II | The Camp Cottages
1. General Cost
The pressure 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 in Table 64, $884,558.81.
[178] See Part 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 clerical force, 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 having seized 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.
2. Families Occupying the 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] See Table 74, p. 241.
TABLE 65.—NATIONALITY OF APPLICANTS RECEIVING AID UNDER THE COTTAGE PLAN
| Nationality | Native born applicants whose parents were of each specified nationality | Foreign born applicants of each specified nationality |
|---|---|---|
| American | 193 | .. |
| Irish | 16 | 127 |
| Italian | 6 | 73 |
| German | 4 | 55 |
| Mexican | 1 | 52 |
| English | 2 | 34 |
| Porto Rican | 0 | 27 |
| French | 1 | 15 |
| Other nationalities | 8 | 66 |
| Total | 231 | 449 |
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
| Conjugal condition | Families of each specified conjugal condition |
|---|---|
| Married couples | 402 |
| Widows | 188 |
| Single men or women | 44 |
| Deserted wives | 25 |
| Widowers | 18 |
| Divorced men or women | 3 |
| Total | 680 |
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] See Tables 38 and 39, p. 156.
TABLE 67.—AGES OF APPLICANTS RECEIVING AID UNDER THE COTTAGE PLAN[181]
| Age period | Applicants in each specified age period |
|---|---|
| Less than 30 years | 81 |
| 30 years and less than 40 years | 191 |
| 40 years and less than 50 years | 173 |
| 50 years and less than 60 years | 132 |
| 60 years and less than 70 years | 71 |
| 70 years and over | 24 |
| Total | 672 |
[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] See Part 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] See Part 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.
3. Wages and Occupations
The work and wages of this group of families before and after the disaster were carefully studied.
TABLE 68.—OCCUPATION BEFORE THE FIRE, OF 415 OF THE MEN IN FAMILIES RECEIVING AID UNDER THE COTTAGE PLAN
| Occupational group | MEN IN EACH SPECIFIED OCCUPATIONAL GROUP | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Pro- prie- tors | Em- ploy- es | Total | |
| Personal and domestic service | 10 | 185 | 195 |
| Manufactures and mechanical pursuits | 9 | 88 | 97 |
| Trade | 15 | 105 | 120 |
| Professional | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| Total | 35 | 380 | 415 |
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 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
| Monthly wages | Employes receiving wages specified |
|---|---|
| Less than $20 | 6 |
| $20 and less than $30 | 21 |
| $30 and less than $40 | 43 |
| $40 and less than $50 | 49 |
| $50 and less than $75 | 170 |
| $75 and less than $100 | 60 |
| $100 and less than $150 | 21 |
| $150 and less than $200 | 3 |
| “Made a living” | 7 |
| Total | 380 |
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 the disaster 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]
| Estimated yearly income | FAMILIES HAVING YEARLY INCOME SPECIFIED | |
|---|---|---|
| Before fire | After fire | |
| Less than $300 | 43 | 102 |
| $300 and less than $600 | 168 | 179 |
| $600 and less than $800 | 211 | 176 |
| $800 and less than $1,200 | 119 | 100 |
| $1200 and over | 94 | 84 |
| Total | 635 | 641 |
[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 70 shows 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 aided by 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] See Part I, p. 85, and Part IV, p. 232.
4. Housing Before and After the Fire
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 71 shows the character of their previous dwellings.
TABLE 71.—TYPES OF HOUSES OCCUPIED BEFORE THE FIRE BY FAMILIES RECEIVING AID UNDER THE COTTAGE PLAN[186]
| Style of house | Families living in houses of each specified style |
|---|---|
| A flat or flats | 466 |
| Small houses or cottages | 109 |
| Furnished rooms | 67 |
| Apartments | 15 |
| Basements | 4 |
| Total | 661 |
[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]
| Number of rooms occupied | Families occupying each specified number of rooms |
|---|---|
| 1 | 50 |
| 2 | 111 |
| 3 | 204 |
| 4 and less than 7 | 284 |
| 7 and less than 10 | 12 |
| Total | 661 |
[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 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, not more 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, were toilets 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 in Table 73.
[188] See Part I, p. 85.
[189] For cost of removal borne by Associated Charities, see Part 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]
| Cost incurred | Cottages costing as specified |
|---|---|
| Less than $50 | 365 |
| $50 and less than $100 | 130 |
| $100 and less than $200 | 120 |
| $200 and over | 52 |
| Total | 667 |
[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 space the 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 will happen 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.
5. Two Cottage Settlements
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] See Part 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 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 371⁄2 feet. 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 one of 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 cost that 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, see Part I, pp. 85-86.
6. Brief Comments
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 other property, 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.