least desirable in the city. The houses had been used almost exclusively
as dwellings; only 24 of the families had had a shop or store connected
with their homes. After the disaster but seven had a shop and dwelling
combined. The number of rooms occupied before the fire by those who
during camp life and afterwards lived in two- and three-room cottages,
was:
TABLE 72.--NUMBER OF ROOMS PER FAMILY OCCUPIED BEFORE THE FIRE BY
FAMILIES RECEIVING AID UNDER THE COTTAGE PLAN.[187]
========================+==================
Number of rooms occupied|Families occupying
| each specified
| number of rooms
------------------------+------------------
1 | 50
2 | 111
3 | 204
4 and less than 7 | 284
7 and less than 10 | 12
------------------------+------------------
Total | 661
------------------------+------------------
[187] Of the 680 families investigated, 19 failed to supply
information relative to the number of rooms occupied before the fire.
The congestion during camp life was probably more undesirable though not
so extensive, crowding being excessive in comparatively few instances.
[Illustration: Where the trade winds blow
In full view of the Pacific
CAMP COTTAGES AT HILL CREST]
In 379 of the 680 families who lived in camp cottages there had been not
more than one person to a room; in 260, not more than two to a room.
The large number of cottages erected made it necessary to place them
close together. In the parks regular streets were laid out on which the
cottages fronted with very little space intervening between the
buildings. The compact housing of people meant that in some cases
respectable people were compelled to associate to a certain extent with
the less desirable. On the whole, however, the general moral conditions
were not bad, the statements of some that the camp environment was bad
for young people being offset by those of others that they had been able
to maintain their accustomed moral standards. Naturally, the families
whose living conditions had been most favorable before the disaster were
the ones most tried by the abnormal camp life.
The housing condition before the fire was, in some instances, not only
inadequate but unhealthful. It is certain that only 197, or 29 per cent,
of the families had the use of a bath. When the cottages were moved from
the camps, in 425 cases they were occupied as permanent homes with few
if any important additions. However, 245 of the families had made
improvements, 60 by adding rooms, 160 by adding front or back porches,
others by adding windows or doors or making other minor improvements.
The houses as a rule were placed on wooden foundations. A few were
shingled, but in most instances cracks were sealed with strips, or
covered with building paper inside. With their original coat of green
paint they appeared much the same as when erected in the camps. Some
persons who were fortunate enough to secure two or more cottages joined
them to make one good sized house.
The re-visit in 1908 disclosed the fact that only 16 bath tubs had been
put into the removed cottages, and that only 40 per cent of the cottages
had been connected with the water mains. The occupants of the remaining
60 per cent, perhaps because they were financially unable to connect
their houses with the regular water supply, had to draw their water from
hydrants in adjoining lots. The location of some of these cottages upon
the high hills characteristic of the city made them difficult of access,
and in some instances the daily supply of water had to be carried 50 to
100 feet up steep hills.
The toilet provision in the removed camp cottage homes was even less
satisfactory. In only 101 instances, or 15 per cent, were toilets
installed within the house. In the remaining 85 per cent the privies
were outside the house. When a number of cottages were grouped together
on the same tract of land, as frequently occurred, the occupants--in a
few cases as many as 10 families--invariably shared the common privy.
When the cottages were removed from the official camps most of those
occupying them were given them free of charge.[188] The only cost to be
met was for the moving and subsequent improvements or repairs. The
expense of moving varied according to the distance and accessibility of
the location chosen. The usual price charged by moving companies ranged
from $12.50 to $25; $15 for one and $25 for two cottages being the
common charge. The applicants paid the cost or were aided to do so by
their relatives, friends, or in some cases by their landlord. The
landlord would advance the necessary amount in order to have the
building placed on his own lot, for which he was to receive a monthly
ground rent. The Associated Charities[189] met the expense of moving 175
of the 680 cottages; the social settlements moved a few others. The
total cost of the houses to these applicants, including moving expenses
and all other improvements, is given in Table 73.
[188] See Part I, p. 85.
[189] For cost of removal borne by Associated Charities, see Part I,
p. 86, footnote.
TABLE 73.--COSTS INCURRED, BY OR IN BEHALF OF APPLICANTS, FOR COTTAGES
OCCUPIED BY FAMILIES RECEIVING AID UNDER THE COTTAGE PLAN[190]
=======================+=================
Cost incurred | Cottages costing
| as specified
-----------------------+-----------------
Less than $50 | 365
$50 and less than $100 | 130
$100 and less than $200| 120
$200 and over | 52
-----------------------+-----------------
Total | 667
-----------------------+-----------------
[190] Of the 680 families investigated, 13 failed to supply
information relative to costs incurred.
The expenditure of the larger sums meant that substantial additions had
been made, and that by the increase of housing space the building had
been made far more desirable as a permanent home.
At the time of the investigation the cottagers had lived in their new
locations for from ten to eighteen months. Although 558, or 82 per cent,
of those who had occupied rented rooms before the fire preferred their
old to their present quarters, a majority were satisfied with their new
neighborhood, and 315, or 46 per cent, claimed that the new environment
was as desirable as the old, or in some cases more desirable. Upon
removal from the camps many of the cottages had been taken to vacant
lots to be grouped so closely together that there was comparatively
little privacy for each family. The objection of some to their present
surroundings was due partly to this fact, partly to the loss of familiar
friends that had made the old neighborhood congenial. The Corporation
had been anxious that the cottages should not be removed to different
parts of the city to be grouped under conditions practically identical
with those in the camps. However, though the sale of cottages to vacant
lot owners had been steadily refused, the liberal policy of giving
cottages to those occupying them in the official camps or to others in
need of shelter resulted in a number being located close together on the
same leased tract. The lots varied greatly in size. In some instances
four or five cottages were erected on an ordinary city lot, of 80 to 100
feet depth and 20 feet width. In others, 60 or more cottages were
crowded onto a tract as large as a city block. About 70 per cent of the
families occupied lots with at least one other cottage.
The lots were purchased by the cottagers, leased for a term of years, or
rented by the month. Of the 680 families only 70 had purchased lots. The
prices paid ranged from $250 to $3,000, but in more than half of the
cases were under $1,000. At the time of the investigation these lots
were being paid for by monthly instalments of from $8.00 to $25, and but
seven of the 70 families had canceled their indebtedness. Half the
number had not paid more than a quarter of the price of the lot, and
some were barely meeting the interest on the debt and were making no
headway toward acquiring the property.
Those leasing lots had signed contracts which would be in force from two
to five years,--a few even longer. What will happen when the agreements
expire, especially to those who have made no improvements on their
cottages, it is difficult to predict. It is known that many who removed
their cottages from the camps disposed of them shortly afterward so as
to get housing accommodations similar to those they had had before the
disaster. Some of the cottages which were made into convenient and
tasteful homes will doubtless be occupied by their owners for a long
time, for the owners will make an effort to complete the purchase of
their lots, or to renew the leases when they expire.
The rentals paid by those who were leasing lots varied from $6.00 to $15
per month, though a great majority paid from $6.00 to $8.50. Those
renting from month to month perhaps occupied slightly less desirable
lots; the rentals paid varied for the most part from $3.00 to $8.00 per
month.
5. TWO COTTAGE SETTLEMENTS
Mention has been made of the unsatisfactory cottage settlements that
took the place of the camp life.[191] Two such settlements were visited
and the housing and other living conditions investigated.
[191] See Part I, p. 85.
The first tract is a sand lot belonging to an old estate, which was
leased by a real estate agent for a period of five years at a rate of
$280 per month. The Corporation refused to sanction his plan, but by
some means he secured an official permit in October, 1907.
After he had spent over a month in grading his tract and in placing most
of the 1,200 feet of sewer pipes, he was notified by the city board of
health that he might not be allowed to open his settlement as his
locality was threatened by the bubonic plague. In March of the following
year when he could make it clear that his sewerage and sanitation system
complied with the public health ordinances, he was granted a health
permit. On May 1, 1908, his block was opened to occupants. Two men, one
of whom was a Porto Rican boss who had come to San Francisco after the
disaster by way of Hawaii, were his assistants in securing people to
move into the block. Many came to this settlement from Lobos Square,
when that camp was broken up on June 30, 1908. For each cottage
moved, the two assistants received $1.00 commission, the boss receiving
in addition from the house-movers a commission of from $1.00 to $2.00.
[Illustration: First cottages in Villa Maria
The proprietor and his family
BEGINNINGS OF A COTTAGE SETTLEMENT]
This block is 412 feet long and 272 feet wide, and the whole is
sub-divided into lots, each 20 x 37¹⁄₂ feet. A two-plank sidewalk 3,016
feet in length was laid and 18 inches of gravel placed on the two
interior streets by the residents, who received as payment a remittance
of part of their ground rent. Each lot was leased for a term of three
years, with the privilege of a two-year renewal to the satisfactory
lessees, at a monthly rate of $6.00 for the lots on the inner streets,
$7.00 and $8.00 for those facing the city streets. There were several
exceptions to these rentals, however, one being the case of a
hardworking, but very poor old woman whose monthly rate was lowered
$1.00; another case was that of a woman who for a time was paying a $10
monthly instalment in order to buy her house; a third, that of a family
which, after the cottage granted had been burned, was transferred to a
higher priced cottage at the same rent of $6.00. At the time of the
investigation only 12 of the 121 cottages were vacant. All had been
moved from Lobos Square by their original occupants or owners, except
about 20 which were moved by the agent in order to fill the block.
According to the agent, a number of families were at the time of the
investigation in arrears for their monthly ground rent and 12 had not
paid since they moved their cottages onto the block. On the average the
arrearage was equivalent to the entire number being one month behind.
Though several families vacated their cottages mainly because of their
inability to pay the rent, none had been evicted on that account.
Several purchasers of the vacated cottages had had to pay the arrears to
the agent as well as the purchase price to the owners of the cottages.
The sanitary conditions, according to the visitors’ report, met the
requirements of the board of health but did not conform to the normal
sanitary standard. One toilet and an adjoining hydrant were provided for
four cottages. Inspections usually were made twice a week by the janitor
whose duty it was to enforce cleanliness. The members of each group did
the cleaning in common and reported any breakage or defect in the
plumbing to one of the camp residents, a plumber. The janitor and
plumber received pay for their services in free rent.
Near each toilet and hydrant stood a large covered garbage can which was
emptied three times a week or oftener. The agent paid for these
services, which amounted to $25 a month for the block, and also the
water bill, which amounted to about $92 a month. He provided a supply of
ordinary garden hose, kept at two of the centrally located cottages,
with which to fight fire. About one-quarter of the cottagers had made
small additions to their cottages, such as porches, and about one-third
had bettered them slightly by paint, screen doors, and similar
improvements. A few of the most energetic had small, pretty gardens. The
housing conditions of a majority of these people seemed, on the whole,
to be better than before the fire. They at least paid less rent, and in
most cases, enjoyed cleaner quarters and better sanitation.
There was little sickness, though dissipation and moral degeneracy were
conspicuous among the majority of these people, who before the fire had
lived, many of them, in very undesirable localities. They suffered keen
poverty, due in part to scarcity of work, but perhaps largely to
intemperance and shiftlessness. Any day a group of men might be found
idle, while their women and children provided meager support.
The second tract was, previous to April 18, 1906, a vacant lot 192 x 137
feet. It was leased by a woman, a Mexican, for a period of three years,
with the privilege of a one-year renewal. No money was spent in grading,
in filling for sidewalks, or for other improvements; practically the
only item of expense was for sewerage. One hopper, one faucet, and a
toilet for each four families were installed to conform to the
requirements of the board of health. The landlady paid $100 for this
sanitary work, which had caused great dissatisfaction on account of its
poor quality. The individual families had had an increase in water rent
from 50 cents the first month to $1.15 the fourth, on account of leakage
in the pipes. The ground rent of $6.00 a month for lots 25 feet square
facing the city streets and of $5.00 for inner lots of the same size was
a little cheaper than that asked in other similar settlements; but added
charges for garbage and water made a total cost that was on the
average about what was met by those who occupied cottages elsewhere,
under better conditions. There were 55 children in all on the lot.
[Illustration: CAMP COTTAGES ON A SUBURBAN TRACT]
The 27 families occupying this lot came from the Lobos Square camp. The
landlady, as an inducement, had offered free ground rent for the month
of June, 1908. Three-quarters of the cottages were moved and repaired by
the Associated Charities at an average cost of $28.50 a cottage.[192]
The Associated Charities had recently shingled and put in sinks for the
six most nearly dependent households. It is not known how much the
landlady paid for her lease nor what profits she reaped. She regretted
the undertaking, however,--a result that might have been foreseen when
such a helpless class of tenants was accepted.
[192] For work of Associated Charities in relation to housing
families, see Part I, pp. 85-86.
6. BRIEF COMMENTS
The erection of a large number of two- and three-room cottages was
necessary if shelter were to be given to the poorest class of the
homeless refugees. With individual exceptions, the people had been
accustomed to comparatively low standards of living. They consumed each
day the daily wage, so were helpless when overtaken by the disaster.
The investigation revealed that those responsible had acted wisely in
providing the shelter without consulting the wishes of those for whom it
was intended. Opportunity to secure shelter was given through the
“bonus” and the “grant and loan” schemes for those who had some means
and initiative; but those without resources of their own were not in a
position wisely to suggest the manner of their housing. The Department
outlined the work on a large scale and executed it in a straightforward,
businesslike manner. The happy result was abundant shelter for all the
poorest families with the oncoming of the winter rains.
Some critics have claimed that a more equitable distribution of the
funds would have been to give to the poorest class as much as to the
more fortunate refugees, but a careful examination of the facts shows
that the policy adopted was more feasible as well as more expedient.
Those who possessed vacant lots, or other property, or who could
command means with which to build, gave tangible proof that the
foundation of previous thrift and enterprise would serve as a guarantee
of wise use of aid from the relief funds. The applicants who had owned
no property, possessed no savings, and whose standard of living was low,
could offer little, if any, guarantee of a wise use of funds. Had a body
of expert social workers been engaged to study each family individually
and to plan its future home, superintending the purchase of a lot and
the construction of a house,--in fact, teaching each to be a good
householder,--a more liberal housing allowance could have been safely
granted. Such a constructive plan would have called for far more
elaborate and efficient machinery than was at hand, and would have
required a much longer time. However, it is realized that a situation
which concerned practically the future home life of every camp refugee
presented a wonderful and probably unparalleled opportunity for wise
constructive philanthropy.
It will be important, in the event of future disasters, to see if the
least efficient can be re-housed so as to be, through careful
supervision of individuals, brought to a higher standard of living.
III
THE BONUS PLAN
1. THE PLAN ITSELF
The first definite housing resolution agreed upon by the Executive
Committee of the San Francisco Relief and Red Cross Funds was an effort
to advance through its Department of Lands and Buildings 33¹⁄₃ per cent
of the cost of a home to be built on the ground owned by any resident of
the city whose house had been destroyed, with the provision that in no
instance should the amount granted to any one person exceed $500. This
was the most generous housing offer made and was limited to those who
were to rebuild within the burned territory. It was known as the “bonus
plan.” The offer was announced to the public through the newspapers in
August, 1906, by the Department of Lands and Buildings, and remained
open until October 1, 1906, being reopened in February, 1907, for two
weeks. Originally, $400,000 was set aside for the bonuses. In February,
1907, an additional $100,000 was appropriated.
The bonus, or gift, offered to anyone who desired to rebuild on property
owned by him in the burned district was granted to 885 persons. The
total amount granted was $423,288.17.[193] In slightly over 10 per cent
of the cases the amount actually given as a bonus to the applicant was
less than $500, due to the fact that he had received aid from other
departments, or because the cost of the house was less than $1,500. In
one instance the amount of the bonus was as low as $83.
[193] This total included an expense item of $761.17, incurred for
investigating titles, etc.
The general procedure was for an applicant to submit his plans to the
Department of Lands and Buildings for approval, and when approval was
obtained to begin to build his house. Little machinery was required, for
no attempt was made to investigate the actual needs of the applicants.
The Department satisfied itself that the person was eligible under the
terms offered, and before making payment received assurance from its
inspector that the building was located at the place designated by the
applicant and represented a certain value. The length of time between
the granting of an application and the completing of the house varied
from one to 14 months. When the second appropriation of $100,000 was
made, consideration was given to the question of fixing a maximum limit
upon the cost of the houses to be built by the receivers of bonuses, but
no definite action followed.
During the early stages of the relief work the great question was, how
soon will the burned district be rebuilt. Houses must be rebuilt if
residents temporarily living in the nearby cities were not to be
permanently lost. Stores and warehouses must be rebuilt if the small
tradesmen and lodging-house keepers were to return, to attract, in their
turn, other industries. Labor leaders asserted that a large number of
those who were living in outlying districts or outside the city were
workingmen who were handicapped both by loss of time and by increase in
expenditure in having to go to and from their accustomed places of
labor. Four or five thousand workingmen were said to be anxiously
waiting to make use of a liberal offer to re-establish their homes on
their own lots in the burned area. The number was over-estimated, for
only 885 bonuses were granted, many to persons who owned their own
business and were not workingmen on a daily wage. If such a large number
ever made application for the bonus, they either did not possess
sufficient savings or enjoy an income large enough to avail themselves
of the Corporation’s offer. Capitalists were also anxious for rebuilding
to begin as rapidly as possible; so the plan, when announced, was gladly
received by all classes. It is possible that the expenditure of the
first $400,000 appropriated for bonuses at the moment when many were
debating the wisdom of rebuilding, turned the tide of decision in favor
of immediate action. As early as March, 1907, 470 bonus homes had been
built at an expenditure of $200,147.17.
[Illustration: Home built by a letter carrier
Home of an elderly U. S. Government employe. Bonus, $250
BONUS HOUSES]
2. BONUS RECIPIENTS
The field investigation of the bonus cases made by this Survey included
visits to 572 persons, or 65 per cent of the entire number. These were
selected at random and scattered over the entire burned district. In
26 instances the investigator was refused information, 44 of the houses
were rented out and the addresses of owners could not be obtained, and
12 of the houses had been sold or were vacant and the whereabouts of the
owners were unknown. The remaining 490 cases, 55 per cent of the total
number receiving bonuses, yielded practically complete schedules. All
except one of the bonus recipients studied--Notre Dame College, an
institution accommodating about 75 students--represented families, or
were persons who wished to establish homes. It is believed that the
cases selected are in every way typical and that the results obtained
would be substantially the same if the entire number had been visited.
The characteristics of these 489 persons who received bonuses, and their
relative condition before and after the disaster, are briefly given in
the following pages.
TABLE 74.--NATIONALITY[194] OF APPLICANTS RECEIVING AID UNDER THE BONUS
PLAN
===================+=====================+=====================
Nationality | Native born | Foreign born
| applicants whose | applicants of each
|parents were of each |specified nationality
|specified nationality|
-------------------+---------------------+---------------------
Irish | 19 | 185
Italian | 1 | 93
American | 81 | ..
German | 2 | 41
English | 3 | 10
French | 2 | 11
Other nationalities| 3 | 38
-------------------+---------------------+---------------------
Total | 111 | 378
-------------------+---------------------+---------------------
[194] For comparative figures as to nationality found by the first
registration, see Part I, p. 74.
That a large proportion of those who received bonuses were foreign born
was to be expected, as the regions burned were inhabited largely by the
Italians north of Market Street and by the Irish, south.
The conjugal condition of the bonus recipients is shown in Table 75.
TABLE 75.--CONJUGAL CONDITION OF FAMILIES RECEIVING AID UNDER THE BONUS
PLAN
===================+===========================
Conjugal condition|Families of each specified
| conjugal condition
-------------------+---------------------------
Married couples | 321
Widows | 126
Widowers | 23
Orphaned children | 8
Single men | 6
Single women | 5
-------------------+---------------------------
Total | 489
-------------------+---------------------------
In November, 1908, when the schedules were completed, 390 of the 489
families, or 80 per cent, had the same status as before the fire; 99, or
20 per cent, had suffered changes of various kinds. These changes, in
the main, resulted from deaths and the natural separation of maturing
children from the home. From the date of the disaster to the time of the
investigation, 53, or 11 per cent, of the families suffered loss by
death of one or more of their members, the total deaths being 57. One of
this number had been killed by the earthquake, and many,--the exact
number could not be ascertained,--died from such indirect effects of the
disaster as nervous prostration, or typhoid fever contracted in camp.
The deaths for the period considered, though slightly above the normal,
were not excessive.
In 41 per cent of the bonus cases the application was filed by the wife
or some other woman member of the family, and the grant was made in her
name. The large number of women applicants may be explained in part by
the fact that the blank application for a bonus had to be signed by the
owner of the lot, whether man or woman,[195] and it is a common practice
in San Francisco, as elsewhere, for a husband to put his property in his
wife’s name. Furthermore, Table 75 shows a large proportion of widows
among the applicants and a small proportion of widowers.
[195] See form in Appendix II, p. 447.
The size of the family was, as a rule, not large, and the burden of
dependence carried not heavy. In only 28 cases were there persons other
than children who were wholly dependent. In 43 cases relatives or
friends lived with the family, but were either self-supporting or made
contribution to the family income. There were 1,333 children of these
families, or 2.7 to a family, not all of whom were living at home; many,
married or single, were living and working away from their parents.
TABLE 76.--AGES OF APPLICANTS RECEIVING AID UNDER THE BONUS PLAN[196]
===============================+===============
Age period | Applicants in
|each age period
-------------------------------+---------------
Less than 30 years | 6
30 years and less than 40 years| 80
40 years and less than 50 years| 144
50 years and less than 60 years| 116
60 years and less than 70 years| 108
70 years and less than 80 years| 33
80 years and over | 2
-------------------------------+---------------
Total | 489
-------------------------------+---------------
[196] Note the difference in ages between those receiving the bonus
and the camp cottage occupants. See Part IV, p. 225.
It will be seen from Table 76 that 47 per cent of the applicants were
under fifty years of age and that 29 per cent were over sixty years of
age. The few that had reached an advanced age were given a bonus not on
account of their need, but as a stimulus to build on their property in
the burned district.
The health of the family was more fully recorded than in the case of the
camp cottagers. No note was made of such minor ailments, or accidents,
as would bring no handicap, but 181, or 37 per cent, of the families
suffered from sickness and accident to such an extent that there was a
distinct handicap, either through burdensome doctors’ bills, or by
having the source of income temporarily reduced or cut off. Including
the 53 families who had sustained deaths, 48 per cent of the whole
number were shown to have suffered from the effects of illness or
accident. This total burden should not, however, be reckoned as an
aftermath of the disaster.[197]
[197] For general health conditions during period immediately
following the disaster, see Part I, p. 89 ff.
3. OCCUPATIONS AND RESOURCES
The means by which the men in the families earned a livelihood before
April, 1906, are given in Table 77.
TABLE 77.--OCCUPATIONS BEFORE THE FIRE OF 433 MEN IN FAMILIES RECEIVING
AID UNDER THE BONUS PLAN
====================================+=========================
Occupational group | MEN IN EACH SPECIFIED
| OCCUPATIONAL GROUP
+----------+--------+-----
|Proprietor|Employes|Total
------------------------------------+----------+--------+-----
Personal and domestic service | 112 | 80 | 192
Manufactures and mechanical pursuits| 22 | 61 | 83
Trade | 38 | 62 | 100
Professional service | .. | 2 | 2
Retired | 46 | .. | 46
Invalid | 10 | .. | 10
------------------------------------+----------+--------+-----
Total | 228 | 205 | 433
------------------------------------+----------+--------+-----
The number of those who had owned and operated an individual business is
shown to exceed slightly the number that were employed at a definite
rate of wages. Thirty different industries and 66 different kinds of
employment are included in the four categories. The number of women who
earned support for themselves outside of their own homes, and in whole
or in part, for their families, was 31; of these, 17 were in personal
and domestic service, 11 in manufactures, two in trade, and one in
professional service. The heads of the remaining 25 families were either
aged men or women who were supported by their own children, or persons
otherwise cared for.
The status with reference to ownership of business remained almost
unchanged; only 12 persons who had owned and managed a business before
the fire were forced later to seek permanent employment as wage-earners.
Almost exactly the same number of persons, 11, who were wage-earners
before the disaster, conducted a business of their own at the time of
the investigation. These slight variations show that the bonus
recipients, possessing more than ordinary ability, were able to
re-establish themselves.
[Illustration: Built by Italians
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
============================+==============
Cost of houses |Houses costing
| as specified
----------------------------+--------------
Less than $1,500 | 65
$1,500 and less than $3,000 | 210
$3,000 and less than $5,000 | 118
$5,000 and less than $10,000| 92
$10,000 and over | 5
----------------------------+--------------
Total | 490[204]
----------------------------+--------------
[204] Includes Notre Dame College.
One house cost $39,000, another $78,000, and three from $10,000 to
$20,000. It must be remembered that one of these was Notre Dame College.
Only 16 per cent of the houses were built by the applicants themselves.
The original plan was to aid those that had suffered the loss of their
homes. Fifty-five of the houses destroyed were, however, used for both
dwelling and business purposes; 69 of those rebuilt were similarly used.
Each business was on a small scale,--a grocery or fruit store, a saloon,
or a barber shop. The number of rooms in the houses formerly occupied
and those in the houses lived in after the fire is given in the
following table:
TABLE 81.--NUMBER OF ROOMS IN HOUSES OWNED BEFORE THE FIRE AND IN HOUSES
REBUILT AFTER THE FIRE BY APPLICANTS RECEIVING AID UNDER THE BONUS PLAN
===================+======================
Number of rooms | HOUSES HAVING EACH
| SPECIFIED NUMBER OF
| ROOMS
+-----------+----------
|Before fire|After fire
-------------------+-----------+----------
1 | .. | ..
2 | .. | 1
3 | 1 | 6
4 | 14 | 51
5 and less than 9 | 150 | 184
9 and less than 13 | 171 | 138
13 and less than 16| 83 | 58
17 and less than 21| 42 | 23
21 and over | 28 | 28
-------------------+-----------+----------
Total | 489 | 489
-------------------+-----------+----------
Average number of rooms before fire 12.2
Average number of rooms after fire 10.6
==========================================
As in not a few cases two houses instead of one were built on a lot, the
combined number of rooms is given in the preceding table. A further
examination of the data shows that in 168 of the bonus cases the houses
were rebuilt to contain a greater number of rooms, in 259 to have less,
in 62 to have the same. No attempt has been made to compare size and
desirability of the rooms, but it seems probable that there was no great
difference in the character of the houses rebuilt as far as rooming
space is concerned.
In 453, or 93 per cent, of the bonus cases tabulated, the exact number
of rooms occupied by the family and its dependents in its own or in a
rented house was ascertained.
TABLE 82.--NUMBER OF ROOMS PER FAMILY OCCUPIED BEFORE AND AFTER THE FIRE
BY FAMILIES RECEIVING AID UNDER THE BONUS PLAN[205]
========================+======================
Number of rooms occupied| FAMILIES OCCUPYING
| EACH SPECIFIED NUMBER
| OF ROOMS
+-----------+----------
|Before fire|After fire
------------------------+-----------+----------
1 | 8 | 11
2 | 13 | 37
3 | 65 | 72
4 and less than 7 | 302 | 303
7 and less than 10 | 55 | 27
10 and over | 10 | 3
------------------------+-----------+----------
Total | 453 | 453
------------------------+-----------+----------
[205] Of the 489 families investigated, 36 failed to supply
information relative to the number of rooms occupied both before and
after the fire.
The proportion of families occupying less than four rooms was smaller
before the fire than after the fire, while the reverse is true of
families occupying seven or more rooms. It would appear from this that
after the fire the crowding was slightly increased. By actual count, 218
families were found to have occupied more rooms before the fire than
after, 152 families occupied the same number, while 83 enjoyed a larger
number after the fire.
[Illustration: Two ambitious dwellings built with aid of bonuses
Built with bonus of $500 and money privately loaned
BONUS HOUSES]
The number of families who let rooms before and after the fire was
extraordinarily large. Before the fire 375, or 76 per cent, and
afterwards 378, or 77 per cent, let either furnished rooms or
unfurnished suites. In a majority of cases the family itself occupied
one flat and let the others. It is evident that the average small
property owner rebuilt his house with the expectation of drawing an
income from it.
5. BRIEF COMMENTS
If the Corporation had refused to grant a bonus to anyone who was to
build a house to cost above $2,500, more than 50 per cent of the grants
would have been denied. When the second appropriation of $100,000 was
set aside for the bonus grants in 1907, one intimately connected with
the work wrote: “In connection with the proposed expenditure of $100,000
to be used for assisting those intending to rebuild in the burned
district, I will state that, as there will be numerous applicants for
such assistance, it might be wise to place some restrictions upon the
bonus other than those now in force. For instance, I recommend that a
person desiring to build a house valued at $3,000 should not be granted
said bonus, as evidently he is not in need, and in my opinion, does not
require our help. Furthermore, I believe it would be well to investigate
each application to determine whether the applicant has received
assistance from the Committee previous to placing the application with
the Department.”
The man who had to pass on the bonus applications said: “Henceforth the
bonus should be granted only in cases which have been proven
conclusively to be in need of it, for my impression after a careful
examination of these applications, is that they are not in particular
need of the bonus but could get along perfectly well without it, though
possibly not so easily.”
Another letter, dated March 11, 1907, to the staff in charge of the
grants said, “In making the allotments under the new appropriation I
would advise that you question each grantee carefully and refuse to
issue the amount where the house is already completed or nearly built.
This, of course, can only be determined from personal examination of the
applicant, for many whose houses are already practically completed,
frame their applications as if they were just about to begin.”
The feeling that, regardless of loss, there was the right to share in
the relief funds, pushed many who had already begun to build into the
ranks of applicants for the liberal gift of $500. A possible evil effect
of this liberal offer was that some persons, in order to take advantage
of it, incurred heavy indebtedness, which they would be forced for a
long time to carry. The extra cost for building during the fall of 1906
and the winter of 1907 offset in a measure the financial gain from the
bonus.
After a great disaster the efficient distribution of a large sum of
money to aid in rebuilding calls for the exercise of two distinct
functions, business management and supervision of rehabilitation work.
It is not probable that the same person can with equal success perform
the two functions. A neglect of either means a grave miscarrying of the
plan itself.
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.
[Illustration: 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| Foreign born
|whose parents were of |applicants of
| each specified |each specified
| nationality | 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.
[Illustration: 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]
============================+=========================
| 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.
[Illustration: 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]
===========================+========================
|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]
=====================+======================
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
========================+==================
|Families receiving
Amount of additional aid|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.
[Illustration: 1 2 3 4
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
PART V
RELIEF WORK OF THE ASSOCIATED CHARITIES FROM JUNE, 1907, TO JUNE, 1909
PAGE
I. THE NATURE OF THE CASES 281
1. Introductory 281
2. Nature of the Dependency 282
3. Social Character of the Cases 286
4. Occupations of Applicants 294
II. THE METHODS OF RELIEF EMPLOYED 298
1. Reapplications 298
2. Emergent Relief 299
3. Permanent Relief 305
4. Relief Refused 310
5. Conclusions 314
6. The Associated Charities Since the Fire 317
I
THE NATURE OF THE CASES
1. INTRODUCTORY
In Parts I and II frequent mention has been made of the important
rehabilitation rôle played by the Associated Charities. In this fifth
part of the Relief Survey, measure is taken of the burden carried by the
Associated Charities for the two years after it resigned as an
investigating agent of the San Francisco Relief and Red Cross Funds and
took up, with the financial aid of the funds, its independent work of
caring for the remnant. The remnant was composed of the people who had
suffered from the earthquake and fire but had asked for no help until
more than a year had elapsed; of those who continued to need aid because
of the extraordinary vicissitudes of their life; of others who had
formed the habit of turning to a relief agency for assistance; and of
those who required further succor because that given by the Corporation
had been inadequate.
The Associated Charities was selected for special study, not only
because it had been continuously the agent of the Corporation, but
because its work promised to give the fullest answer to the question: To
what extent has the San Francisco problem of dependency deepened? This
study is, then, in a sense, an exhibition of the aftermath of the great
disaster.
The range of the inquiry involved the asking of three questions: First,
what was the character of the rehabilitation? Second, how was it done?
Third,--a quadruple question,--how much was induced by the disaster
itself, how much by the fact of the existence of relief measures the
year after the disaster, how much by the administration of these
measures, and how much by conditions that tend at all times to produce
dependency?
The field of investigation plainly defines itself as: first, to know the
number and character of the persons that remained dependent after the
fifteen months of conscientious rehabilitation work, and to compare them
in regard to number and character with the lesser number of persons that
for two years before the disaster were under the care of the Associated
Charities; second, to learn what methods of relief were used to render
these persons once more effective members of the community; and third,
to measure in some degree the efficiency of these methods.
The primary purpose of this study was to learn as far as possible the
psychological effects of the disaster by studying a group of refugees
who continued to draw on the relief funds after the general public had
fallen out of the bread line. It has been impossible, however, to hold
strictly to the purpose, because the Associated Charities,[225] in
resuming its normal place in the community, aimed rightly to administer
to the needs of the city’s poor whether or not the individual applicant
could show a relation between his necessity and the disaster. From the
point of view of the Associated Charities, all persons applying for aid
from June, 1907, to June, 1909, had an equal claim on its funds. Its
power of realizing this aim of impartially meeting the needs of the
applicants has been limited by the fact that as a society it was known
by the public at large, as well as by the direct and indirect sufferers
from the disaster, by their relatives, and by their friends, to be
acting as the financial agent of a corporation that continued to have
large sums of money to disburse.
[225] Before and since the disaster the Associated Charities has been,
except for the work done by the Hebrew Board of Relief, the accepted
general relief society. It has had, throughout, the active
co-operation of the Catholics.
2. NATURE OF THE DEPENDENCY
The interest in the relief administration centers in the desire to know
to what extent it altered the poverty situation of the city. The
presumption is, of course, that the work of the Associated Charities and
kindred agencies was greatly increased by the disaster, but it is
important to get a specific idea of the increase for the two selected
years, and to determine what proportion is a distinct result of the
social upheaval brought by the earthquake and fire of 1906.
To answer this question required a knowledge of the work of the
Associated Charities for the two years before the fire as exact as for
the two years under consideration.[226] By one of the most notable
incidents of the great fire, the building containing the records of the
Associated Charities escaped the flames. These records, no previous
study of whose facts had been made, were therefore available. The
stories of the applicants to the Associated Charities for the two years
preceding April 18, 1906, have been analyzed, and in order that
comparison might be possible, a similar study of records has been made
of the post-disaster cases.
[226] At the time of the fire the Associated Charities had been in
existence for over seventeen years. Its original aim had been to
confine its work to organizing charity; but as there was no general
relief society in existence it was called on more and more to do
relief work. By 1905 the society had a list of 900 subscribers; an
annual income of not more than $5,000; a staff consisting of a general
secretary, two or three paid investigators, and a stenographer on part
time. In addition to these, the office had the exclusive use of two
district nurses supported by special funds. With a staff and an income
so limited it was possible to give little beyond emergency aid to
needy families in their homes. The problem of homeless men was not
touched. The initial steps had been taken looking to co-operation with
other philanthropic agencies along several lines. In conjunction with
the Merchants’ Association, a charities endorsement committee had been
formed; a children’s agency had been established, and a department of
legislation and law organized to originate needed social legislation
and to give free legal aid to applicants. For a résumé of the
development of the work of the society after the disaster, see Part V,
pp. 317-318.
As the means to aid during the two years from June, 1907, to June, 1909,
were drawn almost exclusively from the Corporation and the Board of
Trustees of Relief and Red Cross Funds, a statement of the work of the
Associated Charities is practically a survey of the further use made of
the disaster relief funds.
The Associated Charities, as an independent agent, reopened its doors to
applicants on June 17, 1907; but since it had assumed the responsibility
before the complete transfer of duties was effected, data are here given
for the period beginning June 1. From June 1, 1907, until June 1, 1909,
6,766 applications were made to it in the following order:
June 1, 1907, to December 31, 1907 2,547
January 1, 1908, to December 31, 1908 3,154
January 1, 1909, to June 1, 1909 1,065
-----
Total 6,766
From April 18, 1904, to April 18, 1906, 1840 cases had applied for aid
at the office. There was therefore a nearly fourfold increase in
applications during the two post-disaster years under comparison. There
are no data to show the sequence of increase or decrease of cases for
the earlier period. The number of monthly applications during 1908 and
1909 was as follows:
TABLE 96.--NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS TO THE ASSOCIATED CHARITIES FOR
ASSISTANCE, BY MONTHS. 1908 AND 1909[227]
=========+=====+=====
Month | 1908| 1909
---------+-----+-----
January | 474| 229
February | 815| 237
March | 417| 219
April | 219| 145
May | 172| 135
June | 195| 274
July | 146| 113
August | 152| 97
September| 115| 84
October | 173| 42
November | 126| 161
December | 150| 183
---------+-----+-----
Total|3,154|1,919
---------+-----+-----
[227] As the figures in this table are for the calendar years 1908 and
1909, the totals do not correspond with the figures for the period
from June 1, 1907, to June 1, 1909, presented in other tables in this
Part. While there were some inconsistencies between various records
consulted, as to the number of applications per month, it is believed
that the figures presented are approximately correct.
Although for three of the months of 1909, June, November, and December,
there was an increase of applications over the corresponding months of
the previous year,--an increase of 41, 28, and 22 per cent
respectively,--the work for 1909 as a whole, compared with 1908,
decreased 39 per cent.
In relating the facts found in the case records of applicants from June
1, 1907, to June 1, 1909, 815, or 12 per cent, of the 6766 records are
omitted,--107 because they were found to be the records of cases
belonging not to the Associated Charities but to other relief societies;
606 because they were not relief society records, but were those of
cases cared for in the City and County Hospital which for reasons of
office organization were, during a number of months of the year 1907,
filed with the Associated Charities’ records; 102 because they were too
incomplete to give the required data. The facts drawn from the remaining
5951 cases are compared with 1550 cases of the earlier pre-disaster
period. Two hundred and ninety cases, or 15.8 per cent, of the 1840
cases of that period (April 18, 1904, to April 18, 1906), had to be
omitted, some because they were records of cases handled by other relief
societies, and a larger number because the statement cards lacked
sufficient data to permit tabulation. The large number of cases marked
“Unknown” throughout this study makes it incontestably plain that the
records are lacking in many details. Though admirably complete as
compared with those before the fire, and much more so during the years
1908 and 1909 than during 1907, yet data have failed with regrettable
frequency.
TABLE 97.--ASSOCIATED CHARITIES CASES CLASSIFIED AS HAVING LIVED OR NOT
HAVING LIVED IN THE BURNED AREA, AND BY NUMBER AIDED, AND NUMBER REFUSED
AID. JUNE 1, 1907, TO JUNE 1, 1909[228]
======================================+==========+===========+=======
Classes of applicants |Applicants|Applicants | Total
| aided |refused aid|
--------------------------------------+----------+-----------+-------
Applicants who had lived in burned | | |
area: | | |
With rehabilitation record | 1,309 | 571 | 1,880
Without rehabilitation record | 1,512 | 604 | 2,116
--------------------------------------+----------+-----------+-------
Total | =2,821= | =1,175= |=3,996=
| | |
Applicants who had not lived in burned| | |
area | =1,303= | =439= |=1,742=
--------------------------------------+----------+-----------+-------
Grand total | =4,124= | =1,614= |=5,738=
--------------------------------------+----------+-----------+-------
[228] Data are not available as to the former place of residence of
123 of the 4,247 applicants aided, and of 90 of the 1,704 applicants
who were refused aid.
One point on which the records in many cases fail to supply information
is as to whether or not the applicant had been burned out. In the
previous studies of this Survey no division has been made of the
refugees into the two classes of those who lived within or without the
burned area, because dependency as a result of the disaster was known to
be due not alone to having been in the first named class. Since one of
the vital points of this study, however, is to determine how much of the
relief work of the Associated Charities during the second of the
two-year periods was due, directly or indirectly, to the earthquake and
fire, an effort has been made to reach the point by dividing the 5,738
applicants about whom the fact was known into two groups: 3,996, or 69.6
per cent, of whom had lived within the burned area; 1,742, or 30.4 per
cent, of whom had lived without. The further classification given in
Table 97 reveals the interesting fact that a large number of persons who
had lived in the burned area made no recorded application for
rehabilitation until after June, 1907.
Fifty-three per cent of those burned out, who by June, 1909, had come to
the Associated Charities for assistance, first made application for
relief needed as a result of the disaster, after the rehabilitation work
was done. Many of them had undoubtedly received their share of clothes,
had stood in the bread line, and had lived in the camps, but as their
names are not on the records of the Rehabilitation Committee they had
had, up to the time that they applied to the Associated Charities, no
rehabilitation in the accepted sense of the term.
3. SOCIAL CHARACTER OF THE CASES
The social characteristics of these cases are second in importance only
to the question of their relation to the disaster.
What do the records show with regard to their nationality, their family
relations, their ages, the size of their families, their occupations,
and their characteristics in general? What were the disabilities that
drove them to ask for help? What proportion of the disabilities from
which they suffered can be marked against the rehabilitation methods?
Forty-one different countries, as shown by Table 98, are represented by
the persons who made application in each of the two-year periods, and of
whom the place of birth was learned.
[Illustration: Completely devastated. First tents in Washington Square
Partly Rebuilt. Cottages in Washington Square
TELEGRAPH HILL AND WASHINGTON SQUARE]
The situation as far as nationality governed application shows but
slight variation between the two periods of time. There are, however, a
few interesting variations; as, for instance, the falling off in the
second period in the number of applicants born in the British Empire, in
the Scandinavian countries, and in the United States. Only the Irish and
Italians have materially increased their proportionate numbers. Did the
relief funds cause this increase, or did the catastrophe bear most
heavily on these nationalities? When it is recalled[229] that the Latin
Quarter was wiped out and that “South-of-Market,” largely the
residential quarter of the poor Irish, was entirely burned, the fire
seems undoubtedly to be responsible.
[229] Part I, p. 4.
TABLE 98.--NATIVITY OF APPLICANTS FOR RELIEF FROM ASSOCIATED CHARITIES,
BEFORE FIRE AND AFTER FIRE[230]