San Francisco Relief Survey; the organization and methods of relief used after the earthquake and fire of April 18, 1906

Chapter XXVI: Part IV: Housing Rehabilitation (2)

Text size

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 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

[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

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.

Bonuses $500 each

Home of two Italian families

A widow’s venture

Bonus $500

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 |Applicants owning lots
the fire |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

[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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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]

[213] Of the 46 men who were in business after the fire, one refused
to supply information relative to business income.

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.

Previous Next

Comments

San Francisco Relief Survey; the organization and methods of relief used after the earthquake and fire of April 18, 1906Chapter XXVI: Part IV: Housing Rehabilitation (2)

0%36 min left in chapter