III | The Bonus Plan
1. the Plan Itself
The first 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 331⁄3 per 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 carrier
Home of an elderly U. S. Government employe. Bonus, $250
Bonus Houses
2. Bonus Recipients
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 the entire 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
| Nationality | Native born applicants whose parents were of each specified nationality | Foreign born applicants of each specified nationality |
|---|---|---|
| Irish | 19 | 185 |
| Italian | 1 | 93 |
| American | 81 | .. |
| German | 2 | 41 |
| English | 3 | 10 |
| French | 2 | 11 |
| Other nationalities | 3 | 38 |
| Total | 111 | 378 |
[194] For comparative figures as to nationality found by the first registration, see Part 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 in Table 75.
TABLE 75.—CONJUGAL CONDITION OF FAMILIES RECEIVING AID UNDER THE BONUS PLAN
| Conjugal condition | Families of each specified conjugal condition |
|---|---|
| Married couples | 321 |
| Widows | 126 |
| Widowers | 23 |
| Orphaned children | 8 |
| Single men | 6 |
| Single women | 5 |
| Total | 489 |
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 75 shows a large proportion of widows among the applicants and a small proportion of widowers.
[195] See form in Appendix II, p. 447.
The size of the family was, as a rule, not large, and the burden of dependence carried not heavy. In only 28 cases were there persons other than children who were wholly dependent. In 43 cases relatives or friends lived with the family, but were either self-supporting or made contribution to the family income. There were 1,333 children of these families, or 2.7 to a family, not all of whom were living at home; many, married or single, were living and working away from their parents.
TABLE 76.—AGES OF APPLICANTS RECEIVING AID UNDER THE BONUS PLAN[196]
| Age period | Applicants in each age period |
|---|---|
| Less than 30 years | 6 |
| 30 years and less than 40 years | 80 |
| 40 years and less than 50 years | 144 |
| 50 years and less than 60 years | 116 |
| 60 years and less than 70 years | 108 |
| 70 years and less than 80 years | 33 |
| 80 years and over | 2 |
| Total | 489 |
[196] Note the difference in ages between those receiving the bonus and the camp cottage occupants. See Part IV, p. 225.
It will be seen from Table 76 that 47 per cent of the applicants were under fifty years of age and that 29 per cent were over sixty years of age. The few that had reached an advanced age were given a bonus not on account of their need, but as a stimulus to build on their property in the burned district.
The health of the family was more fully recorded than in the case of the camp cottagers. No note was made of such minor ailments, or accidents, as would bring no handicap, but 181, or 37 per cent, of the families suffered from sickness and accident to such an extent that there was a distinct handicap, either through burdensome doctors’ bills, or by having the source of income temporarily reduced or cut off. Including the 53 families who had sustained deaths, 48 per cent of the whole number were shown to have suffered from the effects of illness or accident. This total burden should not, however, be reckoned as an aftermath of the disaster.[197]
[197] For general health conditions during period immediately following the disaster, see Part I, p. 89 ff.
3. Occupations and Resources
The means by which the men in the families earned a livelihood before April, 1906, are given in Table 77.
TABLE 77.—OCCUPATIONS BEFORE THE FIRE OF 433 MEN IN FAMILIES RECEIVING AID UNDER THE BONUS PLAN
| Occupational group | MEN IN EACH SPECIFIED OCCUPATIONAL GROUP | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Proprietor | Employes | Total | |
| Personal and domestic service | 112 | 80 | 192 |
| Manufactures and mechanical pursuits | 22 | 61 | 83 |
| Trade | 38 | 62 | 100 |
| Professional service | .. | 2 | 2 |
| Retired | 46 | .. | 46 |
| Invalid | 10 | .. | 10 |
| Total | 228 | 205 | 433 |
The number of those who had owned and operated an individual business is shown to exceed slightly the number that were employed at a definite rate of wages. Thirty different industries and 66 different kinds of employment are included in the four categories. The number of women who earned support for themselves outside of their own homes, and in whole or in part, for their families, was 31; of these, 17 were in personal and domestic service, 11 in manufactures, two in trade, and one in professional service. The heads of the remaining 25 families were either aged men or women who were supported by their own children, or persons otherwise cared for.
The status with reference to ownership of business remained almost unchanged; only 12 persons who had owned and managed a business before the fire were forced later to seek permanent employment as wage-earners. Almost exactly the same number of persons, 11, who were wage-earners before the disaster, conducted a business of their own at the time of the investigation. These slight variations show that the bonus recipients, possessing more than ordinary ability, were able to re-establish themselves.
Bonus Houses
Bonus Houses
Perhaps a better estimate of the earning capacity of the bonus applicants is obtained by comparing the number whose incomes were permanently increased or diminished or remained practically the same during the stress of abnormal conditions. A study of the data shows that 201 applicants enjoyed larger incomes before the fire than after; that 237 applicants had smaller incomes before the fire than after, and that in 47 cases the income was about the same at both periods. Of the 490 applicants, including Notre Dame College, for which information was secured, five failed to supply information as to relative income.
The large number of those who enjoyed increased incomes at the time of the investigation may be accounted for in part by the fact that members of the same families before April 18, 1906, were not contributing to their limit. In not a few cases, however, an increase in wages of those who had previously worked full time, accounts for the difference. Perhaps the chief significance of the figures lies in the fact that in the majority of cases there was no serious decrease in income.[198] The number of women who added to the family income, or managed their own property, before and after April, 1908, did not materially change. In the earlier period, 109 of the women[199] were conducting a business or earning wages; in the later period, 94 were doing so.
[198] See Part IV, p. 250-251, for sub-letting as a factor.
[199] The figure given for women’s occupations is larger than on page 244, as the latter figure includes only women who were counted to be the main support of themselves or of their families.
The number of contributors to the family income in both periods was obtained in each instance. In 41 families the number of contributors was larger before the fire than after; in 76 families the number was smaller before than after. Three hundred and sixty-nine families had the same number of contributors to the family income at both periods, and three families failed to supply information on this point. The additional number of contributors may in several instances be accounted for by the greater age of the children, an increase which is to some extent counterbalanced by the withdrawal on account of marriage or advancing age of some contributors to the common purse.
It was not possible to estimate the exact value of the lots owned by the applicants before the fire; their exact value could have been learned only by sale. What is, however, believed to be a fairly accurate estimate is given in Table 78.
TABLE 78.—VALUE OF LOTS OWNED BEFORE THE FIRE BY APPLICANTS RECEIVING AID UNDER THE BONUS PLAN[200]
| Value of lots owned before the fire | Applicants owning lots of each specified value |
|---|---|
| Less than $1,000 | 53 |
| $1,000 and less than $2,000 | 274 |
| $2,000 and less than $3,000 | 131 |
| $3,000 and over | 27 |
| Total | 485 |
[200] Of the 490 applicants, including Notre Dame College, for which information was secured, five did not own lots before the fire.
The above valuations are supposed to be those extant before the disaster. Although in some districts the value of lots may have increased after the fire, and in others may have decreased, no effort was made, because of the inherent difficulties, to ascertain the amount of the later valuation. It is not known why the bonus was granted to the five persons who did not own lots before the disaster.
In addition to the lots on which these dwellings had stood, 51 families had owned both before and after the fire other realties, such as houses, lots, or ranches. The value of the additional real property in 40 cases was found to have averaged $7,558. Similar data with reference to 35 families showed the average value of their additional property after the fire to be $4,052; 17 other families possessed additional property before, but not after; while 16 families reported acquiring additional property after the disaster. In practically every instance the owners drew from their properties a substantial addition to their incomes.
In order to rebuild their homes, 352, or 72 per cent, of the applicants negotiated loans with banks or with relatives or friends. The interest was from 61⁄2 to 8 per cent. Previous to April 18, 1906, 61 of those who later received the bonus had rented their houses and occupied living quarters elsewhere,—in four instances, in cottages on lots on which the houses stood; in others, with relatives, in rented rooms in more desirable residence sections, or in houses owned in other parts of the city. After the fire the number who rented their homes to others increased to 74; 22 of this number, in place of four, lived on their own lots in small cottages or shacks built in the rear of each lot.
Four hundred and fifty, or 92 per cent, of those who received the $500 bonus had carried, and received after the fire, insurance in amounts ranging from less than $500 to $20,000. Of 204 families from whom reliable data were secured, 25 were found to have received full payment; 78 to have received more than 75 per cent, but less than 100 per cent of their loss; 82, more than 50 per cent but less than 75 per cent; and 12, more than 25 per cent but less than 50 per cent. One received less than 25 per cent and six received nothing.
The field workers found it peculiarly difficult to learn what had been the amount of bank savings of the different families. Many refused to answer the question; others denied that they had had savings; 167, or 34 per cent, of those tabulated admitted having put aside amounts varying from less than $500 to more than $4,000; and 38 that they had savings, the amounts of which they would not give.
Though all aided under the bonus plan were property owners,[201] a number were in debt both before and after the fire. Table 79 indicates the number in debt and the amount of this indebtedness.
[201] The five who did not own lots on which they wished to build had presumably other property.
TABLE 79.—INDEBTEDNESS CARRIED BEFORE AND AFTER THE FIRE BY FAMILIES RECEIVING AID UNDER THE BONUS PLAN[202]
| Amount of indebtedness | FAMILIES WHOSE INDEBTEDNESS WAS AS SPECIFIED | |
|---|---|---|
| Before fire | After fire | |
| Less than $500 | 21 | 38 |
| $500 and less than $1,000 | 49 | 66 |
| $1,000 and less than $2,000 | 61 | 83 |
| $2,000 and less than $3,000 | 32 | 65 |
| $3,000 and over | 13 | 72 |
| Total | 176 | 324 |
[202] Of the families investigated, three that carried indebtedness before the fire and four that carried indebtedness after the fire refused to state the amount of the indebtedness.
From the table it will be noted that before the fire 179, or 37 per cent, of those aided, had carried a burden of debt, while afterwards the number was increased to 328, or 67 per cent. Loans to the amount of the indebtedness noted could have been obtained upon the property owned.
Additional aid was granted by the Rehabilitation Committee to 116, or 24 per cent, of the bonus grantees, in amounts varying from $5.00 to $500. These grants were in the main for clothing, sewing machines, medicine, or other general household relief. The aid included 59 furniture grants. In 10 of the 116 cases the full bonus was not given, so that the sum of grants amounted to not more than $500. Sixty-five of the applicants were not eligible for the full bonus, as the buildings they erected were worth less than $1,500 each. The department, it may be remembered, had agreed to pay not more than one-third of the value of the house which should be erected.[203]
[203] See Part IV, p. 239.
4. the Houses—Character and Cost
As far as this group of families is concerned the burned area was built up substantially as before the earthquake. As wood was the material available, without exception the 490 bonus houses were frame. The general appearance of the houses was good. Most were painted and had adequate foundations, and a majority had basements. The basements in many cases were sublet, or were used for business purposes. The number of stories to a house varied from one to four; only three of the houses, however, had four stories. The greater number were of two stories. All the houses were connected with the city water supply and the sewerage system. Three hundred and eighty-one, or 78 per cent, of the new houses contained bath rooms, and all but three had installed one or more patent flush closets.
A fair gauge of the character of the houses rebuilt is the cost, if the high price of building materials be borne in mind.
TABLE 80.—COST OF HOUSES REBUILT AFTER THE FIRE BY APPLICANTS RECEIVING AID UNDER THE BONUS PLAN
| Cost of houses | Houses costing as specified | |
|---|---|---|
| Less than $1,500 | 65 | |
| $1,500 and less than $3,000 | 210 | |
| $3,000 and less than $5,000 | 118 | |
| $5,000 and less than $10,000 | 92 | |
| $10,000 and over | 5 | |
| Total | 490 | [204] |
[204] Includes Notre Dame College.
One house cost $39,000, another $78,000, and three from $10,000 to $20,000. It must be remembered that one of these was Notre Dame College. Only 16 per cent of the houses were built by the applicants themselves. The original plan was to aid those that had suffered the loss of their homes. Fifty-five of the houses destroyed were, however, used for both dwelling and business purposes; 69 of those rebuilt were similarly used. Each business was on a small scale,—a grocery or fruit store, a saloon, or a barber shop. The number of rooms in the houses formerly occupied and those in the houses lived in after the fire is given in the following table:
TABLE 81.—NUMBER OF ROOMS IN HOUSES OWNED BEFORE THE FIRE AND IN HOUSES REBUILT AFTER THE FIRE BY APPLICANTS RECEIVING AID UNDER THE BONUS PLAN
| Number of rooms | HOUSES HAVING EACH SPECIFIED NUMBER OF ROOMS | |
|---|---|---|
| Before fire | After fire | |
| 1 | .. | .. |
| 2 | .. | 1 |
| 3 | 1 | 6 |
| 4 | 14 | 51 |
| 5 and less than 9 | 150 | 184 |
| 9 and less than 13 | 171 | 138 |
| 13 and less than 16 | 83 | 58 |
| 17 and less than 21 | 42 | 23 |
| 21 and over | 28 | 28 |
| Total | 489 | 489 |
| Average number of rooms before fire | 12.2 | |
| Average number of rooms after fire | 10.6 | |
As in not a few cases two houses instead of one were built on a lot, the combined number of rooms is given in the preceding table. A further examination of the data shows that in 168 of the bonus cases the houses were rebuilt to contain a greater number of rooms, in 259 to have less, in 62 to have the same. No attempt has been made to compare size and desirability of the rooms, but it seems probable that there was no great difference in the character of the houses rebuilt as far as rooming space is concerned.
In 453, or 93 per cent, of the bonus cases tabulated, the exact number of rooms occupied by the family and its dependents in its own or in a rented house was ascertained.
TABLE 82.—NUMBER OF ROOMS PER FAMILY OCCUPIED BEFORE AND AFTER THE FIRE BY FAMILIES RECEIVING AID UNDER THE BONUS PLAN[205]
| Number of rooms occupied | FAMILIES OCCUPYING EACH SPECIFIED NUMBER OF ROOMS | |
|---|---|---|
| Before fire | After fire | |
| 1 | 8 | 11 |
| 2 | 13 | 37 |
| 3 | 65 | 72 |
| 4 and less than 7 | 302 | 303 |
| 7 and less than 10 | 55 | 27 |
| 10 and over | 10 | 3 |
| Total | 453 | 453 |
[205] Of the 489 families investigated, 36 failed to supply information relative to the number of rooms occupied both before and after the fire.
The proportion of families occupying less than four rooms was smaller before the fire than after the fire, while the reverse is true of families occupying seven or more rooms. It would appear from this that after the fire the crowding was slightly increased. By actual count, 218 families were found to have occupied more rooms before the fire than after, 152 families occupied the same number, while 83 enjoyed a larger number after the fire.
Two ambitious dwellings built with aid of bonuses
Built with bonus of $500 and money privately loaned
Bonus Houses
The number of families who let rooms before and after the fire was extraordinarily large. Before the fire 375, or 76 per cent, and afterwards 378, or 77 per cent, let either furnished rooms or unfurnished suites. In a majority of cases the family itself occupied one flat and let the others. It is evident that the average small property owner rebuilt his house with the expectation of drawing an income from it.
5. Brief Comments
If the Corporation had refused to grant a bonus to anyone who was to build a house to cost above $2,500, more than 50 per cent of the grants would have been denied. When the second appropriation of $100,000 was set aside for the bonus grants in 1907, one intimately connected with the work wrote: “In connection with the proposed expenditure of $100,000 to be used for assisting those intending to rebuild in the burned district, I will state that, as there will be numerous applicants for such assistance, it might be wise to place some restrictions upon the bonus other than those now in force. For instance, I recommend that a person desiring to build a house valued at $3,000 should not be granted said bonus, as evidently he is not in need, and in my opinion, does not require our help. Furthermore, I believe it would be well to investigate each application to determine whether the applicant has received assistance from the Committee previous to placing the application with the Department.”
The man who had to pass on the bonus applications said: “Henceforth the bonus should be granted only in cases which have been proven conclusively to be in need of it, for my impression after a careful examination of these applications, is that they are not in particular need of the bonus but could get along perfectly well without it, though possibly not so easily.”
Another letter, dated March 11, 1907, to the staff in charge of the grants said, “In making the allotments under the new appropriation I would advise that you question each grantee carefully and refuse to issue the amount where the house is already completed or nearly built. This, of course, can only be determined from personal examination of the applicant, for many whose houses are already practically completed, frame their applications as if they were just about to begin.”
The feeling that, regardless of loss, there was the right to share in the relief funds, pushed many who had already begun to build into the ranks of applicants for the liberal gift of $500. A possible evil effect of this liberal offer was that some persons, in order to take advantage of it, incurred heavy indebtedness, which they would be forced for a long time to carry. The extra cost for building during the fall of 1906 and the winter of 1907 offset in a measure the financial gain from the bonus.
After a great disaster the efficient distribution of a large sum of money to aid in rebuilding calls for the exercise of two distinct functions, business management and supervision of rehabilitation work. It is not probable that the same person can with equal success perform the two functions. A neglect of either means a grave miscarrying of the plan itself.