Thus for the period of approximately six months those who had no resources to build found house room as best they might. Many difficulties were met by those who controlled the funds. Building had had to be delayed because of the extraordinary amount of work involved in supplying food, clothing, water, sanitary protection, and temporary shelter. The pressure on the relief machinery seemed to tax its utmost capacity. When it was necessary to push rebuilding plans, additional machinery and more workers had to be provided.
In the official camps the refugees had in large measure been supplied with tents free of charge. As the time came for the removal of tents and temporary shacks and the substitution of wooden buildings, the question was raised, who would be entitled to their use, and on what terms? Cottages were assigned by the camp commanders, first, to those in the official camps; second, to those in shacks and tents outside; third, to those still in the city who were living in cellars and similar places, including those who were receiving shelter from friends, and those who were citizens but were living outside the city. Some who had not been burned out, but needed to be better housed, received cottages and moved them for permanent use to lots which they owned or leased.
For seven months the people had been furnished with tents free of charge, but when the change was made to the wooden cottages, it was thought best to charge a nominal rental.[80] The argument was that to give everything and ask nothing in return, on the one hand killed the self-respect of the efficient class and on the other gave opportunity to the idle to shirk all civic and social responsibility; that the no-rent policy had brought about serious economic disturbances, and its continuance would prepare the way for yet more serious trouble.
[80] See [Part IV], [p. 222], for explanation of miscarriage of plan.
Finally, it was foreseen that the abnormal real estate conditions which had made it possible for the homeless to secure shelter, would not be relieved until those living in camp cottages should seek and be able to secure quarters elsewhere. Accordingly, it was definitely decided that as fast as buildings were made available in the camps, they should be leased to refugees by camp commanders at nominal rates. A special form of lease was provided which, theoretically, each applicant was compelled to sign before occupying a cottage.
The San Francisco Relief and Red Cross Funds, a corporation, was the lessor; and the refugee, the lessee. The lease was in effect a contract of purchase, for it provided that the tenant should become the owner of the cottage if he paid his rent to August 1, 1907. In general the applicant agreed to pay a specified rent and gas rate per month, to comply with all rules and regulations of the camp department and the camp commanders. He agreed not to assign his lease to another nor sublet without written consent. He agreed furthermore to vacate the house at the expiration of his lease unless through full payment of all rents and charges he had acquired ownership. In that event he agreed to remove the house from the camp at his own expense before August, 1907. Failure to remove meant to forfeit ownership. When on account of ill-health or other disability a person was not able to pay rent, the camp commander notified the Rehabilitation Committee.
The shelter furnished by the army and the Finance Committee was with few exceptions on public land. When the Corporation was ready to build cottages it asked the park commission for permission to use certain parks and squares. The commission having no power to give the authority agreed, on August 17, 1906, to ignore the occupation of parks and squares, on the understanding that such use was for a period of not more than one year; the cottages were then to be removed as rapidly as possible.