1 Vernice Hankins
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2022 4:57 PM
To: councilmtgitems; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Gleam Davis; Kristin McCowan; Sue Himmelrich; Lana Negrete
Cc: Nina Fresco
Subject: Item 16C: Soldier's Home
Attachments: 1888-0303-DEEDS-SoldiersHomeLand-AndTrustForCashPortionOfDonation.pdf
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council,
In 1885 John P Jones and Arcadia B. de Baker offered the National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers a 600‐acre tract that straddled the boundary between the Rancho San Jose de Buenos Ayres and the Rancho San Vicente y Santa Monica.
The group was seeking the fifth site for a federally operated home and had received several offers. According to a report dated June 30, 1885, from the Board of Managers of the National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers, the offer included five acres of water‐bearing land and a reservoir site, and a cash donation of $50,000 to be paid in five annual installments. Alternatively, if the managers agreed to accept only 300 acres from Jones and Baker, the cash donation would be increased to $100,000.[1] Hoping to be selected, in December 1887, The Jones and Baker organization hosted the managers, sparing nothing to show them around the vicinity of the offered land and all the advantages that came with it including railroad connections, surrounding soil of rich sandy loam, and spectacular views of mountains and valleys, and the cities of Los Angeles and Santa Monica and the ocean due to its elevated foothill location. The earlier offer of land, water and cash was sweetened by the promise of a rail station at the site, and half‐ fare for veterans using it. The renewed offer was laid out in a published letter signed by Walter Van Dyke (representing John P. Jones) and Robert S. Baker (representing Arcadia B. de Baker). Having visited ten west coast cities where they inspected twenty potential sites, the managers accepted the Jones and Baker offer of 300 acres and $100,000.[2] The people of Santa Monica were delighted because the home would bring as many as 2000 new residents plus their visitors to the area, which was already entering a short boom period as a result of the break‐up of the Southern Pacific Railroad monopoly by the Santa Fe Railroad. Prospects were bright.
During a second visit in February, a committee sent by the National Home mangers in Washington were hosted at the Arcadia Hotel and shown around by Col. R.S. Baker and Don Juan Bandini (husband and brother to Arcadia B. de Baker, who owned the Baker share of the Santa Monica Land Company in name). The committee members examined the site and confirmed the veracity of the promised features. It was revealed in this reporting, that the $100,000 cash donation would come from a syndicate that owned a nearby tract of land. After the tour, a reporter from the Santa Monica Outlook visited the committee in their hotel for an interview. The committee confirmed that they would accept the offer of 300 acres plus the additional cash, and noted that the inclusion of a water source, and promise of discounted rail access was critical to the deal. They also shared with the reporter that “they also intend to secure a permanent spot near the surf, where a pavilion and other conveniences may be provided for the old soldiers.”[3] About a month later, in March 1888, it was reported that a deal had been signed. In this report the deal included 300 acres in the Rancho San Vicente y Santa Monica, 28 acres for a reservoir for the home that would be eventually supplied by surrounding canons, but in the short term from the Kuruvungna Springs that supplied the City of Santa Monica as Item 16.C
06/28/22
1 of 14 Item 16.C
06/28/22
2 well. This reporting also described a third conveyance of land on the beach for a bath house and on the bluff adjacent to the Arcadia Hotel for a pavilion for the soldiers. It also explained how the financing for the $100,000 donation would work.[4] In July, the Outlook reprinted an article about Santa Monica that had appeared in a Chicago newspaper (local newspapers in need of content typically subscribed to papers from all over the country to peruse them for items of local interest). The Chicagoan reported that construction of the Soldiers home was under way, and noted that Jones and Baker had provided a site on the bluff northeast of Santa Monica for a bathhouse and pavilion. The city limit at that time was at Montana Avenue.[5]
Three deeds were found for the 300‐acre site, the reservoir site, and the bathhouse site, all dated March 3, 1888. Each transfer appears to have been contingent upon the described use for each site and in exchange for the benefit of those uses to the grantors in place of cash compensation. However, they do not spell out how failure to follow through with said uses would be handled.[6] There is no evidence on historical maps or in newspaper reports that there was a bathhouse in Santa Monica built exclusively for the veterans who lived at the Soldiers Home at the foot of Montana Avenue as described in the deed, though there is an abundance of evidence that they spent plenty of time in the city, enjoying other amusements, amenities, and attractions.
A copy of the 1888 deeds is attached below.
Sincerely,
Nina Fresco
[1] Report of the Board of Managers of the National Home for Disabled Volunteer Soldiers for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1885, Government Printing Office, Washington. D.C., 1886 [2] The Soldier’s Home, Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, California, December 8, 1887 [3] The Soldier’s Home, Santa Monica Outlook, Santa Monica, California, February 1, 1888 [4] Soldier’s Home, Los Angeles Herald, Los Angeles, California, March 8, 1888 [5] Santa Monica, Santa Monica Outlook, Santa Monica, California, July 25, 1888 [6] John P. Jones and Arcadia B. de Baker to National Home for Disabled Veterans, Los Angeles County Recorder Deed Book 405, page 14, Deed Book 405, page 32, Deed Book 405, page 36, March 3, 1888, www.familysearch.com Item 16.C
06/28/22
2 of 14 Item 16.C
06/28/22
Item 16.C
06/28/22
3 of 14 Item 16.C
06/28/22
Item 16.C
06/28/22
4 of 14 Item 16.C
06/28/22
Item 16.C
06/28/22
5 of 14 Item 16.C
06/28/22
Item 16.C
06/28/22
6 of 14 Item 16.C
06/28/22
Item 16.C
06/28/22
7 of 14 Item 16.C
06/28/22
Item 16.C
06/28/22
8 of 14 Item 16.C
06/28/22
Item 16.C
06/28/22
9 of 14 Item 16.C
06/28/22
Item 16.C
06/28/22
10 of 14 Item 16.C
06/28/22
Item 16.C
06/28/22
11 of 14 Item 16.C
06/28/22
Item 16.C
06/28/22
12 of 14 Item 16.C
06/28/22
Item 16.C
06/28/22
13 of 14 Item 16.C
06/28/22
Item 16.C
06/28/22
14 of 14 Item 16.C
06/28/22