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].
[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.