[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.