IIITHE BONUS PLAN

TABLE 68.—OCCUPATION BEFORE THE FIRE, OF 415 OF THE MEN IN FAMILIES RECEIVING AID UNDER THE COTTAGE PLAN

The incomes of the 35 men who conducted a business before the fire, as estimated by them, ranged from $20 to $200 a month in 24 instances. Eleven men gave no figures, but said they had gotten a living out of their business. Certainly the living was precarious for the group as a whole, for they had little if any savings. At the time of the investigation, the number owning their own business was less than half what it had been in April, 1906. The nature of employment suffered sharp changes. The record is not complete, but for the 341 men whose post-disaster occupation record as employes was obtained, 174 may be classed under personal and domestic occupations, 92 under manufactures and mechanical pursuits, 59 under trades and transportation, and two under professional. Fourteen were classed as miscellaneous. It would appear that the number employed at work demanding chiefly physical strength, is somewhat increased; the number engaged at work requiring skilled labor, slightly reduced.

A janitor’s comfortable homeImproved at small expenseCamp Cottages After Removal

A janitor’s comfortable home

Improved at small expense

Camp Cottages After Removal

The following table gives the wages received by the 380 male employes before the disaster:

TABLE 69.—ESTIMATED MONTHLY WAGES RECEIVED BEFORE THE FIRE BY THE 380 MEN WHO WORKED FOR WAGES, IN THE FAMILIES RECEIVING AID UNDER THE COTTAGE PLAN

Some few are shown to have made very good incomes, but it is not known why they had been unable to acquire property before the fire. The actual wages were in most cases, because of irregularity of employment, considerably less than the amounts given above, which represent what would be the wages for regular employment. It was impossible to ascertain how irregular any given employment was. In comparing the wages received after the disaster, practically no change is found. Previous to April 18, 1906, 76 per cent of these men received less than $75 per month, while at the time of the investigation 75 per cent of them were receiving less than that amount. From the standpoint of income received by the chief breadwinner alone, many families were practically on the same financial basis as at the time of the disaster.

Of the 265 women who before the fire were either the entire support of the family or were supplementing the earnings of their husbands, 162 had been engaged in personal and domestic service, 88 in manufactures, 12 in the trades, and three in the professions. Of these women, 213 were widows. After the disaster the number of women employed was reduced to 258. Their wages before the disaster varied from less than $20 a month, received by 71 women, to “$50 to $75” received by 11, and “above $75” received by one. One woman claimed to have earned more than $75. A large proportion, 49, gave their wages as “living expenses.” After thedisaster the number getting less than $20 a month was increased to 94; but on the other hand, 14 were receiving from $50 to $75. As in the case of the men, irregularity of employment meant that the actual incomes of the women were less than their own estimates. Previous to the fire, in 216 different families, or 32 per cent of the total 680, children or adults other than the principal breadwinner were contributing to the home by their outside earnings; afterwards this number increased to 271, or 40 per cent.

Sub-letting of rooms was a source of income to 113, or 17 per cent, of the families before the disaster; afterwards the number was reduced to 46, or 7 per cent. The two- and three-room cottages were hardly large enough for their own members.

TABLE 70.—ESTIMATED YEARLY INCOMES BEFORE AND AFTER THE FIRE OF FAMILIES RECEIVING AID UNDER THE COTTAGE PLAN[184]

[184]Of the 680 families investigated, 45 failed to supply information relative to income before the fire and 39 relative to income after the fire.

Table 70shows that after the fire the proportion of families in the lower income groups was somewhat larger, and the proportion in the higher income groups somewhat smaller than before the fire. It appears from a further study of the data that 329 families had greater incomes before the fire than after, while 215 had greater incomes after the fire, and 92 substantially the same income at both periods. Families to the number of 44 failed to report on this point.

The standard of living of the families of four to five members with a smaller yearly income was extremely low. Some were aidedby relatives and others were assisted from time to time by philanthropic societies. Those who had received regularly as much as $600 a year were probably self-supporting but had put aside no savings. Only 6 per cent of this group of families had savings at the time of the fire, and only 7 per cent were to receive insurance for losses. They carried however only a small burden of debt. Afterwards, 131 were reported to be in debt, in the main for improvements made on their property or for the purchase of a lot. They had, therefore, comparatively little insurance and savings on which to draw, and received little aid from gifts and loans with which to rebuild. In fact, only 10 of the entire number stated that they had received gifts from relatives or from any other source, and an equal number, that they had obtained loans. The gifts from relatives ranged from $10 to $750, and the loans obtained, from $25 to $250. Two cases are noted of large amounts received, one of $3,300, the other of $5,000, for property sold or inherited after the fire.

In addition to the privilege of removing the cottages from the camps without charge,[185]415, or 61 per cent, of the applicants received money grants from the Rehabilitation Committee. These amounts were given for various purposes, but in the main for furniture, clothing, sewing machines, and other general household rehabilitation. A certain number were granted small amounts for housing purposes in order that they might make improvements on their cottages or, in a few cases, to aid in the construction of new homes.

[185]SeePart I,p. 85, andPart IV,p. 232.

Only 15 of these families had owned the houses in which they were living at the date of the fire, though seven others possessed real estate for which they received rent. One family claimed to have owned property valued at $5,000. As the majority of the group had lived in rented houses no attempt was made to learn the value of the rented property. At the time of removal from the camps all but four owned the cottages in which they were living.Table 71shows the character of their previous dwellings.

TABLE 71.—TYPES OF HOUSES OCCUPIED BEFORE THE FIRE BY FAMILIES RECEIVING AID UNDER THE COTTAGE PLAN[186]

[186]Of the 680 families visited, 19 lived in other cities before the fire.

It must be borne in mind that the homes which they had occupied were the least desirable in the city. The houses had been used almost exclusively as dwellings; only 24 of the families had had a shop or store connected with their homes. After the disaster but seven had a shop and dwelling combined. The number of rooms occupied before the fire by those who during camp life and afterwards lived in two- and three-room cottages, was:

TABLE 72.—NUMBER OF ROOMS PER FAMILY OCCUPIED BEFORE THE FIRE BY FAMILIES RECEIVING AID UNDER THE COTTAGE PLAN.[187]

[187]Of the 680 families investigated, 19 failed to supply information relative to the number of rooms occupied before the fire.

The congestion during camp life was probably more undesirable though not so extensive, crowding being excessive in comparatively few instances.

Where the trade winds blowIn full view of the PacificCamp Cottages at Hill Crest

Where the trade winds blow

In full view of the Pacific

Camp Cottages at Hill Crest

In 379 of the 680 families who lived in camp cottages there had been not more than one person to a room; in 260, notmore than two to a room. The large number of cottages erected made it necessary to place them close together. In the parks regular streets were laid out on which the cottages fronted with very little space intervening between the buildings. The compact housing of people meant that in some cases respectable people were compelled to associate to a certain extent with the less desirable. On the whole, however, the general moral conditions were not bad, the statements of some that the camp environment was bad for young people being offset by those of others that they had been able to maintain their accustomed moral standards. Naturally, the families whose living conditions had been most favorable before the disaster were the ones most tried by the abnormal camp life.

The housing condition before the fire was, in some instances, not only inadequate but unhealthful. It is certain that only 197, or 29 per cent, of the families had the use of a bath. When the cottages were moved from the camps, in 425 cases they were occupied as permanent homes with few if any important additions. However, 245 of the families had made improvements, 60 by adding rooms, 160 by adding front or back porches, others by adding windows or doors or making other minor improvements. The houses as a rule were placed on wooden foundations. A few were shingled, but in most instances cracks were sealed with strips, or covered with building paper inside. With their original coat of green paint they appeared much the same as when erected in the camps. Some persons who were fortunate enough to secure two or more cottages joined them to make one good sized house.

The re-visit in 1908 disclosed the fact that only 16 bath tubs had been put into the removed cottages, and that only 40 per cent of the cottages had been connected with the water mains. The occupants of the remaining 60 per cent, perhaps because they were financially unable to connect their houses with the regular water supply, had to draw their water from hydrants in adjoining lots. The location of some of these cottages upon the high hills characteristic of the city made them difficult of access, and in some instances the daily supply of water had to be carried 50 to 100 feet up steep hills.

The toilet provision in the removed camp cottage homes was even less satisfactory. In only 101 instances, or 15 per cent, weretoilets installed within the house. In the remaining 85 per cent the privies were outside the house. When a number of cottages were grouped together on the same tract of land, as frequently occurred, the occupants—in a few cases as many as 10 families—invariably shared the common privy.

When the cottages were removed from the official camps most of those occupying them were given them free of charge.[188]The only cost to be met was for the moving and subsequent improvements or repairs. The expense of moving varied according to the distance and accessibility of the location chosen. The usual price charged by moving companies ranged from $12.50 to $25; $15 for one and $25 for two cottages being the common charge. The applicants paid the cost or were aided to do so by their relatives, friends, or in some cases by their landlord. The landlord would advance the necessary amount in order to have the building placed on his own lot, for which he was to receive a monthly ground rent. The Associated Charities[189]met the expense of moving 175 of the 680 cottages; the social settlements moved a few others. The total cost of the houses to these applicants, including moving expenses and all other improvements, is given inTable 73.

[188]SeePart I,p. 85.[189]For cost of removal borne by Associated Charities, seePart I,p. 86,footnote.

[188]SeePart I,p. 85.

[189]For cost of removal borne by Associated Charities, seePart I,p. 86,footnote.

TABLE 73.—COSTS INCURRED, BY OR IN BEHALF OF APPLICANTS, FOR COTTAGES OCCUPIED BY FAMILIES RECEIVING AID UNDER THE COTTAGE PLAN[190]

[190]Of the 680 families investigated, 13 failed to supply information relative to costs incurred.

The expenditure of the larger sums meant that substantial additions had been made, and that by the increase of housing spacethe building had been made far more desirable as a permanent home.

At the time of the investigation the cottagers had lived in their new locations for from ten to eighteen months. Although 558, or 82 per cent, of those who had occupied rented rooms before the fire preferred their old to their present quarters, a majority were satisfied with their new neighborhood, and 315, or 46 per cent, claimed that the new environment was as desirable as the old, or in some cases more desirable. Upon removal from the camps many of the cottages had been taken to vacant lots to be grouped so closely together that there was comparatively little privacy for each family. The objection of some to their present surroundings was due partly to this fact, partly to the loss of familiar friends that had made the old neighborhood congenial. The Corporation had been anxious that the cottages should not be removed to different parts of the city to be grouped under conditions practically identical with those in the camps. However, though the sale of cottages to vacant lot owners had been steadily refused, the liberal policy of giving cottages to those occupying them in the official camps or to others in need of shelter resulted in a number being located close together on the same leased tract. The lots varied greatly in size. In some instances four or five cottages were erected on an ordinary city lot, of 80 to 100 feet depth and 20 feet width. In others, 60 or more cottages were crowded onto a tract as large as a city block. About 70 per cent of the families occupied lots with at least one other cottage.

The lots were purchased by the cottagers, leased for a term of years, or rented by the month. Of the 680 families only 70 had purchased lots. The prices paid ranged from $250 to $3,000, but in more than half of the cases were under $1,000. At the time of the investigation these lots were being paid for by monthly instalments of from $8.00 to $25, and but seven of the 70 families had canceled their indebtedness. Half the number had not paid more than a quarter of the price of the lot, and some were barely meeting the interest on the debt and were making no headway toward acquiring the property.

Those leasing lots had signed contracts which would be in force from two to five years,—a few even longer. What willhappen when the agreements expire, especially to those who have made no improvements on their cottages, it is difficult to predict. It is known that many who removed their cottages from the camps disposed of them shortly afterward so as to get housing accommodations similar to those they had had before the disaster. Some of the cottages which were made into convenient and tasteful homes will doubtless be occupied by their owners for a long time, for the owners will make an effort to complete the purchase of their lots, or to renew the leases when they expire.

The rentals paid by those who were leasing lots varied from $6.00 to $15 per month, though a great majority paid from $6.00 to $8.50. Those renting from month to month perhaps occupied slightly less desirable lots; the rentals paid varied for the most part from $3.00 to $8.00 per month.

Mention has been made of the unsatisfactory cottage settlements that took the place of the camp life.[191]Two such settlements were visited and the housing and other living conditions investigated.

[191]SeePart I,p. 85.

The first tract is a sand lot belonging to an old estate, which was leased by a real estate agent for a period of five years at a rate of $280 per month. The Corporation refused to sanction his plan, but by some means he secured an official permit in October, 1907.

After he had spent over a month in grading his tract and in placing most of the 1,200 feet of sewer pipes, he was notified by the city board of health that he might not be allowed to open his settlement as his locality was threatened by the bubonic plague. In March of the following year when he could make it clear that his sewerage and sanitation system complied with the public health ordinances, he was granted a health permit. On May 1, 1908, his block was opened to occupants. Two men, one of whom was a Porto Rican boss who had come to San Francisco after the disaster by way of Hawaii, were his assistants in securing people to move into the block. Many came to this settlement from Lobos Square, when that camp was broken up on June 30, 1908.For each cottage moved, the two assistants received $1.00 commission, the boss receiving in addition from the house-movers a commission of from $1.00 to $2.00.

First cottages in Villa MariaThe proprietor and his familyBeginnings of a Cottage Settlement

First cottages in Villa Maria

The proprietor and his family

Beginnings of a Cottage Settlement

This block is 412 feet long and 272 feet wide, and the whole is sub-divided into lots, each 20 x 371⁄2feet. A two-plank sidewalk 3,016 feet in length was laid and 18 inches of gravel placed on the two interior streets by the residents, who received as payment a remittance of part of their ground rent. Each lot was leased for a term of three years, with the privilege of a two-year renewal to the satisfactory lessees, at a monthly rate of $6.00 for the lots on the inner streets, $7.00 and $8.00 for those facing the city streets. There were several exceptions to these rentals, however, one being the case of a hardworking, but very poor old woman whose monthly rate was lowered $1.00; another case was that of a woman who for a time was paying a $10 monthly instalment in order to buy her house; a third, that of a family which, after the cottage granted had been burned, was transferred to a higher priced cottage at the same rent of $6.00. At the time of the investigation only 12 of the 121 cottages were vacant. All had been moved from Lobos Square by their original occupants or owners, except about 20 which were moved by the agent in order to fill the block.

According to the agent, a number of families were at the time of the investigation in arrears for their monthly ground rent and 12 had not paid since they moved their cottages onto the block. On the average the arrearage was equivalent to the entire number being one month behind. Though several families vacated their cottages mainly because of their inability to pay the rent, none had been evicted on that account. Several purchasers of the vacated cottages had had to pay the arrears to the agent as well as the purchase price to the owners of the cottages.

The sanitary conditions, according to the visitors’ report, met the requirements of the board of health but did not conform to the normal sanitary standard. One toilet and an adjoining hydrant were provided for four cottages. Inspections usually were made twice a week by the janitor whose duty it was to enforce cleanliness. The members of each group did the cleaning in common and reported any breakage or defect in the plumbing to oneof the camp residents, a plumber. The janitor and plumber received pay for their services in free rent.

Near each toilet and hydrant stood a large covered garbage can which was emptied three times a week or oftener. The agent paid for these services, which amounted to $25 a month for the block, and also the water bill, which amounted to about $92 a month. He provided a supply of ordinary garden hose, kept at two of the centrally located cottages, with which to fight fire. About one-quarter of the cottagers had made small additions to their cottages, such as porches, and about one-third had bettered them slightly by paint, screen doors, and similar improvements. A few of the most energetic had small, pretty gardens. The housing conditions of a majority of these people seemed, on the whole, to be better than before the fire. They at least paid less rent, and in most cases, enjoyed cleaner quarters and better sanitation.

There was little sickness, though dissipation and moral degeneracy were conspicuous among the majority of these people, who before the fire had lived, many of them, in very undesirable localities. They suffered keen poverty, due in part to scarcity of work, but perhaps largely to intemperance and shiftlessness. Any day a group of men might be found idle, while their women and children provided meager support.

The second tract was, previous to April 18, 1906, a vacant lot 192 x 137 feet. It was leased by a woman, a Mexican, for a period of three years, with the privilege of a one-year renewal. No money was spent in grading, in filling for sidewalks, or for other improvements; practically the only item of expense was for sewerage. One hopper, one faucet, and a toilet for each four families were installed to conform to the requirements of the board of health. The landlady paid $100 for this sanitary work, which had caused great dissatisfaction on account of its poor quality. The individual families had had an increase in water rent from 50 cents the first month to $1.15 the fourth, on account of leakage in the pipes. The ground rent of $6.00 a month for lots 25 feet square facing the city streets and of $5.00 for inner lots of the same size was a little cheaper than that asked in other similar settlements; but added charges for garbage and water made a total costthat was on the average about what was met by those who occupied cottages elsewhere, under better conditions. There were 55 children in all on the lot.

Camp Cottages on a Suburban Tract

The 27 families occupying this lot came from the Lobos Square camp. The landlady, as an inducement, had offered free ground rent for the month of June, 1908. Three-quarters of the cottages were moved and repaired by the Associated Charities at an average cost of $28.50 a cottage.[192]The Associated Charities had recently shingled and put in sinks for the six most nearly dependent households. It is not known how much the landlady paid for her lease nor what profits she reaped. She regretted the undertaking, however,—a result that might have been foreseen when such a helpless class of tenants was accepted.

[192]For work of Associated Charities in relation to housing families, seePart I,pp. 85-86.

The erection of a large number of two- and three-room cottages was necessary if shelter were to be given to the poorest class of the homeless refugees. With individual exceptions, the people had been accustomed to comparatively low standards of living. They consumed each day the daily wage, so were helpless when overtaken by the disaster.

The investigation revealed that those responsible had acted wisely in providing the shelter without consulting the wishes of those for whom it was intended. Opportunity to secure shelter was given through the “bonus” and the “grant and loan” schemes for those who had some means and initiative; but those without resources of their own were not in a position wisely to suggest the manner of their housing. The Department outlined the work on a large scale and executed it in a straightforward, businesslike manner. The happy result was abundant shelter for all the poorest families with the oncoming of the winter rains.

Some critics have claimed that a more equitable distribution of the funds would have been to give to the poorest class as much as to the more fortunate refugees, but a careful examination of the facts shows that the policy adopted was more feasible as well as more expedient. Those who possessed vacant lots, or otherproperty, or who could command means with which to build, gave tangible proof that the foundation of previous thrift and enterprise would serve as a guarantee of wise use of aid from the relief funds. The applicants who had owned no property, possessed no savings, and whose standard of living was low, could offer little, if any, guarantee of a wise use of funds. Had a body of expert social workers been engaged to study each family individually and to plan its future home, superintending the purchase of a lot and the construction of a house,—in fact, teaching each to be a good householder,—a more liberal housing allowance could have been safely granted. Such a constructive plan would have called for far more elaborate and efficient machinery than was at hand, and would have required a much longer time. However, it is realized that a situation which concerned practically the future home life of every camp refugee presented a wonderful and probably unparalleled opportunity for wise constructive philanthropy.

It will be important, in the event of future disasters, to see if the least efficient can be re-housed so as to be, through careful supervision of individuals, brought to a higher standard of living.

Thefirst definite housing resolution agreed upon by the Executive Committee of the San Francisco Relief and Red Cross Funds was an effort to advance through its Department of Lands and Buildings 331⁄3per cent of the cost of a home to be built on the ground owned by any resident of the city whose house had been destroyed, with the provision that in no instance should the amount granted to any one person exceed $500. This was the most generous housing offer made and was limited to those who were to rebuild within the burned territory. It was known as the “bonus plan.” The offer was announced to the public through the newspapers in August, 1906, by the Department of Lands and Buildings, and remained open until October 1, 1906, being reopened in February, 1907, for two weeks. Originally, $400,000 was set aside for the bonuses. In February, 1907, an additional $100,000 was appropriated.

The bonus, or gift, offered to anyone who desired to rebuild on property owned by him in the burned district was granted to 885 persons. The total amount granted was $423,288.17.[193]In slightly over 10 per cent of the cases the amount actually given as a bonus to the applicant was less than $500, due to the fact that he had received aid from other departments, or because the cost of the house was less than $1,500. In one instance the amount of the bonus was as low as $83.

[193]This total included an expense item of $761.17, incurred for investigating titles, etc.

The general procedure was for an applicant to submit his plans to the Department of Lands and Buildings for approval, and when approval was obtained to begin to build his house. Little machinery was required, for no attempt was made to investigate the actual needs of the applicants. The Department satisfied itself that the person was eligible under the terms offered,and before making payment received assurance from its inspector that the building was located at the place designated by the applicant and represented a certain value. The length of time between the granting of an application and the completing of the house varied from one to 14 months. When the second appropriation of $100,000 was made, consideration was given to the question of fixing a maximum limit upon the cost of the houses to be built by the receivers of bonuses, but no definite action followed.

During the early stages of the relief work the great question was, how soon will the burned district be rebuilt. Houses must be rebuilt if residents temporarily living in the nearby cities were not to be permanently lost. Stores and warehouses must be rebuilt if the small tradesmen and lodging-house keepers were to return, to attract, in their turn, other industries. Labor leaders asserted that a large number of those who were living in outlying districts or outside the city were workingmen who were handicapped both by loss of time and by increase in expenditure in having to go to and from their accustomed places of labor. Four or five thousand workingmen were said to be anxiously waiting to make use of a liberal offer to re-establish their homes on their own lots in the burned area. The number was over-estimated, for only 885 bonuses were granted, many to persons who owned their own business and were not workingmen on a daily wage. If such a large number ever made application for the bonus, they either did not possess sufficient savings or enjoy an income large enough to avail themselves of the Corporation’s offer. Capitalists were also anxious for rebuilding to begin as rapidly as possible; so the plan, when announced, was gladly received by all classes. It is possible that the expenditure of the first $400,000 appropriated for bonuses at the moment when many were debating the wisdom of rebuilding, turned the tide of decision in favor of immediate action. As early as March, 1907, 470 bonus homes had been built at an expenditure of $200,147.17.

Home built by a letter carrierHome of an elderly U. S. Government employe. Bonus, $250Bonus Houses

Home built by a letter carrier

Home of an elderly U. S. Government employe. Bonus, $250

Bonus Houses

The field investigation of the bonus cases made by this Survey included visits to 572 persons, or 65 per cent of the entire number. These were selected at random and scattered over theentire burned district. In 26 instances the investigator was refused information, 44 of the houses were rented out and the addresses of owners could not be obtained, and 12 of the houses had been sold or were vacant and the whereabouts of the owners were unknown. The remaining 490 cases, 55 per cent of the total number receiving bonuses, yielded practically complete schedules. All except one of the bonus recipients studied—Notre Dame College, an institution accommodating about 75 students—represented families, or were persons who wished to establish homes. It is believed that the cases selected are in every way typical and that the results obtained would be substantially the same if the entire number had been visited. The characteristics of these 489 persons who received bonuses, and their relative condition before and after the disaster, are briefly given in the following pages.

TABLE 74.—NATIONALITY[194]OF APPLICANTS RECEIVING AID UNDER THE BONUS PLAN

[194]For comparative figures as to nationality found by the first registration, seePart I,p. 74.

That a large proportion of those who received bonuses were foreign born was to be expected, as the regions burned were inhabited largely by the Italians north of Market Street and by the Irish, south.

The conjugal condition of the bonus recipients is shown inTable 75.

TABLE 75.—CONJUGAL CONDITION OF FAMILIES RECEIVING AID UNDER THE BONUS PLAN

In November, 1908, when the schedules were completed, 390 of the 489 families, or 80 per cent, had the same status as before the fire; 99, or 20 per cent, had suffered changes of various kinds. These changes, in the main, resulted from deaths and the natural separation of maturing children from the home. From the date of the disaster to the time of the investigation, 53, or 11 per cent, of the families suffered loss by death of one or more of their members, the total deaths being 57. One of this number had been killed by the earthquake, and many,—the exact number could not be ascertained,—died from such indirect effects of the disaster as nervous prostration, or typhoid fever contracted in camp. The deaths for the period considered, though slightly above the normal, were not excessive.

In 41 per cent of the bonus cases the application was filed by the wife or some other woman member of the family, and the grant was made in her name. The large number of women applicants may be explained in part by the fact that the blank application for a bonus had to be signed by the owner of the lot, whether man or woman,[195]and it is a common practice in San Francisco, as elsewhere, for a husband to put his property in his wife’s name. Furthermore,Table 75shows a large proportion of widows among the applicants and a small proportion of widowers.

Back to Index Next