I | General Plan of Housing Work
1. Introductory
A specific housing 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.
2. Retrospective
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] See Part I, pp. 22 ff., 69 ff., and 99. In page 69 ff., 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, see Charities 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 been destroyed, 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] See Part I, p. 82 ff.
The proposition was not only seriously considered of aiding on 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 weatherproof
Commodious and attractive
Homes from Camp Cottages
3. the General Plan
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 described in 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] See Part IV, p. 239 ff.
[172] See also Part I, pp. 23 and 87-88, and Part V, p. 305 ff.
[173] See Part IV, p. 253 ff.
[174] See Part IV, p. 221 ff. For beginning of the work of supplying camp cottages, see Part I, p. 22 ff.
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
| Style of houses or plan of relief | Houses erected |
|---|---|
| Camp cottages | 5,610 |
| Grant and loan buildings | 1,572 |
| Bonus houses | 885 |
| Two-story tenement houses | 19 |
| Total | 8,086 |
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] See Part IV, p. 253 ff.
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 in Part VI; but to gather the total expenditures from the relief funds into one enumeration, the following inclusive table is given:
[176] See Part I, p. 86, and Table 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
| Housing the homeless (emergency shelter) | $187,056.56 | [177] | |
| Assistance in construction of permanent homes: | |||
| Through Lands and Buildings Dept., as bonuses | $423,288.17 | ||
| Through Department of Relief and Rehabilitation, all grants of Rehabilitation Committee, of Committee V, or of other sub-committee, and all loans whether repaid or not | 567,300.85 | ||
| $990,589.02 | |||
| Construction of camp cottages and tenements | 884,558.81 | [177] | |
| Construction of Ingleside Model Camp for aged and infirm | 36,230.59 | [177] | |
| Construction and equipment of permanent home for aged and infirm | 374.722.22 | [177] | |
| Total expenditures | $2,473,157.20 | ||
[177] Sixth Annual Report, American National Red Cross, pp. 73, 90, 96, 98.
A tent camp was opened here May 19, 1906
Camp No. 13, Franklin Square