conversations and subsequently policies in a way that works to the benefit of the community as a whole. Too often, the immense co-benefits of urban forestry tend to miss the most at-risk populations. Sacramento is no different. The cities more affluent neighborhoods in Council Districts 3 (22%), 4 (25%), 5 (19%) and 7 (21%) have high levels of canopy coverage, while more at-risk neighborhoods in District 2 (15%), 6 (14%) and 8 (12%) have more modest canopies. District 1 (5%) may cease to be such an outlier in a few years as its newly planted canopy has time to grow. (Similarly, I would tend to doubt that any more of the benefits of FtF trickle down to the residents who need them most — prove me wrong, advocates, prove me wrong!)

Who We Are: A City of Choice

For too long, Sacramento has struggled to not just find, but to really celebrate, our identity. We have grappled with an identity crisis. Whether it is our Sac’o Tomatoes cow-town roots or perceptions that we are little more than a pit stop between San Francisco and Tahoe, too often we find ourselves with a chip on our shoulder, trying to keep up with the Joneses but distracting ourselves from the fantastic, unique, comfortable city that we all share. Throughout this series, I use data to explore different aspects of Sacramento to try to help us understand — and celebrate — Who We Are.

20170130_125659There are certain places in this country that people who are born there rarely leave. A seemingly astounding 40% of the country lives in the same place they were born. This phenomenon has been well documented by countless nostalgia-rock and country songs.


Not surprisingly, these folks cite connection to family, comfort, and a feeling of fitting in as their reasons for staying put. They tend to be less educated, but perhaps surprisingly, not lower income. They also tended to vote for Donald Trump.

Movers tend to be moving to opportunity. This includes higher educated professionals, who tend to move to higher cost urban areas. It also includes less educated folks, often leaving these same urban areas for lower cost regions with growing economies, especially in the sunbelt, or longer commutes in inland California.

who-we-are-choice-map
Census Migration Flows (Brown: Net Immigration to Sacramento; Blue: Net Emmigration)

Sacramento is not the top California destination of movers. Not surprisingly, dynamic Bay Area counties top the list (among larger counties). Los Angeles’ more affordable, inland neighbors, San Bernardino and Riverside have also been benefiting from the coastal housing crunch. We top other regions, though, and are above average as a destination, with 5.3% of our neighbors new to the region in the last year, compared to 4.9% across the state.

More notable, though, is the high level of immigration, combined with a relatively low rate of emigration. Other counties with a high share of movers also typically have a high share of leavers. San Francisco County averages a net domestic loss of nearly 14k per year, Alameda County nearly 2k, San Mateo County over 2k. In the Bay Area, only Contra Costa County (despite the lowest immigration rate) didn’t lose population to domestic migration. A lot of folks choose to move there – to try to make their fortune; for education; for the premium night life – but before long, many of them decide to leave, often in search of more affordable housing and a quieter place to raise a family.

Sacramento, by contrast, is a city where people choose to move and, subsequently, choose to stay (net domestic immigration of 4k per year). This author is a perfect example. Having grown up in the Bay Area and spent my college years in Los Angeles, I moved to Sacramento a bit over a decade ago. Honestly, I did not know what to expect. Aside from attending a couple of political events at the Capitol, one (perhaps) excessively enjoyable weekend with a college buddy and (naturally) driving past on my way up the mountains (as a rafter, rather than a skier), I had spent less time in our state’s capital than our nation’s. Less still in the neighborhoods beyond the domes.

No, Sacramento was never part of my plan, but life brought me here in 2006. A year later, those circumstances no longer offered any reason to stay, but Sacramento had started to grow on me. I still planned to return to the Bay Area at some point, but was in no need to hurry back. Within a few years, though, Sacramento had become home. With a good career going, I had no reason to leave. With my wife, many new friends, and involvement in a number of community organizations, I had many reasons to stay.

neighborhoods_eSacramento has the best of both worlds. With an unemployment rate that’s better than the state average and housing prices that are still reasonably affordable, it provides an affordable home for nearly everyone. With distinct, unique neighborhoods it provides a place where everyone can fit in and feel like part of the community. Sacramento offers a modern economy and a place we can really call home. It is no wonder people choose to move here – and no wonder people, like me, choose to stay.

Statistics based on ACS 5-year data.