Chapter XXXIV: Part IV: Housing Rehabilitation

We have to recognize:

1. That to provide but one form of housing rehabilitation is far from satisfactory.

2. That in a general way the three forms provided in San Francisco met the needs of the three general classes to be reached.

(a) With reference to the camp cottages it is too soon to say how successful the experiment will ultimately be of giving cottages for removal to other sites to those who may be classed as comparatively weak in resourcefulness and character. It is certain, however, that the permanent close grouping of the cottages in great numbers on open lots is a danger to be guarded against.

(b) With reference to the grant and loan houses, though it seems that in general the houses built by applicants were better than those built by the housing committee for the applicants, it by no means follows that direct grants of money if commonly adopted would always bring good results. Individual capabilities must be one determining factor. As to grants and loans, it may be said that a double standard is not practicable. A grant on one house and a loan on its neighbor lead to dissatisfaction and often failure on the part of the borrower to meet his debt.

3. That because of the highly specialized business ability required, a separate department of the relief organization should have charge of all building and details of building.

4. That decisions upon housing applications and dealings with housing applicants should be centered in a rehabilitation department.