IV | The Grant and Loan Plan
1. the Plan Itself
The Department of Lands and Buildings at first gave its entire attention to the camp cottages and bonuses. However, a large number of applications for small grants or loans to build had been early filed away to bide their time. The insistence of applicants and the recognition of their need to be heard led to the transfer of these applications to another department of the Corporation. November 1, 1906, the Rehabilitation Committee[206] referred to its new housing committee of five members, Committee V, the 800 applications that had accumulated.
[206] The Rehabilitation Committee, it must be recalled, was a committee of the Department of Relief and Rehabilitation.
Committee V organized at once and formulated plans for making grants and loans and for building houses. It assumed the work of housing to be general rehabilitation, and therefore perfected a system whereby all those asking for assistance could be investigated and helped according to their needs.
There were, speaking in general, two classes of applicants to whom the committee extended aid:
1. Some applicants planned and built their own houses, but received aid from the relief funds. A maximum cost of each house to be erected was fixed by the committee, and the applicant was supposed to pay the greater part. The amounts distributed under this plan were considered grants and not loans.
2. Other applicants desired to purchase houses which were planned and constructed under the direction of the committee. In some cases of this class the grant covered the entire cost of the house, while in others the grant was supplemented in one or both of the two following ways:
a. A part of the cost of the house was treated as a loan to be repaid by the applicant.
b. The applicant made a cash payment covering a part of the cost.
The Committee, in order to make good its second offer, engaged contractors to build houses which, including plumbing, should cost not more than $500.[207] Under both offers, the applicant was required to show that he had suffered material loss and that he was the head of a household and was able to support his family; that he was unable to secure a suitable house at a reasonable rent, and that he had secured a lot in the city and county of San Francisco on which to build. The plan of the building submitted had to comply with the provisions of the city building code. The carrying out of the plans,[208] with any modification of policy, the Rehabilitation Committee left to its sub-committee, to which the grant and loan plan had been referred.
[207] As a matter of fact, the average cost including plumbing was $682.45.
[208] See Appendix I, p. 417.
The housing committee, assuming that theirs was in the highest sense rehabilitation work, perfected a thorough system of investigation of all applications. It defined its purpose to be: “To assist families in need of proper shelter to obtain a home suitable to their wants and in proportion to their earnings.”
In placing the grants and loans, its theory was to give aid so as to stimulate the recipient to use it for the distinct benefit of his family. In a case where a family had heavy burdens and a limited income, money was granted outright. When there was reason to believe that a recipient could repay a part of the large amount needed, a grant was frequently supplemented by a loan. As general rules should be few in number, the committee exercised its own judgment in each individual instance. The plans therefore worked differently in different cases. In some cases the applicant deposited part of the cost of the house to be built which was supplemented by a grant or loan. In other cases, the applicant being unable to make a deposit, the committee bore the entire first cost of the house.
Many were aided who had no real estate before April, 1906, but purchased or leased a lot in order to build. Even the maximum limit set for the cost of the house was not adhered to in every instance. The loans ranged from $37 to $595,[209] as the committee found it wise to readjust its own plan so that the amounts given or loaned should be such as would meet the actual needs revealed by a careful investigation. A reliable bank was enlisted to see that the loans were properly executed, mortgages recorded, and monthly instalments collected. This bank became the financial agent of the Corporation, and those who received loans felt their obligation to be to it rather than to the Corporation. In case a house were built on a lot temporarily leased, the bank secured from the applicant and the owner of the property an agreement to the effect that the house should not be moved without the consent of the committee. In case an applicant failed to meet his financial obligation the house reverted to the Corporation, not to the lot owner.
[209] For range of grants, as distinguished from loans, see Part IV, p. 258.
The committee, it may be seen, had two clearly defined functions: (a) to administer a business which called for the employment of contractors, the outlining of plans and specifications for buildings, the appointing of inspectors to locate lots and to examine the buildings erected, and (b) to conduct a bureau of rehabilitation through which might be learned the present and past conditions and the future prospects of the individual applicants. The oversight given by the two groups, business men and social workers, meant a decrease in the number of failures to re-establish homes.
The work of Committee V, which began November 1, 1906, ended the latter part of July, 1907. The committee as a whole was in continuous session during the first weeks. Thereafter two of its members gave to it practically all their business hours. After July, 1907, however, minor details connected with final acceptances and instalments of additional plumbing and other tasks incidental to the closing of the work, were under the direction of one member.
In many instances the delays were long between the asking for and the receiving of a grant or loan, in part because the grant and loan plan was the last housing plan to be put into effect. Some families were purposely not given assistance until the house was completed, which accounted for the delay of some months between the approval of an application and the payment of the grant. Other families were themselves the cause of long delays, because of their inability quickly to build. The actual delays ranged from less than one month in 62 instances to twelve months in one instance. Fifty per cent of the 896 applicants for whom detailed information was secured had to wait two months or less.
2. Relation Between the Department of Lands and Buildings and the Housing Committee
As the Department of Lands and Buildings and the housing committee were both engaged in building houses, it was found to be important in order to avoid delays in the work, to plan some division of duties. Accordingly, on March 29, 1907, following much discussion, a plan of co-operation was agreed upon. The housing committee was to consider all applications first and to determine in each case the amount of aid to be granted; the terms, whether on a cash or instalment basis; and the general design and specifications for the house. The Department of Lands and Buildings was to have full charge of construction and cost and of the inspection of completed cottages.
This agreement, which called for a division of work, gave recognition to the dual need, of rehabilitation of applicants and of sound business management. The housing committee turned over to the Department the designs, blue prints, and specifications for the four styles of cottages that were being erected, together with outstanding contracts. The following regulations to govern the two bodies were determined upon:
1. The housing committee should send to the Department of Lands and Buildings, in each case, a description of the lot upon which the building was to be erected, together with the name and address of the applicant, and should designate the style of cottage to be constructed.
2. When the housing committee received from the Department of Lands and Buildings the total cost of the house and the name of the contractor, the amount necessary to pay for the house should be deposited to the housing committee’s account and held there until ordered paid to the contractor.
3. When the house had been completed and accepted by the Department of Lands and Buildings the contractor should be given an order on the cashier for the amount due. The cashier should draw the necessary check, signed by a representative of the housing committee.
4. The Department should send notice to the housing committee when a house had been completed and accepted.
On March 11, 1907, the manager of the Department of Lands and Buildings had at the request of the Executive Committee of the Corporation been made superintendent of construction of the housing committee.
Headquarters Department of Lands and Buildings
Despite the detailed regulations there were dissatisfaction and friction; so on April 26, 1907, the housing committee passed a resolution to the effect that inasmuch as the housing committee bore the full responsibility of the manner in which the relief work relating to the building of houses was conducted, and, since the members of the housing committee were dissatisfied with the manner in which the superintendent of construction was performing his duties, the housing committee made a most urgent request to the Executive Committee that the superintendent withdraw from all work in which the housing committee was concerned.
The specific charges were (a) that poor contractors were employed, (b) that desirable contractors who were difficult to obtain at that time complained of the superintendent’s treatment, (c) that the superintendent who had done efficient service in erecting the camp cottages, was entirely unfit for his new position because of his unfriendly and unsympathetic attitude toward the applicants, (d) that, finally, the building of the much-needed new houses was unnecessarily slow.
The relation which unfortunately existed between these two, the Department and the committee, is mentioned at this stage, in order to explain in a measure the long delay and hold-up of orders by the committee. It accounts for much of the dissatisfaction that existed among the people and for some hardships endured by not a few applicants. The delays due to friction made it necessary for the housing committee to continue its work after the bonus plan was discontinued.
3. the Number Aided and the Cost
A complete statement of the work done shows that there were 2,098 applications for relief under the grant and loan plan acted upon subsequent to November 1, 1906. Assistance was given in 1,572[210] cases, the total expenditure being $519,723.17. Previous to November 1, 1906, the Rehabilitation Committee, as part of its regular work and without special machinery, had made grants in 163 cases. The amounts granted in these 163 cases bring the total expenditure for relief in grant and loan cases up to $567,300.85. The 1,572 cases in which aid was given subsequent to November 1, 1906, are dealt with in this chapter. Families to the number of 543 had homes planned and built for them by the committee, while 1,029 families were given aid to build according to their own plans. The 543 families for whom houses were constructed by the committee received 543 grants, amounting to $197,942.86, or an average of $364.54 per grant, and 384 loans amounting to $115,558.33, an average of $300.93 per loan. It will be noted that loans were made only to applicants who also received grants. The assistance given to the members of this group amounted in all, therefore, to $313,501.19. In addition, the applicants whose houses were constructed by the committee, themselves deposited amounts aggregating $57,073.16 towards the erection of their homes; but this sum is, of course, distinct from the relief given and is not included in the above total.
[210] This number includes not only the cases in which grants were given by the sub-committee on housing (Committee V) but all cases in which grants for housing were given by any of the sub-committees of the Rehabilitation Committee subsequent to November 1, 1906. Both principal and subsidiary grants are included. See Tables 40 and 41, pp. 157 and 158.
The houses were classified, according to the manner in which they were planned and built, as Styles I-VI.
TABLE 83.—STYLE OF 543 HOUSES BUILT BY THE HOUSING COMMITTEE FOR APPLICANTS RECEIVING AID UNDER THE GRANT AND LOAN PLAN
| Style | Houses of each specified style | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| I | 1, 2 or 3 | rooms | 78 |
| II | 3 | rooms | 9 |
| III | 4 | rooms | 348 |
| IV | 5 | rooms | 94 |
| V | 4 | rooms | 13 |
| VI | 5 | rooms | 1 |
| Total | 543 | ||
The 1,029 applicants who built according to their own plans, received altogether $206,221.98 in grants, an average of $200.41 per grant. The amounts granted to individuals ranged from $55 to $570.[211]
[211] The apparent discrepancy between this figure and the maximum of $595 given on page 254 is accounted for by the fact that grants are discussed above, loans previously.
In its work of construction the committee employed 20 building contractors[212] and one plumbing contractor. The average cost of the 543 dwellings erected was $544.92 for the construction work alone. Five hundred and eleven of these houses were equipped with plumbing at an additional cost averaging $146.15 per house.
[212] The contractors engaged were those accustomed to handle a small amount of building, the larger and more responsible contractors being unwilling to undertake to handle such small lots of building.
To obtain the material presented in this study, visits were made to 1,157 of the families who had received grants or grants and loans from the housing committee. From 896, or 77 per cent of the families visited, schedules were obtained for tabulation. No trace of 172 of the remaining 261 could be found. They had received aid to build their own houses, and had undoubtedly done so in most cases. As they had come as strangers into their various new neighborhoods, only to move shortly, the people in the immediate vicinity knew nothing of them. Of the remaining 89 families, 33 had rented and 35 had sold their houses, and had disappeared. Only eight persons were found who had received aid but had not built; 13 who had built refused to give any information.
4. Families Making Use of the Grants and Loans
Data with regard to who and what the 896 families visited were, are given in the following pages. The 28 different nationalities represented is a greater number than for those who received the bonus, a smaller number than for the camp cottagers.
TABLE 84.—NATIONALITY OF APPLICANTS RECEIVING AID UNDER THE GRANT AND LOAN PLAN
| Nationality | Native born applicants whose parents were of each specified nationality | Foreign born applicants of each specified nationality |
|---|---|---|
| American | 397 | .. |
| Irish | 19 | 115 |
| German | 12 | 108 |
| English | 3 | 43 |
| Italian | 3 | 33 |
| Swedish | .. | 24 |
| Scotch | 3 | 18 |
| French | 1 | 18 |
| Austrian | .. | 12 |
| Danish | .. | 12 |
| Other nationalities | 7 | 68 |
| Total | 445 | 451 |
The Americans and Irish head the list, as in the camp cottage group. The large number of Americans and the small number of Italians as compared with the bonus group may be explained in part by the fact that these applicants were not compelled to build in the burned section, which, it may be recalled, included the portions of the city that had been most thickly settled by the Irish and Italians.
The status of the families that had received the grant and loan was more normal than that of either of the other groups. This is shown by the figures given in Table 85.
TABLE 85.—CONJUGAL CONDITION OF FAMILIES RECEIVING AID UNDER THE GRANT AND LOAN PLAN
| Conjugal condition | Families of each specified conjugal condition |
|---|---|
| Married couples | 729 |
| Widows or deserted wives | 127 |
| Widowers | 18 |
| Single men | 11 |
| Single women | 11 |
| Total | 896 |
The above 14 per cent of widows and deserted wives should be compared with the 31 per cent for the camp cottage group, and the 26 per cent of widows for the bonus group. A family to avail itself of this aid had to have resources of its own. The widows and deserted wives with children had with these 127 exceptions to be helped in other ways. In 143 instances, or 16 per cent of the total, the families had others living with them. There were 2,069 children in all the families, or 2.3 to each family. The number of children to an Italian family was 2.5; to an Irish family, 3.0; and to an American family, 1.9. In 689, or 77 per cent of the families, the domestic status, when visited, was the same as before the fire. The remaining 207 families, or 23 per cent, had been unable to maintain the same family relations. The separation or scattering of their members was attributed to the following causes:
In 82 families a death or deaths had occurred. The children from 40 families had left home to work or to attend school, adult members of 37 families went away to work or for other purposes, and children from 37 families married and left home. There were eight cases of divorce or desertion, and three cases in which the nature of the family’s change of status could not be determined.
It is not known to what extent the deaths in 82 families were caused indirectly by the disaster. There was but slight variation in the number of dependents carried before and after the fire. Some changes were due to loss of members of the family by death or marriage and the loss of earning power due to old age. The actual number of families in which there were no dependents had decreased in the fall of 1908 from 91 to 70.
Of the 896 applications, 161, or 18 per cent, were filed by the wife or some other woman member of the family. As in the other groups, the age of each applicant, but not of the members of his or her family, was obtained.
TABLE 86.—AGES OF APPLICANTS RECEIVING AID UNDER THE GRANT AND LOAN PLAN
| Age period | Applicants in each age period |
|---|---|
| Less than 30 years | 76 |
| 30 years and less than 40 years | 279 |
| 40 years and less than 50 years | 290 |
| 50 years and less than 60 years | 147 |
| 60 years and less than 70 years | 74 |
| 70 years and less than 80 years | 27 |
| 80 years and over | 3 |
| Total | 896 |
The majority of the applicants were in the prime of life, with small families whom they supported by their daily wages. Some of the comparatively small number—251 applicants—above fifty years of age were not able to work on full time.
Upon the question of the health of the families before the fire, during the period of camp life, and after moving into the new home, information was secured for 882 cases. Only 53 families reported a handicap due to ill health for the period before the fire, as compared with 356 who report ill health during the period of camp life, and 294 who report ill health after moving into the new home. It is probable that the estimate of 53 families handicapped by illness before the fire is too low.
It would appear from the above that an unduly large proportion suffered from illness during the two and one-half years following the disaster. The schedules state in many cases that sickness was due directly to the earthquake, the fire, and subsequent abnormal living conditions. It is impossible to state the number so handicapped as distinct from those whose illness had no connection with the catastrophe.
5. Occupations and Resources
Only 66 of the men in the grant and loan group were proprietors in business before the disaster; the remainder being skilled and unskilled wage-earners. Though only 66 of these men could claim business ownership before the fire, they had been engaged in 31 different industries or professions. Their distribution by groups of occupations was as follows: professional, three; personal and domestic, 10; manufactures, 21; trades, 30. The past occupations of one who was retired and of one who would not give the information are not material. Of the 66, only 46 were in business for themselves after the fire. The rather meager incomes drawn by these applicants from their business or profession before and since the disaster are given below:
TABLE 87.—MONTHLY INCOME BEFORE AND AFTER THE FIRE OF MEN RECEIVING AID UNDER THE GRANT AND LOAN PLAN WHO WERE IN BUSINESS BEFORE THE FIRE[213]
| Monthly income | MEN HAVING MONTHLY INCOMES AS SPECIFIED | |
|---|---|---|
| Before fire | After fire | |
| $25 and less than $100 | 35 | 22 |
| $100 and less than $200 | 17 | 9 |
| $200 and less than $300 | 6 | .. |
| “A living” | 8 | 14 |
| Total | 66 | 45 |
[213] Of the 46 men who were in business after the fire, one refused to supply information relative to business income.
Built by the owner with insurance money and a grant of $250
Built by a teamster with a grant of $250 and money privately loaned
Grant and Loan Houses
The incomes received after the disaster did not differ widely from those received before, though a larger number, it is seen, reported having merely a scant living.
Seventy-five per cent of the men in the grant and loan group worked for wages or on a monthly salary before the fire. They include artisans, men of ordinary skill, and laborers, engaged in 87 different industries. Of the 670 wage-earning or salaried men for whom data were tabulated 16 were employed in professional service, 230 in personal and domestic service, 254 in manufacturing or mechanical pursuits, and 170 in trade, transportation, or miscellaneous occupations. The wages received ranged from $25 to $200 per month. Two hundred and eighteen men received larger wages before the fire than after, but the reverse was true in 285 cases. The indication is that the abnormal conditions had made no great change in the earnings for the two and a half years after the fire.
As in the other groups, the incomes here considered are based upon the nominal wage, for no estimate of the irregularity in the employment, either before or after the disaster, could be obtained. During the period immediately following the earthquake, many men of this group could not secure steady employment. The family incomes, therefore, were for a time very meager.
Before the fire seven of the women were occupied in professional work, 137 in personal and domestic service, 15 in trades, and 51 in manufactures,—a total of 210 women[214] who received incomes with which to support themselves wholly or in part. About half worked outside their own homes, and about half, working within or without, had a business or a profession of their own. The largest single occupation was that of letting rooms.
[214] See Table 88, p. 264.
While the number of women that contributed to the family income decreased after the fire, from 210 to 133, the amount of income remained practically the same, and the nature of their employment did not vary to any great extent. The fact that fewer families had housing space for lodgers probably accounts for the decrease in the number of women contributors after the disaster.
With reference to the family income as a whole, a comparison of incomes of the 896 families before and after the disaster shows that 252 families had a greater income before, 347 a greater income afterwards; 129 families could show no change in income. Of the remainder, 66 did not know whether there was variation, and two refused to give the information. On the whole, the Relief Survey showed that a large majority of these applicants had, at the time of the investigation, adjusted themselves to conditions so that they were on a normal basis and were earning practically the same amounts as before the disaster.
TABLE 88.—MONTHLY INCOME BEFORE AND AFTER THE FIRE OF WOMEN IN FAMILIES RECEIVING AID UNDER THE GRANT AND LOAN PLAN[215]
| Monthly income | WOMEN HAVING MONTHLY INCOMES AS SPECIFIED | |
|---|---|---|
| Before fire | After fire | |
| Less than $20 | 45 | 30 |
| $20 and less than $30 | 46 | 28 |
| $30 and less than $40 | 47 | 26 |
| $40 and less than $50 | 22 | 14 |
| $50 and less than $60 | 15 | 11 |
| $60 and over | 28 | 11 |
| “Made a living” | 2 | 9 |
| “Aided husband” | 3 | 3 |
| Total | 208 | 132 |
[215] Of the 210 women who had incomes before the fire two refused to supply information relative to income. Only 133 of the 210 women had incomes after the fire, and of these one refused to supply information relative to income.
The number of contributors to the family income was not seriously altered by the abnormal conditions. Six hundred and seven, or 68 per cent, of the families had the same number contributing to the income afterwards as before, and in practically every instance the contributors were identical. In the many families with but one breadwinner there was no change. The 157 instances in which the number of contributors was greater before the fire, and the 121 instances in which the number was greater afterwards, might be accounted for by normal changes in family life. Eleven of the families supplied no information on this subject. In a certain number of families, children having reached their majority during the interval from April, 1906, to September, 1908, had left home to seek employment elsewhere. Changes due to death, to sickness, to marriage, and old age have been already commented upon. With this group of families, as with the bonus families, there were some members apart from young children who were non-contributors to the common income.
Three hundred and twenty-eight of these applicants, or 37 per cent, are known to have received insurance varying in amounts from less than $250 to $5,000; 234 of the number received less than $500. As the payments were greatly delayed in some instances the insured were hindered in the completing of their building plans. The grants were often received from the housing committee before the insurance was finally adjusted.
As far as could be learned, only 162, or 18 per cent, had savings in amounts sufficient to aid them to rebuild. The people either had received income not more than enough to meet current expenses or had managed unwisely. The savings varied from less than $50 by each of 12 applicants to between $2,000 and $3,000 deposited by one. One hundred and twenty-four had less than $500.
When visited, only 53 of the applicants, or 6 per cent, were found to possess property in addition to the house in which they lived, while before the fire, 128, or 14 per cent, had owned either a small lot or a house and lot which had been rented to others. The greater number of these properties were small, ranging in value from $500 to $1,500.
In addition to the grants and loans made by the housing committee, 233 applicants had negotiated private loans secured by a mortgage on the lot and on the house to be erected, in amounts ranging from less than $100 to over $5,000. A few large amounts were obtained after the housing committee loan was made, and were used to erect a larger house or to replace a temporary one. At the time of the investigation 66 families had paid their debts in full, and 74 had reduced them by as much as one-fourth. Sixty-two families had received additional money in gifts from relatives and friends, from trade unions, fraternal lodges, consuls, and from special funds, the amounts ranging from less than $100 to $1,500.
Only 93 of the applicants, or about 10 per cent, owned the property on which they lived at the time of the earthquake, but in order to take advantage of the grant and loan offer 670, or 75 per cent, purchased lots afterwards. As is seen in Table 89, these lots varied greatly in value. The average frontage was about 25 feet.
TABLE 89.—VALUE OF LOTS PURCHASED AFTER THE FIRE BY 670 APPLICANTS RECEIVING AID UNDER THE GRANT AND LOAN PLAN
| Value of lot | Applicants owning lots of each specified value |
|---|---|
| Less than $500 | 227 |
| $500 and less than $1,000 | 274 |
| $1,000 and less than $2,000 | 92 |
| $2,000 and over | 77 |
| Total | 670 |
For the most part these lots were on tracts outside the burned district. Instead of returning to rented quarters in former congested centers, many built their own homes in the more thinly settled parts of the city where lots could be purchased at a low rate. A few were unfortunate in the choice of location, as the effort to get to and from the daily work was too great. A small number, therefore, gave up their lots and rented quarters closer to their employment. The street-car strike of 1907 was the cause of some removals. Fifty-nine families leased lots for a definite period of from two to ten years, at a rate of from $1.00 to $25 a month. The greater number paid a ground rent of from $5.00 to $10. A few others were given free use of lots by relatives or intimate friends.
6. Housing Before and After the Fire
Very little is known about the rented dwellings in which most of the families had lived, though a few are known to have occupied both upper and lower stories. After the fire only 41 rented their homes and lived elsewhere. They were not housed in as large buildings as before the fire, but at the time of the investigation were settled fairly comfortably in their own homes.
The number of rooms occupied by the families before and after the disaster varied but slightly.
TABLE 90.—NUMBER OF ROOMS PER FAMILY OCCUPIED BEFORE AND AFTER THE FIRE BY FAMILIES RECEIVING AID UNDER THE GRANT AND LOAN PLAN[216]
| Number of rooms occupied | FAMILIES OCCUPYING EACH SPECIFIED NUMBER OF ROOMS | |
|---|---|---|
| Before fire | After fire | |
| 1 | 25 | 10 |
| 2 | 59 | 52 |
| 3 | 181 | 203 |
| 4 and less than 7 | 590 | 613 |
| 7 and less than 10 | 35 | 14 |
| 10 and less than 13 | 1 | 1 |
| Total | 891 | 893 |
[216] Of the 896 families investigated, five failed to supply information relative to the number of rooms occupied before the fire, and three, relative to the number of rooms occupied after the fire.
The number of families that sublet rooms to others or kept roomers both before and after the fire was small in comparison with the number of bonus applicants who rented rooms.[217] Before the disaster 179 families, or 20 per cent, added to their income by subletting; at the time of the investigation only 74, or a little more than 8 per cent, did so. The reason is that the grant and loan applicants were themselves to a large extent living in rented rooms before the fire, and afterwards in houses that contained no more rooms than were called for by the family needs.
[217] See Part IV, pp. 250-251.
Before the fire 382 families, or 43 per cent, did not have a bath in the house. In the new homes built with the aid of a grant or loan 355, or 40 per cent, were without this convenience. There is no question but that it would have been a great gain to families if, through the instigation of the housing committee, all could have been brought to install baths in their new houses. Practically all the houses were connected with the city water supply. Toilets were installed, but a few were on the outside, not within the houses. Most of them were connected with the regular sewerage system and but a very few houses had cesspools attached. The plumbing, though simple and cheap in quality, was found to be in fairly good condition and to have served its purpose satisfactorily.
The houses were either painted or, as in the greater number of instances, shingled on the exterior. They presented a neat appearance. At the date of the investigation, most of the houses, having been erected but a very short time, were in good repair and afforded ample shelter to the families occupying them. For the most part they were one-story buildings. A few, however, were one and one-half and two stories. All were built of wood, and a majority stood on wooden foundations. Some few stood on either a new or an old concrete or brick foundation. Some had basements which were sublet as living quarters or were used for storage purposes. It is difficult to determine whether the housing committee should have prevented the building and use of basements as dwellings. Some were unfit for habitation, but not infrequently, as the houses were built on the side of a steep hill, the basements were well-lighted and drained. A few of the families used their houses for the joint purpose of residence and business, but not so large a number as before the disaster. Individual thrift and enterprise were shown by many of the applicants, who for not more than $700 had been able to build and furnish their houses within and without in an artistic and attractive way. The woodwork in some cases was well-finished and had been painted by a member of the household. The houses so improved had an attractive, homelike appearance.
Much disappointment was felt by some applicants who had had houses built for them by the committee’s contractors, when they compared their houses with those built at no greater expense by applicants who had used their own plans. As a rule, most of the latter houses were well built. They were more solid, warmer, and more satisfactory as far as cost and specifications were concerned. However, some of the houses that were built for the applicants by contractors were almost as unsatisfactory as those built by the committee’s contractors. The contract houses for the most part showed poor workmanship, with inferior lumber and finish. Most were considered “finished” when they, mere shells, had but few doors and windows, no shelves, no steps, no ceilings, and no adequate foundations. A few did not have building paper placed on the sides of the house between the rough boards and the shingles or other outer finish to keep out the rain and the wind. To remedy these defects and to make many needed improvements, such as plastering, painting, the building of porches, and other additions necessary to render each house a habitable home, the owner had to make a heavy outlay. A few of these “beginnings” which served as homes, cost without plumbing about $200 to $300.
Built by the Housing Committee
Built by the owner, who had some resources
Grant and Loan Houses
Frequently arrangements were made between the owner and the contractor whereby certain alterations were made on payment of $50 to $70 in addition to the contract price. Steps cost $10 more; a better foundation, often necessary because of a deep slope, $10 to $20 additional; larger windows $20 to $40 extra; a dormer roof instead of a gable, $40 more. All departures from the original contract were supposed to have the approval of the committee, but its consent was not always obtained.
In cases where the owner lived nearby, or on part of the same lot, and could maintain a general supervision, or as in a few instances, where the lot owner and contractor were old friends, the houses erected by the committee’s contractors were substantially constructed.
As already stated, only 93 of these applicants, or about 10 per cent, owned the houses in which they were living at the time of the disaster. The value of the residences owned before the disaster and after are given in Table 91.
TABLE 91.—VALUE OF HOUSES OWNED BEFORE AND AFTER THE FIRE BY APPLICANTS RECEIVING AID UNDER THE GRANT AND LOAN PLAN[218]
| Value of houses | APPLICANTS OWNING HOUSES OF EACH SPECIFIED VALUE | |
|---|---|---|
| Before fire | After fire | |
| Less than $500 | 1 | 174 |
| $500 and less than $1,000 | 4 | 533 |
| $1,000 and less than $1,500 | 12 | 104 |
| $1,500 and less than $2,000 | 14 | 28 |
| $2,000 and less than $3,000 | 24 | 14 |
| $3,000 and less than $4,000 | 16 | 3 |
| $4,000 and less than $5,000 | 9 | .. |
| $5,000 and less than $6,000 | 3 | 1 |
| $6,000 and over | 5 | 2 |
| Total | 88 | 859 |
[218] Of the 896 applicants investigated 37 failed to supply information relative to houses owned after the fire. Of the 93 applicants who owned houses before the fire, five failed to supply information relative to the value of the houses.
After the fire, nearly 75 per cent of the houses ranged in value from $500 to $2,000. Some who built houses worth less than $500 did so in order to have a temporary cottage while waiting to put up a permanent home on the same lot.
The cost of the houses erected by the housing committee through their own contractors was from a minimum of $333 to a maximum of $875. It will be recalled that the published notice of the housing committee was to the effect that its aid to applicants who built for themselves would be confined to those building houses worth not more than $750. As the committee found a large number needing aid, who were anxious to build houses of greater value, it doubtless acted wisely in extending its limit. Four hundred and thirty-seven of the applicants, or over one-half of those the value of whose houses was known, built at a cost greater than $750.[219]
[219] Compare with p. 253. It will be noted that the regulation fixing the maximum value of the houses to be constructed at $750, applied only in cases where applicants made their own contracts. Of the 437 houses exceeding $750 in value, a large number were doubtless built under different arrangements so that the $750 limit did not apply. See cases of expensive building, Part IV, p. 273 ff.
TABLE 92.—MONTHLY RENTALS PAID BEFORE THE FIRE BY FAMILIES RECEIVING AID UNDER THE GRANT AND LOAN PLAN[220]
| Monthly rental | Families paying each specified monthly rental |
|---|---|
| Less than $10 | 98 |
| $10 and less than $20 | 402 |
| $20 and less than $30 | 83 |
| $30 and less than $40 | 21 |
| $40 and less than $50 | 5 |
| $50 and less than $60 | 6 |
| $60 and less than $70 | .. |
| $70 and less than $80 | 1 |
| $80 and over | 1 |
| Total | 617 |
[220] Of the 896 applicants investigated, 93 owned houses before the fire and therefore paid no rent, and 186 failed to supply information relative to rent paid.
If those who paid less than $10 a month rent were families and not single persons, the quarters, it is safe to say, were inadequate. Those who paid the larger rents specified did so in order to sublet. During the period intervening between the destruction of their homes and the building of other houses by the aid of grants and loans, shelter had been sought in various places and under many different conditions. Ninety-six families had been living in one of the official camps. Three hundred and six occupied their houses before the grant was received, moving into unfinished houses in order to avoid payment of rent or to get away from an undesirable environment. Many of the families living in unfinished houses were given a grant to complete plumbing or some other needed improvement.
7. Status of Loans in 1909 and 1911 and Additional Aid
As has already been seen 384 loans were made to persons for whom houses were constructed by the housing committee.[221] The amount of these loans was $115,558.33. These figures are based on a final statement of loans, made by the auditor of the San Francisco Relief and Red Cross Funds on April 29, 1911, when all the accounts had been closed.[222]
[221] See Part IV, p. 258.
[222] One grant of $100 which was subsequently refunded, and which was entered on certain statements as a loan, is not included in the figures given in this section.
The loans ranged from a minimum of $37 to a maximum of $595. They were payable in monthly instalments of $10 or more with interest at 6 per cent.
On January 20, 1909, a short time after this investigation was completed, a report issued by the special collector of loan instalments indicated the status with reference to payment of these obligations. There were at that time 97 recipients of loans, 25 per cent of the total number, who had ceased making payments or had never made any, and were therefore to be considered delinquent. Between 200 and 300 were paying from time to time but had not settled their accounts in full. The total amount that had been collected was $54,310.60, and the balance unpaid, exclusive of interest, was $61,247.73. In a report to the auditor it was stated that “some of the grantees have been very prompt in meeting their obligations but a large number have not seen fit to meet their monthly installments.” As a matter of fact some of the loans were, for various reasons, converted into grants and the account of the applicant closed.
Between January, 1909 and January 1, 1911, a considerable sum was collected. The situation on the latter date, as reported by the auditor, is shown by the following statement:
TABLE 93.—STATUS ON JANUARY 1, 1911, OF LOANS TO FAMILIES RECEIVING AID UNDER THE GRANT AND LOAN PLAN
| Total amount of housing loans | $115,558.33 | |
| Collections on housing loans | ||
| Principal | $82,200.30 | |
| Interest | 8,011.25 | |
| $90,211.55 | ||
| Balance of principal unpaid | $33,358.03 | |
The statement shows that $82,200.30, 71.1 per cent of the principal loaned, had been collected, in addition to $8,011.25 interest. More than half of the principal repaid represents the repayment in full of 188 or 49.0 per cent of the loans. The remaining loans were canceled or changed to grants, 22 wholly, 174 in part,—some for the reason that the circumstances of applicants had changed, and they were unable to pay as agreed, and some because collecting was likely to entail undue expense. As it was, the expense of collecting the money recovered came to $11,460.10.
The Rehabilitation Committee gave the following additional aid to 356 of the 896 grant and loan cases studied.
TABLE 94.—ADDITIONAL AID FROM THE RELIEF FUNDS GIVEN TO FAMILIES RECEIVING AID UNDER THE GRANT AND LOAN PLAN[223]
| Nature of additional aid | Families received additional aid of each specified nature |
|---|---|
| Household | 279 |
| General relief | 44 |
| Tools for mechanics and artisans | 11 |
| Transportation | 3 |
| Total | 337 |
[223] Of the 896 families investigated only 356 received additional aid, and 19 of the 356 failed to supply information as to the nature of the aid received.
Forty per cent of the entire number received additional aid in comparison with 24 per cent of the bonus cases. In most instances no earnings or savings were available for the purchase of a lot and for initial building expenses. The household grants were therefore needed especially by those who had lived in the burned district.
TABLE 95.—AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL GRANTS FROM THE RELIEF FUNDS MADE TO FAMILIES RECEIVING AID UNDER THE GRANT AND LOAN PLAN
| Amount of additional aid | Families receiving additional aid as specified |
|---|---|
| Less than $50 | 89 |
| $50 and less than $100 | 148 |
| $100 and less than $150 | 75 |
| $150 and less than $200 | 25 |
| $200 and less than $250 | 10 |
| $250 and less than $300 | 6 |
| $300 and less than $350 | 2 |
| $350 and over | 1 |
| Total | 356 |
8. Cases of Expensive Building
Six cases of families that built homes worth more than $2,000 each will give some idea, though inadequate, of the circumstances surrounding some of the more fortunate of this group of 896 applicants.
The first is a German family of three members, the man a waiter, aged forty-four, who earned $50 a month before the fire, his wife, and one dependent child. He was one of the 93 applicants who had owned the home in which he lived. His house and lot were valued at $6,000, and by sub-letting a part of the house he added $20 a month to his income. The insurance carried was $3,500, of which $2,800 was paid. He built a temporary shack to house his family, at a cost of $300, towards the payment of which he was granted $150. He now has an eighteen-room house worth $8,700. The business loan of $6,200 negotiated by him was reduced by $200 at the time of the investigation, and he was sub-letting rooms, somewhat irregularly, at $145 a month. His wages as waiter had increased $5.00 a month. The child’s constant sickness had been a handicap. The grant was for the temporary shack erected probably before the insurance was received or any definite plan made for permanent rebuilding.
The second family, Danish, had also three members, the man a carpenter, aged forty-seven, his wife, and a child. Before and after the disaster the man made $80 at his trade and he later became a teamster at the same wage. The family belongs to the group that paid rent, which was reduced by sub-letting. Their rental had been $18 a month for a second-story flat of five rooms, three of which had been sub-let for $15 a month. The insurance carried on his household goods was $200, of which he collected $70. The seven-room house built after the fire cost the Dane $3,800, the lot $850, to pay for which a private loan of $3,300 was negotiated, and a grant of $200 obtained from the housing committee. The debt at the time of the investigation had been reduced to $2,320. The man, being a carpenter, had done most of the inside work on his house. The family was occupying three rooms and sub-letting four at a monthly rental of $18.75. There had been no sickness in the family. The grant was small in comparison with the cost of the house and lot, but it may have been the fillip needed to bring the man to the point of purchase. The rate at which the debt was being canceled seems to justify the big venture. If the family escape the handicaps of sickness and accident during the next few years, the result will indicate that the housing committee was warranted in extending aid.
1234
Methods of Housing Rehabilitation
Nos. 1 and 3 represent the $500 bonus; No 2 is a grant and loan cottage built by a committee contractor and is being paid for in instalments; No. 4 represents a beginning with the aid of a small bonus of $100 from the committee. Four cottages in the background received early housing grants
The third, another German family, likewise is a family of three, but in this instance an old couple, the man seventy-seven, and a grown son, an electrician who had earned $140 a month. The house which they had owned before the fire, valued with the “lot” at $10,000, had 19 rooms, 13 of which were let for $82.50 a month. An insurance of $6,000 was carried, on which $4,500 was collected, which happened to be the exact amount of the mortgage on the property. This family also, soon after the fire, built a cheap cottage, price $500, towards payment for which the housing committee granted $305. The electrician and a married son, the one other child, who lived away from home, later built a $6,000 two-story twenty-room apartment house, from which is drawn $110 a month in rents. There is no record of the source from which the $6,000 was drawn. This group had carried no burden of sickness.
The fourth is a large Irish family, a man of forty-four, his wife, and eight children. As agent for a railroad company he had earned $80 a month before the fire, and was afterwards advanced to $100. They had rented for $30 a month a house of 11 rooms, four of which they had sub-let for $20. They had no insurance, but had savings to the amount of $500. The house of eight rooms which they built after the fire on a $1,500 lot, cost $5,000, towards payment for which the housing committee granted $250. The Rehabilitation Committee gave $100 for furniture. At the time of the investigation the mortgage on the property amounted to $2,300, and two of the children were earning $89 a month. This family is financially better off than in 1906. While in camp they had suffered to some extent from sickness.
The fifth is another Irish family, that of a laborer of thirty-seven, his wife, and two young children. Before the fire he had earned $65 a month, after the fire $85, but at the time of the investigation he was earning but $60 irregularly. The family had formerly rented a four-room flat for $13 a month, and though no insurance was carried, had savings amounting to $1,600. Of this sum $650 was used in purchasing a lot on which a $3,000 house was built. The house was not yet entirely furnished at the time of the investigation. The committee grant was $250. The debt carried exactly equaled the amount of savings before the fire. The family had had sickness, which had meant a heavy outlay for medical care.
The sixth and last is an American family of two maiden sisters, aged about fifty-five. As dressmakers they had earned $60 a month and had lived in their own house of 17 rooms, valued with the lot at $6,000, on which was a $2,800 mortgage. They sub-let six rooms for $45 a month. The insurance collected was but $300, and after the fire they were able to earn but $55 a month. The sixteen-room house they built cost $7,000, on which they had a debt of $4,800. Their housing grant was $200, and they had received an additional rehabilitation grant of $200 for furniture and a sewing machine. At the time of the investigation they were earning $70 at their trade and were collecting $20 a month for rent. They too had been handicapped by sickness, and had had difficulties with their contractor.
9. Brief Comments
Perhaps no more important rehabilitation work was done than that by the housing committee. Partly through its stimulating efforts, by means of the grant and loan plan, many persons, the majority of whom were wage-earners who had carried but little insurance, accumulated small savings, and had but few friends and relatives to extend help, were brought to own their homes.
The chief difficulty that the committee had to contend with was the securing of competent and reliable contractors and plumbers. From time to time they had to make changes which increased their own work of supervision and worked hardship to the applicants. By giving a few orders at a time to a contractor, with the promise of further orders if the work were satisfactory,[224] the effort was made to stimulate sound work. The best results were secured, as has been shown, by the encouragement to men to themselves build or to superintend their own building. Those who had initiative or the resource of friends in the building trade were able to get what they wanted; those who lacked business push trusted to contractors. The lesson is plainly writ, however, that where feasible, the encouraging of men, in an emergency, to assume responsibility for providing their own homes, promises better results than to offer, under abnormal conditions, to build houses in quantity for sale. The personal equation in this matter, as in every other, precludes the drawing of any sweeping conclusion. The plan of the housing committee to study each applicant, and then make the plan as closely fit his case as the prevailing conditions will allow, is a safe one.
[224] The result was a rushing of work for the sake of prospective orders.