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

Chapter XXVII: Part IV: Housing Rehabilitation (3)

Text size

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

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]

============================+=========================
| FAMILIES OCCUPYING EACH
|SPECIFIED NUMBER OF ROOMS
Number of rooms occupied +-------------+-----------
| 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 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]

===========================+========================
|APPLICANTS OWNING HOUSES
|OF EACH SPECIFIED VALUE
Value of houses +-----------+------------
|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]

[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

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.

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.

GENERAL CONCLUSIONS ON HOUSING PLANS

A very large proportion of the workingmen and small tradesmen in San Francisco own their own houses and lots. The land values in certain sections had not been excessive, so that many wage-earners were able to invest savings in small lots on which to establish permanent homes. What part the Corporation took in adding to the number of those who own their own homes has been shown in this study.

It has been pointed out that the bonus group received the most bountiful housing aid, that the grant and loan group came second in the securing of liberal assistance, and that the camp cottage people were given the least.

The re-visit, to recapitulate, showed that a majority of the persons who received the bonus, which it must be borne in mind cannot be called a relief measure, possessed not a little property, were fairly well established in business or at profitable employment, and were entirely able to re-establish their homes when the unsettled conditions had passed. At the date of the re-visit this group of people were housed in their own homes, which compared favorably in almost every way with those occupied when the earthquake came.

The erection of cottages within the camps to serve as temporary shelter for approximately 18,000 people, was well planned and efficiently executed. As has been shown, a number of the cottages came later into the possession of speculators or were soon taken over by landlords in satisfaction of unpaid ground rent. On the other hand, many were owned by persons who were able to purchase small lots, and who in the fall of 1908 bid fair to retain their attractive and comfortable little homes. Without the gift of the cottages this would not have been possible to them. It would seem on the whole that these applicants were better housed at the date of the investigation than at the time of the fire which, probably, more than any other single fact, indicates the soundness of the housing plans.

The standards of many of the families who received camp cottages were so low that an extensive scheme of constructive philanthropy by which an effort might have been made slowly to raise their standards of living would have been of great value. This would have been a stupendous task. But should the expenditure of another great rehabilitation fund be called for, ought not such an attempt to be kept in mind?

The plan to aid applicants with small grants and loans was undoubtedly well conceived and effectively worked out. The machinery installed by the housing committee enabled it to reach the class of people whom it was most anxious to help, also to weed out a large number that it was thought unwise to aid. The great merit of the grant and loan policy was that it stimulated a large number to purchase lots and erect homes of their own who otherwise would probably never have seriously considered the possibility.

PART V

RELIEF WORK OF THE ASSOCIATED
CHARITIES FROM JUNE, 1907,
TO JUNE, 1909

Previous Next

Comments

San Francisco Relief Survey; the organization and methods of relief used after the earthquake and fire of April 18, 1906Chapter XXVII: Part IV: Housing Rehabilitation (3)

0%19 min left in chapter