| 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
| Amount of additional aid | Families receiving 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.
