PART IVHOUSING REHABILITATION

[167]SeeTable 57,p. 186.

It seemed to the reviewer unlikely that any of the 63 applicants who had abandoned the idea of going into business at the time of the grant would ever enter business again. Thirty-nine were working for wages, nine were housewives, and nine were dependent. Data concerning six are incomplete.

As to the causes of the breaking down of the plans for rehabilitation presented to the Committee, the amount of capital available appears to have played its part. While for nine of the 63 cases in which the plan broke down utterly, the amount of capital was not known, in only nine of the remaining 54 cases, or about 17 per cent, was the capital as large as $500. Of those, on the other hand, who merely modified their plans, or who substituted others, over half had $500 or more working capital. In 57 cases it is known how the grant was spent: in 20 instances it went for general living expenses; in 11 instances for illness and in six others for funeral expenses; in 11 for household furniture; in three for housing; in two for clothing; in two for old debts; in one for a typewriter; and in one for transportation.

In 42 of the 63 cases of breakdown of the plan, there is stronginternal evidence that the grant was either inadequate (23 cases), given too late (eight cases); or given without supervision, of which there was an obvious need (11 cases). In six cases the applicant appears to have been deficient in enterprise, and in 11 cases the applicant’s circumstances changed after receiving the grant. Of the four remaining cases little is known.

Sickness and death and household and personal needs consumed more than three-fifths of the diverted grants. In the summer and fall of 1906 the members of the Rehabilitation Committee often shaved down grants because of a perfectly natural fear of a future shortage of funds. A mental habit of caution was being formed during these months of uncertainty which without doubt affected Committee VI in its later handling of some 1,690 cases. Some of these applications were very properly refused. The 894 re-visited applicants who were aided were given grants averaging $247. With the half million dollars that Committee VI had on hand, the grants could have been made to average $400 for the 1,226 grantees aided by this committee. Doubtless grants of such an amount, augmented when necessary to provide money for furniture and clothing, coupled with more frequent supervision, would have reduced materially the number that failed to re-establish. Failures would then have been largely confined to those few persons who showed themselves deficient in enterprise, or whose circumstances changed so completely after receipt of the grant as to make re-establishment impossible.

PartIVHOUSING REHABILITATION

In the land of flowersA simple but cozy homeCottage Homes a Year after Removal

In the land of flowers

A simple but cozy home

Cottage Homes a Year after Removal

Aspecifichousing study was undertaken as one feature of this Relief Survey in order to ascertain the extent and character of the destruction of homes, to review the efforts made to furnish temporary shelter, and the policy and methods followed in the administration of the relief fund for building purposes. Some effects of the disaster upon the applicants were studied and the results recorded.

An attempt was also made to combine with the more specific study a consideration of the social status of each family, the occupation and earnings of the breadwinner and of other members, and certain facts relating to race characteristics and to rent expenditures. The investigation was begun in August, 1908, by a force of field workers who during the following three months made visits to the families and from personal interviews and corroborating inquiry obtained all or part of the information desired. The time intervening between the fire and the close of the study was therefore about two and one-half years. Though the city was by no means entirely rebuilt at the time of the study there was a demand for and a supply of labor which was in a large measure normal. Those who had received aid from the relief funds to rebuild had had time to consider what their permanent housing policy should be and, in the majority of cases, had made determinate plans.

The general plan of the study was to secure information for three specific periods: for the time immediately preceding the earthquake, when it was assumed that conditions were normal; for the interval between the disaster and the time the applicants built and occupied their new homes, when conditions were abnormal; and finally, for the period covered by the investigation,when most of the applicants had been living for some time in their new homes, and when conditions were again relatively normal.

Easy access was had to the fairly complete minutes of the various committee meetings, and to the numerous and well-arranged letters of instruction written by those who had charge of the housing work. Records had been kept of every case aided, showing the nature, extent, purpose of the grants, and the date at which the relief was given. This material, together with reports of the auditor of the Corporation and extensive files of newspaper clippings, was available for this study.

There was delay in carrying out any comprehensive plans for housing because, as has been told,[168]emergency needs had first to be met, and because when the complex relief organization had taken shape, rehabilitation was halted by the action of some of the eastern donors to the funds. Another delaying element was the expectation that the national government might be persuaded to place large deposits with local banking houses, which might become available, on easy terms, for building purposes.[169]To this end a delegation of San Francisco citizens visited Congress to discuss the plan with the members. After careful consideration by financiers and those socially interested, the plan was decided to be impracticable.

[168]SeePart I,pp. 22ff.,69ff., and99. Inpage 69ff., just noted, have been incorporated some of the facts gathered for this distinctive study. See also Original Housing Plan,Appendix I,p. 394.[169]For account of the proposed $10,000,000 building fund, seeCharities and the Commons, June 16, 1906.

[168]SeePart I,pp. 22ff.,69ff., and99. Inpage 69ff., just noted, have been incorporated some of the facts gathered for this distinctive study. See also Original Housing Plan,Appendix I,p. 394.

[169]For account of the proposed $10,000,000 building fund, seeCharities and the Commons, June 16, 1906.

When the Department of Lands and Buildings began to work it needed large quantities of lumber, but private interests had quickly purchased, at the excessive prices asked, the large supply which had been brought to the city. The Department was obliged at the beginning to secure from outside firms an option on 3,000,000 feet of lumber and a proportionate number of shingles. The option was secured at reasonable terms and the lumber was speeded to the city by steamers; but so great was the demand for teamsters that men had finally to be brought from nearby cities and towns to transport it to the building sites. Many planing mills had beendestroyed, and those running were so crowded with private orders that the Department to avoid great delay had to erect two planing mills. These mills caused a saving not only in time but in expense.

The difficulty of securing reliable contractors was increased by the number of private orders received by the local firms, so that additional contractors had to be secured from adjacent cities. The expense of construction was increased still further by the abnormal prices asked for labor. The destruction of deeds and other evidences of title; the difficulty and expense of re-surveys; the perplexity in trying to locate building sites because of the uncertainty as to whether certain parts of the city would in the future be used as business or residence sections; the tardiness of insurance adjustments and the repudiating of liability by not a few companies,—these factors combined to retard the work and increase the cost of building.

In Part I[170]a brief account is given of the first efforts made by the Department of Lands and Buildings to provide permanent cottages for some of the refugees. As soon as it became known that building was to be begun on a large scale, various real estate firms with vacant lot holdings came forward with proposals to sell, lease, or rent to those in charge of the relief fund. A typical proposition by a large real estate company provided for the erection of 3,000 or more houses, to be well equipped with sanitary plumbing, to be placed on graded grounds, and to be supplied with an adequate water system. The price of each house, complete, was to be $1,506. An objection raised against this and similar schemes for re-housing was that large tracts of unimproved land were as a rule situated in outlying and inaccessible districts. Practically all of those who were seeking shelter had formerly lived near the business center of the city, many at least within walking distance of their places of employment. They naturally had no desire to take up permanent residence in an outlying district where excessive expenses would have to be incurred. All plans, whether submitted in good faith or not, that seemed to be based primarily on a desire for personal profit were wisely rejected by the Department.

[170]SeePart I,p. 82ff.

The proposition was not only seriously considered of aidingon a large scale the applicants to build, but steps were taken towards the purchasing, leasing, and renting of lots. Inspectors located all available vacant lots and tracts of land within the city, and experts determined their value. But as all such property was shown to be too unsatisfactorily situated to justify a large expenditure, it was decided after further discussion not to purchase, lease, or rent any lots, but to confine activities either to erecting houses or to aiding those needing help to construct their own. A further reason that led the Corporation to withdraw the plan was that to carry it into effect would require the Corporation to exist for five years at least, and probably longer.

The Department considered the possibility of purchasing ready-built houses, for example in Michigan, to be shipped to the city in sections. A few such houses, as an experiment, were bought and set up on vacant lots. Objections to the purchase of such houses were that the workmen of the city, whose number was increased by the influx of outside workers, needed to be employed as builders, and that large supplies of lumber were soon to be available. The plan was quickly abandoned.

Though the general theory that people should be aided only to regain their former standard of living was one that played an important part in determining the question of shelter for the individual family, the desirability of not restoring former bad housing conditions necessarily meant that in many cases a family could be encouraged, by promise of aid, to build and maintain a home of its own which would be much superior to the quarters formerly occupied. The opportunity which the city had to prevent the return of its people to undesirable homes was to be determined, as far as the applicants for shelter were concerned, by the work of the Department coupled with the applicant’s readiness to make beneficial use of better conditions of environment.

Substantial and weatherproofCommodious and attractiveHomes from Camp Cottages

Substantial and weatherproof

Commodious and attractive

Homes from Camp Cottages

Any adequate plan for housing had to make provision for four classes of people. First, the property owners, who had in the past acquired some property within the burned district, should be helped to their feet again. The carrying out of the bonus plan, intended to meet the needs of this class, is fully describedin Chapter III.[171]Second, the chronic dependents should be accepted by the city as permanent charges. The execution of the plan made for caring for this class is the subject of Part VI.[172]Third, the non-property owners who were resourceful, should be stimulated, by means of grants or loans, to acquire their own homes either through the purchase of lots or through leasing the same at a nominal sum for a period of years. The plan is dealt with in Chapter IV.[173]Fourth, the non-property owners who had never lived in other than rented quarters and who were not likely to make wise use of a grant for the erection of a permanent home, should be sheltered until cheap cottages could be erected for their temporary use. This last plan[174]is fully described in Chapter II of this Part.

[171]SeePart IV,p. 239ff.[172]See alsoPart I,pp. 23and87-88, andPart V,p. 305ff.[173]SeePart IV,p. 253ff.[174]SeePart IV,p. 221ff. For beginning of the work of supplying camp cottages, seePart I,p. 22ff.

[171]SeePart IV,p. 239ff.

[172]See alsoPart I,pp. 23and87-88, andPart V,p. 305ff.

[173]SeePart IV,p. 253ff.

[174]SeePart IV,p. 221ff. For beginning of the work of supplying camp cottages, seePart I,p. 22ff.

The work of the Department of Lands and Buildings divides itself into three parts: first, the erection of camp cottages; second, the payment of bonuses to property owners wishing to re-build; third, a sharing for a time with the housing committee of the Department of Relief and Rehabilitation of the work entailed in making grants and loans to non-property owners for building purposes.

The number of houses erected directly by the Corporation or in part from aid given by it according to the three plans which are fully described in the following chapters, is shown in the following table:

TABLE 63.—HOUSES ERECTED BY OR WITH THE AID OF THE SAN FRANCISCO RELIEF AND RED CROSS FUNDS, BY STYLE OF HOUSES OR PLAN UNDER WHICH RELIEF WAS GIVEN

The camp cottages and the tenement houses were entirely constructed by the Department of Lands and Buildings through its own contractors, and were assigned for occupancy by the camp commanders. The capacity of these camp cottages, allowing one person to the room, was 15,288 persons, and the greatest population at any one time was 16,448. The tenement houses accommodated about 650 people. The grant and loan buildings were erected partly by contractors of the housing committee[175]of the Department of Relief and Rehabilitation, and partly by the people themselves. Those applicants whose houses were built by the housing committee made part payments to the amount of $57,073.16 in cash. Each owner of a so-called bonus house received from the Department of Lands and Buildings the promised bonus upon the completion of his building, in the erection of which the Department had no part.

[175]SeePart IV,p. 253ff.

The amount expended for shelter in the camps has been given in Part I,[176]and expenditures for the aged and infirm will be considered in detail inPart VI; but to gather the total expenditures from the relief funds into one enumeration, the following inclusive table is given:

[176]SeePart I,p. 86, andTable 26,p. 87.

TABLE 64.—EXPENDITURES FOR HOUSING MADE BY THE FINANCE COMMITTEE OF RELIEF AND RED CROSS FUNDS, BY THE SAN FRANCISCO RELIEF AND RED CROSS FUNDS, A CORPORATION, AND BY THE UNITED STATES ARMY FROM CONGRESSIONAL APPROPRIATION, FROM APRIL, 1906, TO JUNE, 1909

[177]Sixth Annual Report, American National Red Cross, pp. 73, 90, 96, 98.

A tent camp was opened here May 19, 1906Camp No. 13, Franklin Square

A tent camp was opened here May 19, 1906

Camp No. 13, Franklin Square

Thepressure to provide permanent shelter is shown to have been keenly realized by the Corporation from the beginning of its work, and, before the Corporation was called into existence, by the army officials, the Finance Committee, and the American National Red Cross. On September 10, 1906, therefore, the Department of Lands and Buildings had ground broken for the building of cottages in the official camps.[178]From that date until March 19, 1907, the work was steadily continued, the contractor being spurred by the offer of a bonus if certain houses were completed within ninety days, and the threat of a forfeiture if a longer time were taken. When the task was done 5,610 cottages had been erected; 4,068 of three rooms and 1,542 of two rooms each. There had also been built 19 two-story tenement houses which sheltered about 650 persons. The total cost of the cottages and tenement houses including painting, plumbing, sewering, flush toilets, hoppers, water and gas connections, the moving of tanks from the principal parks, the laying of sidewalks, and a proportion of office expenses, was, as is shown inTable 64, $884,558.81.

[178]SeePart I,p. 82.

The total cost of the 19 tenement houses, including painting, sewering, patent flush toilets, water, gas in each room and in halls, sinks in kitchen, baths and public laundries, was $41,678.95, an average of about $2,200 per tenement. The 15,288 rooms in the two- and three-room cottages cost, on the average, about $55 per room.

The erection of these cottages was essentially if not entirely a business proposition. Little machinery was demanded. A superintendent of building construction, aided by a small clericalforce, constituted the actual working body. After purchasing the lumber in large quantities, the Department contracted with five large constructing companies to erect the cottages in camps situated in different parts of the city.

The contractors assumed the responsibility of supplying labor and other service; the Department, that of inspecting the completed work. It was planned to charge a monthly rental of $4.00 for the two-room and $6.00 for the three-room cottages, but the plan of collecting rent from the cottages located on city property was vigorously opposed by the mayor and made illegal by a special ordinance. However, the technicality was avoided and the law satisfied by substituting, for the form of lease, a contract of purchase and sale, whereby the occupant agreed to buy outright the house occupied by him and to pay for it in monthly instalments which equaled in amount the rent formerly agreed upon. The amounts advanced on the cottages by the occupants were later refunded to those who purchased lots on which to place their cottages. The total amount collected was $117,521.50 of which $109,373 was refunded. The amount of $8,148.50 was unclaimed at the date of the investigation. About 5,343 of these houses were, upon the breaking up of the camps, moved either by individuals or the Associated Charities to purchased or rented lots and became the permanent homes of the owners. Thus ground rent, hitherto practically unknown in the city, is now paid by many of the camp refugees.

The cottages were moved to all sections of the city, even to surrounding towns and counties, and in not a few cases ownership was exchanged many times. Visits were made to addresses given for 1,137 of these removed cottages, as a result of which a total of 680 fairly complete records was secured and the findings tabulated. The investigators tried to get the present location of the remaining 457 cottages from cottagers whose addresses at the date of removal from camp were similar to those of unidentified recipients, but the clue was useless, as the cottages either had not been moved to the addresses given, or had later been moved again by the owners. Eighty-seven cottages are known to have been sold to others and their original owners to have effectually disappeared from the community; 23 cottagers are known to have refused to pay, or been unable to pay, ground rent, the lot owners in consequence havingseized their cottages; and nine cottages were rented and the owners could not be found. The 680 families found and interviewed had, with few exceptions, owned and occupied the same cottages in the camps. The exceptions were the occupants of the houses moved by the Associated Charities and the few who had not made their home in the official camps but were given cottages.

The important questions to be considered in this review of the housing situation are, who were the people who used these cottages, and what difference did the effort of the relief authorities really make to them?

The proportion of foreign born persons among the occupants of the camp cottages was very large, though not quite so large, as will be seen, as was the proportion of the foreign born among the recipients of bonuses.[179]

[179]SeeTable 74,p. 241.

TABLE 65.—NATIONALITY OF APPLICANTS RECEIVING AID UNDER THE COTTAGE PLAN

The three nationalities which will be found in greatest numbers among the recipients of the bonus likewise appeared most frequently among those who received camp cottages, though the order is different. The Americans among the cottagers outnumbered the Irish, and the Italians were in the third place.

The status of these families with regard to marriage, death, divorce, and desertion was obtained in every case.

TABLE 66.—CONJUGAL CONDITION OF FAMILIES RECEIVING AID UNDER THE COTTAGE PLAN

Though the number of families given as intact is 402, in 73 instances either the husband or the wife had, at the time of the investigation, gone from home in search of work, health, or for other reasons. The large excess of women who had lost their husbands, over the number of men who had lost their wives, is striking, and is certainly out of all proportion to the number of widows in the city. No explanation is offered other than to suggest the greater financial necessity of widows, especially of those with children. It is known that some of those included among the 44 single persons were members of a larger family, and possibly in a few instances they supported an aged parent or others. Six of the desertions occurred between April 18, 1906, and the time of the investigation, and four persons were during that time removed from family life to be imprisoned.

There were 1,312 children enumerated as members of these complete or broken families, many of them born to young married people who had but recently come to the city. More children[180]were found in the Italian than in the American or Irish families, the proportion being 3.1 children to an Italian family, 2.1 to an Irish family, 1.8 to an American family. Ages were recorded of the persons making application for cottages.

[180]SeeTables 38and39,p. 156.

TABLE 67.—AGES OF APPLICANTS RECEIVING AID UNDER THE COTTAGE PLAN[181]

[181]Of the 680 families investigated, eight failed to supply information relative to age of applicant.

Sixty-six per cent of the 680 applicants were women. It is interesting to compare this number with the 41 per cent of women among the recipients of bonuses[182]and the 18 per cent among the families receiving grants and loans.[183]The burden of making application fell more and more on the women as the family moved down in the social and economic scale. From April 18, 1906, to the date of the investigation, 138 persons in the group suffered the handicap of illness, 55 were invalided, 28 met with accidents, and 89 were removed by death. These data represent the carrying of unduly heavy burdens.

[182]SeePart IV,p. 242. The fact that so many women had lodging houses in the burned district before the disaster accounts partly for the large proportion of women applicants for bonuses.[183]SeePart IV,p. 261.

[182]SeePart IV,p. 242. The fact that so many women had lodging houses in the burned district before the disaster accounts partly for the large proportion of women applicants for bonuses.

[183]SeePart IV,p. 261.

The number of families in the group that supported other than their own children, aged parents, or other relatives, was only 68, or 10 per cent of the total. The size of the households was, however, further increased by the presence of some persons who were self-supporting or who contributed to the common income. The comparatively small number of dependents both before and after the fire may have been due to poverty, to lack of room, or to the fact that many were comparatively recent arrivals and had no dependents in America.

The work and wages of this group of families before and after the disaster were carefully studied.

Back to Index Next