Bump

I'm coming late to this party, but I just emailed off my dose of indignation to the relevant parties. If a petition comes into being I'd be delighted to sign. I get that not everyone is a plant person, and not everyone shares my sense of aesthetics, but even taking that into account, I'm just boggled that the city government would treat an internationally known (and award-winning!) collection of rare and endangered cultivars so cavalierly. BOGGLED.

Hopefully in the course of this nonsense, they are becoming better educated about the historic, cultural, and horticultural value of the collection for which they are responsible.

bump

They may even be surprised at the mass indignation if their little bureaucratic minds cannot see beyond the fact that the new designation for the cemetery is some sort of feather in their cap, and never mind the mass destruction of the roses. I mean, what's so important about a bunch of roses - you can buy them practically everywhere......

It may be obvious and I'm missing it, but what is the "pay off'' to the city for having the historic designation?

Tourist attaction. Many people visit cemeteries for their historic content. Much can be learned about what happened there at specific times by studying the gravestones. Many years ago, friends and I traveled all over Arizona, New Mexico and Nevada. We noticed the enormous numbers of infant graves for specific periods. Looking up the information, we found it was a particularly awful blizzard that winter followed by a bag flu epidemic. Who would have known without reading that prior to seeing the results? "History buffs" find interest in the oddest (to the rest of us) things. Plus, it's a feather in the City's cap. "We have a HISTORIC cemetery", though I would suggest all cemeteries are "historic".

Thank you for the explanation.

Roseseek said: "We have a HISTORIC cemetery", though I would suggest all cemeteries are "historic". Amen! At first I didn't catch the irony of that statement.

There may also be grant monies available to cemeteries that have landmark status that may not be available to other cemeteries? Or- more generally- fundraising appeals/ grant proposals for a site with landmark status may be seen more favorably than sites without the designation.

But, yes- what Kim said- tourist dollars are probably the major incentives for the city wanting landmark status for the SCC.

A relative who is very involved with a historic cemetery tells me that if a historic designation has already been given to the city as is, the city could jeopardize that designation by changing anything. Her experience is with the National Register, but I suspect that may hold true for state designations also. So theoretically, the cemetery's state landmark status could be endangered if these changes are made without prior approval from the state.

Virginia

Virginia, is there a way to find out the particulars of the landmark status?

BUMP

Virginia -- I do know that the landmark status has NOTHING to do with the structures they wish to remove. And, really, nothing to do with the roses they want to move or greatly reduce in size.

These things come from City staff, and are not required by the landmark issue.

This may be a repeat of something above, have not been following the details this past week, got a brief email from Preservation Director Roberta Deering (I'm bolding what I think is important): "The cemetery's historic designation identified certain of the plant materials from the cemetery's era of significance as contributing resources, based upon the City's 2007 adopted Master Plan for the cemetery...and these are to be protected. And note that even only a few of the more recently planted plant materials would actually need to be moved to a new location.

Thank you,

--Roberta Deering, LEED AP

Preservation Director

City of Sacramento "

Bump

Bump

I think that Roberta Deering has not read the "Guidelines." She might ought to, since part of what they want to do is "move" truly historic plants.

Jeri, what I meant to say is that when a place gets on any register of historic sites or landmarks or whatever, ANY changes later made to that site without approval could jeopardize the site's status.

The Cemetery received its landmark status WITH the structures- and plants- in place. Moving the structures and plants without prior approval from the folks who approved the state landmark designation could be seen (and should be seen, IMO) as a major change that makes the site less historically accurate...

We know that roses were part of the original landscaping of the cemetery itself; now the city staff think those plants should be moved. Why?

Virginia

Yes. You're absolutely correct Virginia. I've encountered that advice before.

It just sounds to me like these people have their own personal vision (which has nothing at all to do with history, or even reality) and have the bit firmly in their teeth.

But I have to say -- I have encountered that mindset in the past, and marveled at it. To such people, only the stone matters. Nothing living need apply.

What really confounds me, though, is that those stones benefit from the roses, because gardeners who weed and otherwise tend the roses are respectful of the graves and gravestones the rose is associated with. A grave site with a rose- or other plant- will be cared for along with the plant.

Virginia

Oh yes. And on top of it, little has been said about the continuing repairs to the cemetery that have been financed by the Historic Rose Garden. They have been many. And that is ignored.

After reading the guidelines I see a bigger issue... They will need a second sun and to remove all the trees. The earth may need to work on just how it moves on its axis too... After all the headstones can not have shade on them..... (That northside is going to be hard to get sun)

I've been wondering whether the Historic Rose Garden/Collection would benefit from some sort of formal recognition/ designation in its own right, as distinct from the Historic Cemetery.

Does it currently have a distinct legal status, eg is it a registered charity? Is there a formal association of some kind of which Anita and the other volunteers are a part?

It just seems it's been treated in this situation as, in effect, a non-entity, in that a series of meetings could be held concerning its future management, without anyone apparently feeling the need to engage in consultations with its curator, but only with some un-named 'ad hoc' volunteers - who were presumably whoever happened to be around on the day, or perhaps, one or two people already known to be sympathetic to the Parks/gravestone committee's ideas along with others who didn't really understand what it was they were getting into.

What I'm thinking is that, if it doesn't already exist, could a formal organisation be created with the explicit role of (for example) managing, maintaining, developing, educating the public about, promoting, and protecting the Historic Rose Collection now and into the future? It might be in the form of a Charity or a Trust and/or something like an official 'Friends of the Sacramento Historic Rose Garden' Association, which could potentially involve interested rose-lovers from around the world, not just local volunteers and visitors. It could have a well-known rose-loving Patron and official representatives whether a President, Management Committee, a Board, Trustees, etc, who would be clearly recognised as representing its interests, so no-one in the future could ever again say 'we consulted with you' without having gone through the proper channels.

Does something like this already exist? If not, does anyone have any comments pro or con establishing such a thing?

Love to hear your thoughts. :-)

Don't forget - anyone who can make it to the rose garden the day after tomorrow, Sat, April 2nd at 2PM, there is a Garden of Excellence award ceremony at the garden. There will evidently be some folks there from the City - as many people as can make it should show up too, so the City folks can see how the garden is appreciated.

Jackie

Could someone ring or email the Sacramento Bee to let them know/keep the story in the public eye?

Maybe a photo in the local paper of the presentation, with the rose garden in all its Spring glory in the background, and a short accompanying caption with the date and place of the upcoming Preservation Committee Meeting might bring out more members of the public to show their support by attending the Meeting?

Bump

bump

Bump

Bump

Bump

Looking forward to hearing about the Preservation Commission meeting on April 13th!

Jackie

Bump

bump

Link to the Sacramento Historic Preservation Commission meeting agenda for April 13: http://sacramento.granicus.com/GeneratedAgendaViewer.php?view_id=21&event_id=2514

Staff Report to the Commission on the Historic City Cemetery Pruning Guidelines: http://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=21&event_id=2514&meta_id=464641

Staff Report does not look great- repeats a lot of the statements about the plants being damaging to the monuments.

I don't like the sound of the Staff Report.

I am really curious as to the qualifications of the "Staff" to even make such assessments of possible damage. Are they geologists? Soil specialists? Hydrologists? Experienced with other monuments?

(fuming again) John

I can't answer those questions, John. I can tell you there are numerous wonderful photos of the recent Open Garden on Face Book.

Hi Kim, I am off to work now, could you point me in the direction of the FB photos please

Hi David. How about if I share them to your page there?

Also, I put a lot of "garden" photos into a video which is easy to access (YouTube) and watch:

https://youtu.be/Hk-apdpMZSo

Thanks Kim and Jerri. I am unsure of how people place the "thank you " below a post. So this is my way for now. Thank you.

Thank you, David. Only the original poster can "thank" someone for a thread post. The posters can simply "like".

From Jill Perry's post on Face Book.."I'm hoooooome...and brain-dead. The Preservation Commission meeting
went on for FIVE HOURS. The first two-and-a-half hours were devoted to
an infill project on F Street. It got
boring at times but I was happy the Commission took every detail so
seriously and really paid attention. The second two-and-a-half hours
were ours. Dozens of cemetery volunteers, plus scientists, neighborhood
activists, and historians spoke passionately and eloquently about the
importance of the cemetery's Historic Rose Garden, as well as the
Perennial Garden and California Native Plant Demonstration Garden.
There was one curmudgeon who apparently hates all plants, but he was an
anomaly. The city historian and city parks supervisor (who devised the
draconian guidelines) had to sit there and listen to it all. The
moratorium on removing roses will stand while the city develops a
smarter set of guidelines. Democracy in action, folks. Sometimes it
works!"

Jill - thanks so much for the update! Sounds as if progress is being made at last.

Jackie

Claire8WA

Thanks so much for passing on Jill Perry's FB post Kim, very heartening

Claire - Love Old Garden Roses? join us...Cascadia Heritage Roses Group

good to know lets hope they scale things back a bit

Let's hope they scale things back A LOT.

Sounds good. Now what we need is a permanent moratorium on removing roses :P

(encouraged) John

If anyone is interested the meeting can be seen at http://sacramento.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=30&clip_id=3790

I'm still not sure where all this will end. Many thanks to all who have weighed in so far. The cemetery garden volunteers are not included in the expert panel who is proposed to review the guidelines, and there are no antique rose experts either. The City preservation director stood behind her guns that all trellises needed to move because they are after the period of significance for the National Historic District registration. It's great that they are going to review the guidelines using experts and, I hope, scientific evidence about plants doing damage to monuments as is currently alleged (and rarely seen in Sacramento). And it's also great that other expert preservation historians don't agree about the trellises But I'm still worried.

As well should all of us be, Anita. No worker bees who know the garden best, no antique rose experts? Worrisome. Looks like deliberate oversight so certain evidence can be ignored. It's worth considering both teams submit ad hoc reports on what they find to be true as workers in the garden and what they know as experts with knowledge of antique roses. The expert panel may ignore the evidence but it will be on the record. If the City preservation director picked the experts to serve on the committee, this is self-dealing and the final report would be suspect.

Keep letting us know what we can do to aid the garden.

about the statement that people paid good money for headstones and were letting things grow on the monuments that were supposed to honor them what about the roses they honored them with like elizabeths chinA i think that should be considered also