Legislative Document (1924) No. 43 A9P STATE OF NEW YORK REPORT OF Commission of Housing and Regional Planning TO GOVERNOR ALFRED E. SMITH AND TO THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ON The Present Status of the Housing Emergency December 22, 1923 ALBANY J. B. LYON COMPANY, PRINTERS 1924 f-/i 7" 3S~ Legislative Document (1924) No. 43 STATE OF NEW YORK REPORT OF Commission of Housing and Regional Planning TO GOVERNOR ALFRED E. SMITH AND TO ' THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ON The Present Status of the Housing Emergency December 22, 1923 ALBANY 3. B. LYON COMPANY, PRINTERS 1924 S'29 e3 lu D UNIVERSITY (F CFiCAGO LIBRARIES 266892 MARCH 6"30 THE COMMISSION OF HOUSING AND REGIONAL PLANNING CLARENCE S. STEIN, Chairman SULLIVAN W. JONES, State Architect LOWELL GROSSMAN, Commissioner of Highways BERNARD L. SHIENTAG, Industrial Commissioner OLIVER CABANA, JR. Mrs. SARA A. CONBOY, PETER D. KIERNAN STAFF GEORGE GOVE, Director ELINOR SAcES BARR MARY L. CHAMBERLAIN EMMA A. WINSLOW of Investigations [3] TABLE OF CONTENTS MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR............................. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................... PART ONE - Present Status of Housing Emergency in New Y ork City............................. I. Rental Increases......................... II. Vacancies............................... III. Conditions of Tenure...................... IV. Effect of New Construction on Housing Emergency................................. V. Influence of Present Housing Conditions on Public W elfare......................... VI. Expressions of Public Demand.............. PART Two - Present Status of Housing Emergency in Albany, the Capital District, Buffalo and Rochester.. I. Cities in the Capital District............. Albany Cohoes Schenectady Watervliet Amsterdam Rensselaer Troy II. Buffalo - Rochester..................... APPENDICES A. Distribution of Family Income in New York State.. B. Relation of Rent to Family Income............... C. Letter of Edward F. Boyle, Justice of Children's Court, New York City........................ D. Lease Form, Copy of Exhibit 20, submitted at Public Hearing, October 18, 1923.................. E. Summary of Emergency Rent Laws............... Page 5 7 11 12 16 24 28 37 47 51 51 58 65 70 74 83 90 STATE OF NEW YORK - EXECUTIVE CHAMBER ALBANY, January 7, 1924. To the Legislature: Herewith is transmitted to you a report on the Present Status of the Housing Emergency made by the Commission of Housing and Regional Planning. It embodies an examination into conditions in the cities to which the rent laws apply - New York City; cities in the capital district - Albany, Schenectady, Amsterdam, Troy, Cohoes, Watervliet and Rensselaer; and Buffalo and Rochester. The report deals at length with the actual situation at the present time and demonstrates beyond a doubt that the housing emergency still exists in all of the cities examined except Rochester. In my annual message to your Honorable Bodies, I have already recommended the extension of the Rent Laws from February 15, 1924, to February 15, 1926. In accordance with this report I also urge the introduction of two constitutional amendments, one of which will enable the State to establish housing credits and another to enable cities and counties to deal with their housing problems in a similar way. (Signed) ALFRED E. SMITH. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Commission of Housing and Regional Planning was created by act of the Legislature (Chapter 694, enacted in May, 1923) which defined its duties as follows: "To study housing needs and conditions in the State and prepare plans adapted to meet such needs and conditions; collect and distribute information relating to housing and community planning, and to study means of lowering rents on dwellings by securing economy in the construction and arrangement of the buildings; assist in the preparation of legislation and regulations in relation to housing, zoning and planning throughout the State; co-operate with local housing boards or similar bodies in cities and localities and with State and Federal authorities; make a report to the Governor and to the Legislature with respect to matters within its jurisdiction." The Legislature also directed the Commission to examine housing conditions, prevailing rents and available dwelling space in relation to which the Legislature of 1920 and 1921 declared the existence of a public emergency, and to determine whether or not at the time of making report thereon such an emergency still exists, the conditions and status of such emergency, if existing, and the extent to which such emergency requires governmental or legislative action. The Commission was instructed to advise the Governor and the Legislature of the facts in relation to the emergency for the purpose of aiding the Governor and the Legislature in determining their action in the premises not later than January 31, 1924, with recommendations as to extension of or amendment to the rent laws and the tax exemption laws. The Commission was organized August 21, 1923, and began immediately the investigation of housing conditions with relation to the continued existence of an emergency. The facts resulting from that investigation are presented in this report. The inquiry was directed primarily to conditions in the following cities to which the rent laws apply: a. New York City b. Cities in Capital District Albany, Schenectady, Amsterdam, Troy, Cohoes, Watervliet, Rensselaer c. Buffalo and Rochester By questionnaire the inquiry was extended to fifty cities having a population of more than ten thousand. [71 The emergency of 1920 was characterized by definite symptoms to which the Legislature gave cognizance in framing the emergency rent laws. The Legislature then declared (Chapter 136, Laws 1920): "unjust, unreasonable and oppressive agreements for the payment of rent having been and being now exacted by landlords from tenants under stress of prevailing conditions whereby the freedom of contract has been impaired and congested housing conditions resulting therefrom having seriously affected and endangered public welfare, health and morals in certain cities of the State, and a public emergency existing in the judgment of the Legislature by reason thereof..." The questions of fact with regard to the continued existence of a housing emergency are primarily - 1. Are unjust, unreasonable and oppressive agreements now exacted by landlords from tenants under stress of prevailing conditions? 2. Is freedom of contract between landlord and tenant now restored? 3. Has the housing congestion prevalent in 1920 been relieved sufficiently so that it no longer menaces public welfare, health and morals? As a result of the investigation hereinafter described in this report, the Commission has come to the conclusion that there is every sign of the continued existence of a housing emergency in all cities affected by the emergency rent legislation excepting the city of Rochester. In New York city the housing emergency still exists. In spite of the large number of dwellings constructed during the past two years, tenants are in no better position to-day than they were in 1920 to bargain with landlords. Rents have risen continuously, and congestion has increased. Families are being forced into poorer and smaller quarters. They are obliged to double up, two families living in rooms which under normal conditions would be occupied by one family; they are increasingly forced to take in lodgers. The dilapidated, unsanitary old houses which were considered uninhabitable in 1920 are now fully occupied and overcrowded. The conditions of upkeep and repair have grown steadily worse. If the emergency rent laws were needed in 1920 they are even more necessary at the present time. It has been asserted by the Real Estate Board of New York city* that there is now sufficient evidence to indicate that the emergency no longer exists in New York city "with respect to the higher rental dwellings" and that "the dividing line is at or below $20 per room per month" and that there is justification for making the dividing line in the application of the rent laws at $20 per room per month. The Real Estate Board of New York city submits the recommenda* Brief prepared by the Real Estate Board, City of New York, submitted December 8, 1923. tion that dwellings be classified by the Legislature, eliminating from the application of the rent laws those dwellings as to which there is no emergency and expresses the opinion that amendment of the present laws in this respect would be constitutional and lawful. The constitutional question raised by this proposal is one of considerable importance, but the Commission does not deem it necessary to express an opinion on it at this time. The Commission does not find that the emergency has passed for apartments other than those renting "at or below $20 per room per month." In fact under present housing conditions we find no dividing line above which apartments or dwellings may be freed from the application of the rent emergency laws with safety to tenants. We find that the total surplus of vacancies is so small at present as to necessitate the extension of the emergency rent legislation without discrimination as to rentals. In cities of the State, other than New York, affected by the rent laws, the Commission notes some improvement in conditions. However, in none of these cities, excepting Rochester, can conditions be said to be "normal." We therefore recommend the extension of the now existing emergency laws in all the cities in which they apply, excepting Rochester. The present emergency rent laws are effective until February 15th. The Commission was instructed to report not later than January 31st in regard to the housing emergency and the rent laws. So great is the fear of tenants, particularly in New York city, of the disastrous effect of discontinuance of these laws, that the Commission feels that no time should be lost in allaying the tenants' anxiety. The Commission therefore recommends that the emergency rent laws be immediately re-enacted for a term of two years. It is so important that the laws be re-enacted at once that consideration of amendments should be postponed. The amendments that have been suggested to the Commission do not affect the principle of the laws. They can be considered after the laws themselves have been extended. While it is perfectly apparent that the rent laws must be continued for the protection of tenants, particularly tenants in the lower income groups, it is equally apparent that the rent laws will not serve to bring the housing emergency to an end. This report clearly shows that family incomes in this State have become steadily more disproportionate to rents and cost of houses. Even the large amount of construction which has taken place during the last ten years has affected only the well-to-do and will not for a long time help that three-quarters of the population of the State with family incomes of less than $2,500 a year. This report proves the extent to which public health and welfare are dependent on proper housing. It is apparent that meant must be found not only to meet the present emergency but also to stimulate a continuous supply of adequate and decent homes for all classes. In the Commission's preliminary investigation several fundamental difficulties in the solution of the housing problem have developed. 10 One of these is the absence of sufficient capital at a low rate of interest for housing purposes. If enough private capital cannot be made available for these purposes, the deficiency will have to be met by resorting to the use of public credits. The State should be placed in the position to extend its credit for housing through the State Land Bank and other agencies, under wise regulation. To make this possible a constitutional amendment is necessary. It requires at least two years to secure a constitutional amendment and for this reason the Commission recommends that steps be taken to that end at the present session of the Legislature. At the same time cities should be freed from restrictions which might prevent them from undertaking their own solution of the housing problem by means of the use of municipal credits and undertakings devised by themselves. This will of necessity bring into being local housing and city planning boards or commissions which should cooperate with the State Commission of Housing and Regional Planning. Other steps in a comprehensive program for meeting housing difficulties, including recommendation as to the amendment or extension of the tax exemption laws, will be the special subject of study and investigation and early report of the Commission. The Commission's investigation thus far seems to indicate quite clearly that the larger the city, the more serious is its housing problem, and the more difficult it is to find means of producing adequate housing for the great mass of the population. Higher rent values, higher taxes, higher costs of transportation and all other incidental expenses make it more and more impossible to provide housing at rentals proportioned to income. The Commission has become more and more impressed with the important part that the proper location of industry and population plays in creating and must play in overcoming the housing problem. On this and other regional planning matters the Commission will report from time to time as conclusions are reached. 11 PART ONE PRESENT STATUS OF HOUSING EMERGENCY IN NEW YORK CITY Public hearings were held in the City Hall, New York city, through five days beginning October 15th, with Chairman Clarence S. Stein presiding. The hearings were conducted by Commissioner Bernard L. Shientag, who acted as counsel for the Commission. One hundred and forty-five witnesses were heard, including public officials, representatives of civic and social agencies, builders, real estate operators, representatives of financial institutions, and citizens of many different occupations and professions. A measure of the immediate public concern in the future policy of the State with regard to the extension of the rent laws was indicated by the attendance. Several thousand persons crowded into the council chamber of the City Hall during the five days and many citizens who were at times unable to obtain admittance remained for hours in the crowded corridors of the building. In the metropolitan district many thousands of tenants in all parts of the city have banded together in tenants' associations for mutual protection. Immediately prior to the hearings several of these organizations conducted surveys in their respective districts with regard to rent increases, vacancies, attempted evictions and general conditions of tenure. The results of each canvass were presented to the Commission in the testimony of tenants who had participated in these surveys. There was also presented to the Commission in the hearings a report entitled "Some Economic Aspects of the Recent Emergency Housing Legislation in New York City" which was prepared by investigators under the direction of Dr. Samuel McCune Lindsay, Professor of Social Legislation in Columbia University, at the request of the Law Committee of the Real Estate Board of New York. Subsequently, briefs were submitted to the Commission by the Real Estate Board of New York and by the United Real Estate Owners' Association. In the investigation use was made of all available recorded data with reference to housing conditions. This included the records of the Tenement House Department, Building Departments in the several boroughs, Department of Health, Department of Taxes and Assessments, Municipal Courts, Mayor's Committee on Rent Profiteering, and those of many of the tenants' associations. In October the Commission made a thorough survey of apartments in eight representative blocks in Manhattan, Brooklyn and the Bronx. These blocks had been investigated in 1920 by the Housing Committee of Governor Smith's Reconstruction Commission. In making this survey, the Commission was rendered valuable assistance by representatives of various settlements and civic organizations. 12 A supplementary investigation increased the scope of the block survey. The two investigations show present housing conditions of 8,500 families with incomes ranging from under $1,000 to over $5,000 a year. These families are representative of the largest proportion of the population of the Greater City and include families of employees of one of the largest life insurance companies, one of the largest national banks in New York city, of workers in the needle trades, all the families included in the Block Survey, in an additional representative block in the Bronx and five hundred additional families of the city from widely selected districts. In addition a more intensive study was made of some two hundred families in the lower east side. The Commission also conducted a survey of rents and vacancies in apartment buildings constructed since September 27th, 1920, in the five boroughs of New York city. I RENTAL INCREASES The Commission finds that the trend of rents in New York city is still upward, indicating continued shortage of supply in relation to demand. According to the cost-of-living index number of the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the cost of housing in New York city in June, 1920, was 32 per cent. above the cost in 1914; in June, 1923, the percentage increase had become 59, and there was a further rise to 61 in September, 1923. During the same period there was a decrease in the average weekly earnings of factory employees in New York city, as reported by the New York State Industrial Commission, being $28.73 in June, 1920; $28.42 in June, 1923, and $28.00 in September, 1923. J The Monthly Review for November, 1923, of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York contains the following statement: "Inquiry among apartment house renting agencies in this city as to rents following October 1 indicated a continued shortage of medium and low priced apartments, and no reduction in rents, which generally average 9 per cent. higher than a year ago. In the case of higher priced apartments renting for $30 a room and over, there was reported to be some surplus, due to active construction of apartments of this type and of private houses in recent years. This situation has resulted in few reductions in rents which are generally maintained at close to the levels of a year ago." In the Rental and Income Survey of the Commission statements concerning rents in 1921, 1922 and 1923, were secured from about 8,500 families living in various parts of New York city. These statements give evidence of a continued upward trend in rentals, with 18 many recent demands of increase and no report of a rental decrease. The average monthly rent per family reporting was as follows: 1921............................... $26 82 1922.............................. 28 72 1923.............................. 30 70 Special analysis with reference to increases during the past year showed marked increases at all rental levels, but especially at rentals between $35 and $45 a month. Surveys of eight of the same blocks investigated in 1920 by the Housing Committee of the State Reconstruction Commission showed average rents per block, 40 to 93 per cent. above those found in 1920. (Table I.) TABLE I Increase in Average Monthly Rent Between 1920 and 1923 in Certain Blocks in New York City As Shown in the Surveys of the Housing Committee of the Reconstruction Commission and the Commission of Housing and Regional Planning Average Monthly Rent Increase 1920 1923 Per cent MANHATTAN Block 1, bounded by Cherry-Pike Monroe-Rutgers sts...................... $13 63 $19 06 40 Block 2, bounded by 28th-29th sts. 9th-10th aves............................ 15 70 22 81 45 Block 3, bounded by 48th-49th sts. 9th-10th aves.......................... 17 12 24 24 42 Block 4, bounded by 66th-67th sts. 2d-3d aves............................. 19 35 28 63 47 Block 5, bounded by 61st-62d sts. lst-2d aves.............................. 12 66 18 93 50 Block 6, bounded by 103d-104th sts. 2d-3d aves............................. 15 09 21 41 42 Block 7, bounded by 133d-134th sts. Lenox-5th aves.......................... 21 97 37 70 72 BROOKLYN Block 8, bounded by Liberty-Glenmore aves. Thatford-Osborne sts.................... 15 15 29 39 93 14 Testimony at the public hearings of the Commission was unanimous with reference to the continuing tendency of rents to increase. As the basis for testimony, certain tenants' associations conducted neighborhood investigations with regard to rental increases, and placed in evidence at the hearings the tabulated results of each canvass. The officers of a number of the associations also gave testimony based on their personal experiences in assisting members to meet unjust or unreasonable demands for rent increases. Charles Marks, attorney for the Audubon Community Council, the Washington Heights Tenants' Association, the West Harlem Tenants' Association, and the Manhattanville Community Council, and also one of the attorneys for the Federation of Tenants' Associations of Greater New York, presented a list of about 700 cases now awaiting trial in the Seventh District Municipal Court in Manhattan, all of them recently commenced against tenants living patricularly in the Washington Heights section. He gave a specific instance of a case against twenty tenants in which a demand had been made of a rental increase from $36 to $55. In this case he stated: "No repairs of any kind or nature have been made, of any perceptible kind, excepting absolutely necessary sanitary repairs." In another house the present rental of $35 to $40 is being raised to $52.50 and $57, no repairs of any kind having been made within the last few years. In another case the rent has just been increased from $184 to $210, following increases in 1919 and 1920. Daniel J. Traynor, President of the Mount Morris Community Council and Civic Organization, testified as follows: "Without the Emergency Rent Laws people would not be able to get these flats for $15, or $16, or $17, but would have to pay $20, and $30, and $40, and as a consequence they would be on the street". He estimates the average salary in his district as $25 per week. In 350 cases of reported demands for increased rent he states that not a single increase was for less than $10 a month and he gives specific instances of jumps from $12 to $40, $12 to $50, and $18 to $45. In a tabulation of 88 cases reporting rent increases, which he presented to the Commission, the increase since 1920 was 67 per cent., average rent being $26.91 in 1920 and $44.83 at the present time. Stanley E. Cromwell, Recorder of Counsel in the Tremont Tenants' Civic League, testified concerning the frequent rental increases in his section and also as follows with reference to his own experience. His present rental is $38 a month for four rooms, with steam heat and electricity. "Q. When was the last raise? A. The last raise was in 1920. In October the landlord demanded $7 increase on four rooms and $14 on the six rooms We refuse to pay it and we were informed at that time that no action would be taken but on February 15, 1924, there would be certain tenants dispossessed and the rp~ns increased from $20 to $30. 15 Q. How many rooms? A. Four rooms. My landlord has already informed me personally that he wants $65 to $70. If the rent laws go off the statute books he will get it." Lillie Grant, Acting Chairman of the Mayor's Committee on Rent Profiteering, testified that 10,000 cases have been brought to the committee within the past year, and within the past eight months the committee has drawn up over 8,000 legal documents. At the present time legal documents are being drawn up for over 250 tenants a day. A great number of individual tenants also appeared before the Commission to testify with regard to rent increases which they had been compelled to pay, or which they had evaded successfully through court action. Representatives of the Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor, the Charity Organization Society, the United Hebrew Charities and the Brooklyn Bureau of Charities testified concerning the continued tendency towards rent increases reported by the families under their care. The average rent for these families has more than doubled since 1914 and there is no indication of tendency toward rent decrease. The especially high rents being charged colored tenants was indicated in the testimony of Frederick Q. Morton, Municipal Civil Service Commissioner, who said: "There are in Harlem about 200,000 people. They reside in an area bounded on the south by 127th Street, on the north by 145th Street and on the east by the Harlem River, on the west by St. Nicholas Avenue - about a square mile in area, I should say. The average rentals are from $12 to $14 per room and in many instances run as high as $18 to $20 a room. It is quite apparent, therefore, that the average respectable Harlem family is unable to pay rent without taking lodgers, for the average monthly income of the ordinary family in that neighborhood is about $125 to $150, I should say. The crying need, therefore, of my community is small apartments, apartments of two or three rooms where a respectable family with an income of $125 a month can get rental for $25, $30, or $35 monthly. In many cases, colored tenants pay double, or nearly double the rents paid by the last white tenants of property vacated by white tenants." The effect of the high rentals which can be secured from colored families has had direct influence on the rents being charged to white families in adjacent neighborhoods, as illustrated by the following testimony of Joseph S. Flynn, a member of the West Harlem Tenants' Association: 16 "When a landlord doesn't succeed in getting higher rent, the first thing he does is put in a colored agent. After he puts a colored agent in, the tenants become panicky and frightened, and think the house is going to be sold to a colored man, and then, if the landlord doesn't succeed in getting increase in rent, very possibly the house will be sold to a colored man. They eventually get more money." Price fluctuations are a sensitive index of the relationship between supply and demand. If demand exceeds supply, prices rise; if supply exceeds demand, prices fall. Even with the control of the rent laws, rents have shown a strong tendency to increase whenever possible, according to all evidence secured by the Commission, indicating that as yet the relationship between supply and demand for housing accommodations in New York city has not caused rental decreases, nor even a condition of stabilization. II VACANCIES There can be no freedom of contract between tenant and landlord when the tenant has neither recourse nor alternative but must yield to conditions imposed by the landlord. The normal recourse of the tenant confronted by oppressive conditions or increased rent has been to move to another apartment in which he could find similar accommodations at approximately the level of rent which he has been accustomed to pay. The Necessary Margin A reasonable margin of vacancies must exist at all times to insure the bargaining power of the tenant. This is axiomatic. In testifying before the Commission, Dr. Samuel McCune Lindsay, whose investigation of the economic aspects of the housing problem in New York city prepared for the New York Real Estate Board has already been referred to, stated the principle by analogy as follows: "To maintain an economic equilibrium in wages it seems to be necessary in most classes of labor to have a surplus, which leads to a certain percentage of unemployment in order to maintain a normal level. Q. But if just as many laborers are available as are required wages are abnormally high? A. Wages are abnormally high. Q. And so it is you say with respect to the relations between landlord and tenant; there must be some slight surplus? A. Yes, in order to make the bargaining power, to even the scales in bargaining power." Later and with further reference to the necessity of a reasonable margin of vacancies to preserve the bargaining power of the tenant, Dr. Lindsay was asked the following question: "The test of an emer - 17 gency is really this freedom of choice on the part of the tenant, is it not?" A. "Yes, sir." And later on, in response to the following question - "The amount of vacancies, of course, is a very determining factor when you consider the question as to whether or not there is an emergency of any kind?" A. "Yes, sir." How small this margin may be without impairment of freedom of contract cannot be exactly determined. It has been variously estimated under normal conditions in the past as ranging from 5 per cent, upward. William J. Moore, President of the American Bond and Mortgage Company, in a survey of construction requirements in New York city, made during the current year, assumed a minimum vacancy requirement of five per cent. In the past in New York city a somewhat larger margin of vacancies has prevailed. The Tenement House Department in New York city has conducted annually since 1909 a survey of vacant apartments in the five boroughs. A summary of the annual reports of the Tenement House Department will be found in Table II. This annual survey, conducted in February or March, excepting 1920, when the survey was conducted in April, shows that in 1909 the percentage of vacant apartments in both new and old law buildings in Manhattan was 7.65; in the Bronx, the margin of vacancies was 10.8; in Brooklyn, 8.14; in Queens, 9.12; in Richmond, 8.3. The percentage of vacant apartments in New York city was 8.08 in 1909. In 1916, the percentage of vacancies in New York city was 5.60. Vacancies in 1916, immediately prior to our entry into the war, may be assumed to show the marginal vacancy requirements under normal conditions. Each year from 1916 to February, 1921, there has been a marked decline in the number of vacancies in the city. By 1917, the percentage had fallen to 3.66. In March, 1919, it was found to be 2.18. In the following year, when the Legislature declared the existence of an emergency and enacted the rent laws for the protection of the tenant, the margin of vacancies had dropped to.36 of 1 per cent. In February, 1921, it had dropped still further to.15 of 1 per cent. In March of the present year the survey of the Tenement House Department showed that in all apartments in both new law and old law buildings the percentage of vacancies was.37 of 1 per cent. A more recent survey conducted by the Department of Health under the direction of Commissioner Frank J. Monaghan was completed on December 4, 1923. In the Borough of Manhattan the survey covered the three sections bounded as follows: Section A - Cherry street, Pearl street, Park row, Mulberry street, Canal street, Lafayette street, Third avenue to Harlem river to East river to Cherry street. Section B - 125th street to 155th street and Harlem river, Fifth avenue to St. Nicholas avenue. 18 TABLE II Vacant Apartments in Tenements in New York City, 1909-1923 As Shown by Statistics of the Tenement House Department of the City of New York VACANT APARTMENTS PER CENT VACANT DATE New law Old law Total New law Old law Total February, 1909.... March, 1916....... March, 1917.... March, 1919..... April, 1920......... February, 1921..... March, 1923..... February, 1909.. March, 1916....... March, 1917....... March, 1919....... April, 1920......... February, 1921..... March, 1923...... February, 1909.... March, 1916... March, 1917..... March, 1919.... April, 1920......... February, 1921..... March, 1923...... February, 1909..... March, 1916....... March, 1917...... March, 1919....... April, 1920......... February, 1921..... March, 1923....... February, 1909..... March, 1916...... March, 1917..... March, 1919....... April, 1920......... February, 1921..... March, 1923..... February, 1909..... March, 1916....... March, 1917...... March, 1919....... April, 1920......... February, 1921..... March, 1923....... 7,271 4,856 2,816 1,555 231 286 693 MANHATTAN 31,454 38,725 29,120 33,976 22,123 24,939 16,552 18,107 2,883 3,114 675 961 972 1,665 7.46 3.40 1.89 1.01.15.18.43 7.69 7.42 5.67 4.26.75.18.26 7.65 6.35 4.62 3.34.58.18.31 ~I--------~---. I I -I - I 3,127 3,973 1,169 162 107 188 905 BRONX 4,071 7,198 2,060 6,033 1,135 2,304 282 444 34 141 29 217 46 951 11.6 4.19 1.13.15.10.17.74 10.2 6.26 3.45.86.10.09.14 10.8 4.73 1.69.32.10.15.61 I ------I ---~---- --I ----------- I -------- --- I 5,419 5,031 2,534 637 100 118 707 BROOKLYN 14,675 20,094 7,293 12,324 5,238 7,772 2,185 2,822 177 277 199 317 330 1,037 8.63 5.01 2.33.56.09.10.56 8.0 4.41 3.30 1.38.11.13.21 - - -I I ---) I = 739 505 151 18 0 2 13 ---I,-.--IQUEENS 919 1,658 558 1,063 354 505 63 81 0 0 0 2 1 14 I __ 8.14 4.64 2.91 1.04.10.12.37 9.12 4.01 1.78.27.00.01.04 9.90 2.73.73.08.00.01.05 8.6 6.85 4.65.83.00.00.00 = -~-.=----I~--- - - ~ - 1 10 1 0 0 1 14 RICHMOND 171 172 135 145 114 115 28 28 9 9 12 13 17 31 3.6 6.45.62.00.00.62 6.57 8.4 9.01 7.69 1.93.62.85 1.24 8.3 8.77 7.00 1.74.57.82 1.95 - __1____ -1_____-1_____1 - - I, SUMMARY - NEW YORK 16,557 51,290 67 847 14,375 39,166 53,541 6,691 28,964 35,655 2,372 19,110 21,482 438 3,103 3,541 595 915 1,510 2,332 1,366 3,698 CITY 8.5 4.03 1.75.60.11.15.54 7.95 6.52 4.90 3.25.53.16.24 8.08 5.60 3.66 2.18.36.15.37 =: -,r- -- r -- 19 Section C - Fourteenth street to Fifty-ninth street west of Eighth avenue. In the Borough of Brooklyn, the two selected sections were: Section No. 1 - East New York Section - bounded by East New York avenue, Grafton street, Liberty avenue, Bradford street, Dumont avenue, Van Sinderen avenue, New Lots avenue, Hunterfly road to Grafton street. Section No. 2 - Williamsburg Section - bounded by Broadway from East river to Flushing avenue, to Bushwick avenue, to Humboldt street, to Greenpoint avenue, to Oakland street, to Dupont street, to East river. In the Bronx Borough the survey was conducted in the area bounded by the Harlem river, Jerome avenue, Fordham road, the N. Y., N. H. & H. R. R. tracks to the Harlem river. This survey of vacancies shows: Vacant Total Per cent. Apartments Apartments Vacancies Manhattan............. 730 239,742.30 Bronx................. 483 96,641.49 Brooklyn.............. 356 62,883.56 City........ 1,569 399,266.39 The Department of Health reports the actual number of apartments as originally constructed in the houses surveyed. However, in submitting these figures Health Commissioner Monaghan calls attention to the fact that the houses investigated have been so altered in most instances as to include a considerably larger number of apartments. Were the latter to be taken into consideration the Department of Health estimates that the apartments in the sections surveyed would number about 431,717, making the proportion of vacancies.36 of 1 per cent. Consequently, if allowance is made for the alterations discovered, according to the Department of Health survey just concluded, we find that there is now a smaller percentage of vacancies by one-tenth of one per cent. than in 1920. The Tenement House Department survey shows an increase in vacant apartments in New York city of only one-tenth of one per cent. in three years. If we accept the report of the Department of Health without making any allowance for conversions we find that there has been an increase in vacancies in the past three and a half years of one-fifth of one per cent. Whether the increase be one-tenth of one per cent. or one-fifth of one per cent., the improvement in the past three years is negligible and points to no restoration of freedom of contract on the part of 20 the tenant. Were there no further evidence of lack of vacancies to which tenants may turn to avoid oppressive' exactions of landlords the evidence submitted by the Tenement House and Health Departments of the city of New York is sufficient to demonstrate that as regards vacancies there has been no return to normal conditions. Pressure Downward An examination of Table II gives evidence of a consistent downward pressure of the population into apartments at the lower rent levels in confirmation of which an abundance of testimony was presented at the hearings. This downward pressure resulting primarily from the increasing rents demanded by landlords, was described by Municipal Court Justice Jacob S. Panken as follows: "When these rent laws were first enacted a great many people paid increases in rent and paid tremendous increases in rent. But they paid it with the view of it being merely a temporary condition as far as they were concerned. When they had time to look around, they began to look for cheaper apartments, and the result was that they began to drift from the better class of apartments into the more moderate class apartments, from the higher priced apartment into the moderate priced apartment. Then you found this situation: "The man who paid $1,500 a year looked for an apartment which he could get for a thousand dollars. He came into another neighborhood and he became a bidder for the apartment which only rented for $700 or $800, and he got it for $1,000. The man who was paying $1,000 looked for an apartment which he could get for four or five hundred dollars and he went into an even cheaper neighborhood and he bid for the apartment that rented for $350 and thus increased the rent up to $500. So, the situation has become much aggravated, within my own knowledge." This downward pressure is intensified progressively in the direction of the lower rent levels. Families, unable to meet the demand for increased rents, have found their only recourse in economy of space. Wherever possible they have moved into a smaller apartment. For this smaller apartment they are now compelled to pay approximately the same rent which they had heretofore paid for the larger apartment. This downward pressure has fixed the highest demand for apartments at the lower rentals and has resulted in restoring to use old law tenements which had been abandoned years ago as unfit for human habitation. The report of the Tenement House Department, confirmed by the unanimous testimony of civic, social workers and tenants in the more congested districts of the city, gives indisputable proof that all habitable space available at the lower rent levels is now occupied. This conclusion is verified by the testimony of Tenement House Commissioner Frank Mann, va follows: 21 "Q. Now take Manhattan: 972 vacancies in the old law tenements as of March, 1923, compared with 2,883 vacancies in the old law tenements as of April, 1920; is that right? A. April, 1920, yes; 2,883. Q. Showing a much more serious condition, so far as vacancies for moderate priced apartments in Manhattan is concerned, in March, 1923, than in April, 1920? A. Undoubtedly; so far as lower rental apartments are concerned, there are practically none to be had. They are practically all occupied. Q. Take these vacancies in the old law tenements. What is the condition of those apartments as to proper sanitation and ventilation? A. They are legal under the Tenement House Law. Q. These vacancies, in old law tenements, as a matter of fact, are the least desirable, are they not? A. Of course, they are the least desirable. I am under the impression, and I maintained years ago that if normal conditions had continued to prevail, the time would come when nobody would live in the old law tenements. Q. There was a tendency towards increased vacancies in those old houses, was there not, until the shortage? A. There surely was, until the shortage came. Q. Then, as a result of the shortage, people began to live in the worst of the old tenements during this period that you have indicated? A. Yes. Q. That has practically continued, has it not? A. Yes. Q. People are still living in the worst type of houses? A. Yes. Q. Which would have been vacant if it had not been for the stoppage of construction? A. Yes. I do not say they would have been vacated because of any operation of law. They would have been automatically vacated by becoming obsolete. Q. You say they must of necessity live in those houses? A. They must of necessity live in these houses because of the inability to get cheaper apartments or lower rental apartments. " Vacancies and Rents Such vacancies as are now discovered in New York city are primarily in high rental apartments constructed prior to 1920. There has been no increase in existing vacancies at rentals lower than $15.00 per room per month. The investigation conducted by the Commission with Tegard to vacancies in newly constructed apartments shows that most of the newly constructed buildings are rented directly by the owner from plans or during construction and are fully leased before the buildings are completed. 22 Harry Allen Ely, President of the Federation of Tenants' Organizations of New York city, of the Audobon Community Council and Washington Heights Tenants' Association, testified that in the Washington Heights district he found no available apartment for $35 and $40 for four rooms. "In my organization I have 5,000 members that would move to-morrow if they could get an apartment at $35 or $40. Q. Of course, you know there are apartments on the Concourse that rent for $80 or $100 for four rooms. A. I have a record where they are paying $62.50 a room, and they cannot get out because they cannot find a place where they can go. Q. Where do you find vacancies, in what class of apartments? A. In the high-class apartments. Q. What do you find? A. Renting from $25, $35, to $40, $50 and $100 a room, that is where the vacancies are." Rev. Joseph Silipigni of the Church of the Lady of Loretta, when testifying with regard to conditions in his parish on the lower East Side, described the difficulties of finding a vacant apartment in his section of the city. "Q. There are no vacancies at all? A. Just a few vacancies but day by day they occupy them. Q. When there is a vacancy is there more rent asked or less rent asked for the apartment? A. More rent, of course, and they try sometimes to get out people and have new people and raise the rent." Joseph S. Flynn, member of the West Harlem Tenants' Association, testifying with regard to conditions in his neighborhood, said that in the district between 111th and 128th streets, an intensive survey which had been conducted by his association, disclosed but twentyseven vacancies. Daniel J. Traynor, President of the Mt. Morris Community Council and Civic Organization, testified concerning the results of a survey covering 110th to 125th street, east of Fifth avenue, which showed that no vacancies were to be found in any new apartments at rentals less than $20 to $30 per month per room. Martin Buckner of the Bronx Council of Tenants' Leagues and South Bronx Tenants' and Civic League, describing the results of an investigation of the district bounded by the Harlem river on the south, 149th street on the north, the East river on the east and the Harlem river on the west, testified that there had been no buildings built in that district for the past ten or twelve years, and that there are practically no vacancies. Martin J. McCarthy of the Melrose Tenants' and Civic League, an organization of 10,000 members, following an investigation made 23 by his association of the district from 149th street to 167th street, between the East river and the Harlem river, was asked: "Now, Mr. McCarthy, have there been very many new buildings erected in your neighborhood in the last five years? A. Practically none. Q. Did you find any vacant apartments in the survey as made by yourself in that neighborhood? A. In going over 1,700 questionnaires there wasn't one that said there was a vacant apartment." Sadie Byrnes of the Melrose Tenants' Organization, reporting on an investigation conducted by that organization, asserted in response to the question: "'Did you find any vacancies in your neighborhood?" 'No, sir, there is not a vacancy, in fact, they told me in my house that there is a waiting list for apartments and those that have been vacated in the last two years have been occupied with two families. Every apartment that I know of that has been vacated in my house, two families moved into it, because the rents have been increased so that it takes two families to pay the rent." Similar testimony was presented by social workers with regard to the particular neighborhoods with which they are familiar in each part of the city. Annie S. Bromley of the Hudson Guild was asked if there were any vacancies in her district, of lower-priced apartments. She replied: "There is one vacancy now in Twenty-ninth street in the block that we are surveying, and we find from the janitor that there are ten applicants, and five of those have been applicants for two years." Isidore Berger, President, Greater New York Taxpayers' Association, an organization of real estate owners and operators, submitted at the public hearings a list of more than 200 vacancies which, he stated, were available in all parts of the city at rents less than $10 per room per month. The majority of the vacancies listed were on the east side of Manhattan and Yorkville and Harlem. Members of the staff of the Commission on the day following the hearing began an investigation of the vacancies listed. This investigation was continued for a week and although not all of the apartments listed were visited, enough of them were actually inspected to establish by description the character of these tenements. It was discovered that most of the tenements visited had been vacant for a long period and were either abandoned as unfit for use or held for higher rental than prevailed in the neighborhood for similar apartments. There was also submitted at the public hearings the Apartment House Guide, published by the New York Tribune October 3, 1923. 24 This apartment house guide contained a list of 2,282 buildings where there were apartments available. Testifying with regard to the vacancies listed in the Guide, Miss Elizabeth Brownell Collier, a teacher of English at Hunter College, asserted that an investigation which she had made of the apartments listed disclosed only forty-five apartments out of the entire list of 2,282 that were available at rents of $12 a room per month or less. Vacancies in Typical Blocks Surveyed Further evidence of the lack of vacancies was found in the block survey. In 1920, 125 vacancies were discovered in the blocks which have recently been investigated by the Commission. The present survey showed only twenty-five vacancies. From all the blocks investigated the same report was received. "Our great problem is lack of vacancies; there is practically no choice of rooms anywhere in this neighborhood." In the past three years there has been very little moving. In tabulating the length of tenancy reported from these blocks, greater evidence of stability was found in 1923 than in 1920. Families have remained in the same place because there are no other apartments at rentals which they can afford. Existing vacancies are even less desirable than the quarters occupied. Block No. 1 in 1920 reported seventy vacancies in old uninhabitable flats. Of these only thirteen were found vacant in October, 1923, at the time of the investigation. Fifty-seven of the flats which were heretofore considered unfit for human habitation are now occupied. In a subsequent chapter reference will be made to the statement of Judge Edward T. Boyle, bearing upon the social significance of the prevalent dearth of vacancies in apartments in New York city with particular reference to juvenile delinquency and its treatment in the Children's Court. III CONDITIONS OF TENURE Throughout the public hearings there was presented to the Commission in the testimony submitted by tenants and by others who are familiar with the conditions of tenure in New York city apartments, cumulative evidence of inadequate service in apartment buildings, continued lack of necessary repairs and of injustices arising out of such current practices as exaction of "security". In the testimony presented, attention was repeatedly called to cases in which no repairs had been made in from five to seven years. That there has been extensive depreciation in the moderate and low-rental apartments in the city of New York through failure to make necessary repairs is further shown by the testimony of Tenement House Commissioner Mann, who reported to the Commission that complaints received by his department have more than trebled. "Prior to 1919," he said, "the average number of complaints received was 32,000 to 35,000 per annum; they now approximate a total of 100.000 in the city." 25 Agnes M. Craig, attorney for the Bronx Council of Tenants' Leagues and various tenants' associations of the Bronx, who testified that she had appeared in about eight thousand rent cases, said: "I would like a law put on the statute books to compel landlords to make necessary repairs within certain intervals, because repairs throughout the city of New York have been entirely neglected. The condition of some of the apartments is really appalling." Failure of the landlord to make necessary repairs often includes failure to give service required by the lease and by the law. Municipal Court Justice Spiegelberg, testifying in regard to instances which had come to his attention, reported that he customarily took this factor into consideration in every case in the determination of a fair rental. He said: "I wrote an opinion a little while ago where the landlord only showed, I think, upon my calculation, two and a half per cent. return; and I said he was not entitled to more. Q. Because of the character of the service? A. Yes, because I held that the character of the service was poor. Take a $2,500. apartment, for example. If I am the landlord and I allow the roof to leak and don't give you the proper heat, don't give you proper light, stop the elevators from running, the $2,500 apartment is not worth a dollar." Jabez E. Dunningham, Executive Secretary of the Community Councils of the City of New York, testified with regard to many cases of lack of essential repairs. Mrs. Laura von Bayer, 617 West 143d street, where she has resided for the past six years, testified that she had no repairs made in that time excepting for what she had paid herself. "Q. No repairing in the inside of the apartment for six years? A. My ceilings are ready to drop and I have cracks in my apartment from the baseboard to the ceiling as wide as that (indicating). Q. Have you called it to the attention of the landlord? A. I have, and I have notified him in writing. My lease calls for it all to be done." Mrs. von Bayer occupies an apartment of seven rooms, for which she pays $105 a month. Mrs. Helen Hanning, Chairman of the Manhattanville Community Council, cited many instances of refusal of landloards to make necessary repairs. Of the buildings at 364 West 127th street, she said: "They have never made any repairs in seven years in the house and it is in fearful condition. Then I have a case in 109th street. Mrs. Moore, who had lived there seven*years, 26 had been raised from $28 to $38. When it was called to my attention, three ceilings had broken down. There were twelve layers of paper on the wall." Security Agnes M. Craig also testified with regard to the injustice done to tenants in the common practice of landlords in demanding security. This practice is a direct outgrowth of housing shortage of the past five years. The amount demanded represents from one to three months' rent and in some cases even more. She stated: "Tenants pay security to one landlord and the house is turned rapidly over to a dozen and one landlords, and as the first landlord mboves away, the tenant has no redress under the law but to go to the first landlord for the security. If they cannot find the original landlord, then they cannot find their security." Evidence was submitted to the Commission concerning cases in which the landlords have obtained in this manner large sums on which no interest is paid the tenant, and which have been frequently lost to the tenant through disappearance of the landlord, following the sale of the property. Testifying with regard to this practice, President Justice of the Municipal Court Aaron J. Levy said: "It is the common practice now in tenement property for a landlord to ask security, one month, two months, three months' security. And in the certificate or receipt - I have seen many of them--the security does not become security; it becomes a penalty which, of course, the landlord could not enforce under the law. But yet, persons who do not know the law, poor, unfortunate tenants, reading the receipt and feeling that the condition which was fixed by the landlord works forfeiture of their money, very often go off without invoking the court and lose the security." Evictions The facts here recited indicate clearly enough the extent to which landlords have been able to impose oppressive terms upon the tenant and to deprive the tenant of those facilities which are necessary to the preservation of comfort and health. Another and even more important cause of distress is the uncertainty of tenure and the constant fear of the tenant that he will be dispossessed. Tenants in New York city have good reason to know that their only protection from eviction lies in the emergency rent laws. In 1920, when the emergency was declared, thousands of tenants in this city crowded the municipal courts in response to rent actions and summary proceedings to dispossess. The records of the municipal courts in the three intervening 27 years show that landlords have not abated their efforts to increase rents and to dispossess tenants who, relying upon the protection the present laws afford them, refuse to meet their demands. There has been but slight diminution in the number of summary proceedings filed and tried in the municipal courts of the five boroughs in the years 1920, 1921 and 1922. Testifying with regard to the number of summary proceedings filed in the four years, President Justice of the Municipal Court Aaron J. Levy said: "In 1919 in the five boroughs constituting the City of New York we had instituted 96,623 landlord and tenant proceedings. In 1920, which I believe was the year in which the rent laws were passed, they went to 118,240, in spite of the rent laws, and in the succeeding year of 1921, after the rent laws were in effect for almost a year, they jumped to 125,656. So the gentlemen owning real estate in New York were not respectors of the rent laws. Yet, in 1922, after these gentlemen had had some experience and career in the Municipal Court, the number declined to 85,826, which I think is a tribute to my distinguished brother Judges of the Municipal Court." Although it is apparent that the rent laws have effected a relatively small reduction in the number of summary proceedings brought against tenants, it is equally obvious that this reduction is not sufficient to justify any expectation that landlords will not immediately avail themselves of their statutory rights to summarily dispossess thousands of tenants in the city if the rent laws are permitted to expire. Should the protection now afforded the tenants be withdrawn, the records of the municipal courts may be interpreted as a promise that thereupon thousands of families will immediately be served with dispossess notices and will again be confronted with a condition that existed in this city immediately prior to the enactment of the present laws. This was intimated by Stewart Browne, President of the United Real Estate Owners' Association, who said with regard to the extension of the rent laws and in response to the following question: "Tell us why you think they are necessary." "Because I think there is a very large proportion of housing landlords in the City of New York, and I don't care whether they are Jew or Gentile, or whether they are rich or poor, but they are all more or less out to make a large profit, potential profiteers, and I know if there were no rent laws they would unquestionably take advantage of the more or less shortage of space that exists." Leases Further evidence of a loss of bargaining power by the tenant is to be found in the tendency in new leases toward explicit release of the landlord from responsibility and obligations heretofore resting on him by force of custom or law, in the gradual reduction of service afforded by landlords and owners of rental property and their refusal to make necessary repairs. 28 An instance of terms of leasehold which landlords have recently attempted to exact from tenants in New York city is to be found in the lease form, Appendix D, submitted at the hearings. This lease form was prepared and printed by the United Real Estate Owners' Association of New York city, an organization composed of approximately 11,000 real estate owners, according to the testimony of the president, Stewart Browne. By the terms of this so-called Iron-Clad Lease, the tenant is required to make all repairs, renovations and decorations of every kind. The provisions of the 11th clause of the lease justify particular consideration with respect to abrogation of the tenants' rights under the emergency rent laws. By this clause, a court decision fixing the amount of rental to be charged for the apartment is to be disregarded providing the amount of rent fixed by the court is less than the amount reserved in the lease or the rent last paid if it exceeds that amount. Other burdensome requirements include new penalties in the form of threatened rental increase if the tenant accepts a lodger, or if the tenant remains as a holdover under the rent laws and the landlord obtains an offer of higher rent for the apartment. Security is required for the term of the lease. Such terms are obviously intended to subvert the purpose for which the rent laws were enacted and must be accepted as evidence of the disposition of the landlord to utilize the present emergency for the purpose of exacting the most oppressive and burdensome conditions of leasehold. IV EFFECT OF NEW CONSTRUCTION ON HOUSING EMERGENCY All evidence secured by the Commission is unanimous with reference to the large amount of new construction in New York city during the last two years. The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics presents in the Monthly Labor Review for October, 1923, the results of a study of building permits issued in the principal cities of the United States. For the first six months of 1923 New York city stands seventh in a list of 68 cities, with 110.9 families per 10,000 of population, provided for by such permits. For the first and second half of 1922 the ratio was 86.7 and 76.5, respectively. The average for the first half of 1923 for all cities was 72.1. The statistics of the New York Tenement House Department showed the following number of apartments in tenement houses completed between January 1 and November 30, 1923: Brooklyn................ 10,080 apartments Bronx................... 10,063 " Manhattan............... 5,103 i Queens............... 1,295 " Richmond................ 167 All boroughs......... 26,708 29 In 1922 there were only 24,924 apartments in tenement houses completed during the entire twelve months. In both years there was a large amount of construction of one- and two-family houses and a number of alterations of private houses to accommodate additional families. The Law Committee of the Real Estate Board in the city of New York presented at the hearings of the Commission in New York city the results of an especially detailed and careful investigation conducted under the direction of Dr. Samuel McCune Lindsay, Professor of Social Legislation at Columbia University. Figures from the official reports of the Tenement House Department and the Department of Taxes and Assessments were tabulated to show the net gain or loss in apartments in tenements and in one- and two-family houses between 1910 and 1920, and also between January 1st, 1920, and June 30th, 1923, with estimates bringing the figures up to October 1st, 1923. According to Table X (page 15) in the above report the total net increase since 1920 is as follows: Dwellings Tenements No. of suites One-family Manhattan....... 1,618 1,040 Bronx.......... 19,254 3,239 Brooklyn....... 12,496 10,034 Queens......... 3,056 21,028 Richmond....... 101 4,966 N. Y. city.... 36,525 38,227 Supplementary Data. N. Y. city, July 1 -Sept. 30, 1923.. 8,142 3,041 Two-family 69 1,773 7,924 6,028 619 16,413 1,492 Suites one an two-fami dwelling 9( 6,77 25,8S 33,08 6,2( 71,05 Total increase in suites in tenein ments and d in one- and ily two-family gs dwellings )2 716 85 26,039 82 38,378 84 36,140 34 6,305 53 107,578 6,025 14,167 Grand total, Jan. 1, 1920, to Sept. 30, 1923.........44,667 41,268 17,905 77,078 121,745 Similar results have been secured in an independent analysis of the same data by the Commission and also in certain special calculations made at the request of the Commission by the Committee on the Plan of New York and its Environs. Calculation of Shortage or Surplus in Housing Accommodations Two quite different methods of calculation have been used by various persons in attempts to determine statistically if the net gain in apartments in New York city during a certain period of time has created a condition of surplus or shortage in relation to need for housing accommodations. The first method assumes that the average rate of construction during several preceding years indicates the normal rate of increase in 30 construction as required by the normal rate of increase in population. The Housing Committee of the New York State Reconstruction Commission used this method in estimating housing shortage in New York city in 1919 and in 1920, and it was used also by the Joint Legislative Committee on Housing in 1921, the first committee making its calculations in relation to the normal rate of construction as shown by the average for the years 1914 to 1916, inclusive, and the second committee basing its estimate on the average construction for the longer period of 1910 to 1917, inclusive. A more recent use of this method is by Leonard P. Ayres, Vice-President of the Cleveland Trust Company,* who estimates the extent of building shortage at the beginning of 1922 in a number of cities, including New York city, as indicated by the trend in certain data from 1900 to the beginning of the war period. The second method of calculating mass shortage or surplus makes no comparison with rates of increase in number of apartments during a preceding period of time, but bases its entire conclusion on the assumption that an increase in number of apartments during a certain period of time should be in close agreement with the increase in population during the same period of time, divided into families of a specified size. That this relationship was ever true has not been established. While accurate data can be secured with reference to the number of apartments added each year to the housing accommodations of New York city, figures for population always include many persons not requiring housing accommnodations in apartments. Except during a census year, figures of population are an estimate rather than the result of an actual count, and another possibility of error exists in the case of an inaccurate estimate of the number of persons in a family group requiring a separate apartment. This second method of calculating housing shortage or surplus has been used by Dr. Samuel McCune Lindsay in a special report, "Economic Aspects of the So-called Emergency Housing Legislation of 1920 in New York State and the Alleged Housing Shortage in New York City", issued in 1921, and in his report to the Law Committee of the Real Estate Board, which was presented to the Commission at its hearings in New York city in October, 1923, and to which reference has already been made. In his earlier estimate Dr. Lindsay makes the assumption that the average family consists of four persons; in his later estimate and in his revision of his earlier estimate, he places dependence upon the size of the family in New York city as shown in the 1910 and 1920 census. The following is the definition of a family as used in the tabulations and reports of the Census Bureau: "The term 'family' as here used signifies a group of persons, whether related by blood or not, who live together as one household, usually sharing the same table. One per* Leonard P. Ayres, The Prospects for Building Construction in American Cities, The Cleveland Trust Company, 1922. 31 son living alone is counted as a family, and on the other hand, the occupants or inmates of a hotel or institution, however numerous, are treated as a single family. Thus the census family in some cases differs greatly from the natural family". (Report of the 14th Census of the United States, 1920, Vol. 3, p. 11.) According to this definition the average size of family in New York city was 4.7 persons in 1910 and 4.4 persons in 1920. The average size of family in the 1920 Block Survey of the Reconstruction Commission was 4.11 persons, and in the Rental and Income Survey of the Housing Commission in 1923 it was 4.18 persons, indicating that the size of family found in New York apartments is smaller than the family as tabulated by the Census Bureau. This is especially likely to be the case if calculation is being made primarily of the number of persons accommodated in new apartments in tenement buildings. Here the trend has been increasingly towards a larger proportion of apartments with three rooms, according to certain calculations of trends in new construction made for the Commission through the courtesy of the Committee on the Plan of New York and its Environs. Between 1912 and 1922 the proportion of three-room apartments in new tenement houses increased from 20 to 41 per cent, while the proportion of five-room apartments decreased from 23 to 12 per cent, the proportion of four-room apartments decreased from 44 to 38 per cent, and the proportion of six-room apartments from 6 to 4 per cent. In an apartment house of recent construction, having accommodations for 270 families, the average number of persons. per apartment was 2.87, according to a count secured by John J. Murphy, Secretary of the Tenement House Committee of the Charity Organization Society, and described in his testimony at hearings of the Commission. As already indicated, the accuracy of the final estimate of the amount of housing shortage or surplus in the Lindsay method of calculation depends mainly upon the accuracy of the estimates of total population and of number of persons in the family. In calculations involving millions of persons, as is necessary in the use of population statistics for New York city, a slight variation, especially in the number of persons per family, makes a large difference in the final results. This is well illustrated by the wide variations in Dr. Lindsay's results in his three calculations of the extent of the surplus in housing accommodations accumulating between 1910 and 1920. The surplus in persons, which Dr. Lindsay found statistically could be accommodated in new construction, is 90,415, if it is assumed that there are 4 persons per family; 174,722, if it is assumed that there is an average of 4.4 persons per family; 203,012, if it is assumed that there is an average of 4.55 persons per family. With reference to the additional housing surplus estimated as accumulating between January 1, 1920, and October 1, 1923, an estimate of 4.3 to 4.9 persons per family is used in the calculations for the different boroughs, or an average of 4.4 for the entire city, as s1own by the 1920 census. The result of this calculation is that there are hous 32 ing accommodations for 165,241 persons. If a larger or smaller figure were used in the calculations, a widely varying estimate would again be secured. If we accept this method of calculation as the basis for an accurate statement of housing conditions in New York city, we have to build up in our minds the following picture. This method of calculating shortage or surplus shows that between 1910 and 1920 so many new houses were being constructed that they cared not only for the present population but for all the expected growth in population until 1921 or 1922, assuming an average annual increase in population of 87,879 persons, as used in the estimates of the City Health Department. It shows also that up to October, 1923, there had been so much building that there are enough suites to care for all growth of population well into 1926. That this is not the case has been shown by all other evidence presented to the Commission and also by its various investigations. If the supply of housing accommodations so far exceeded demand, rents would be showing a tendency to decrease and vacancies would be obvious on every hand. However, rents show a strong tendency to increase; practically no vacancies can be found. The tenant has little bargaining power except as protected under the rent laws. Congestion exists to a degree harmful to health and welfare. While there would be a great value in a method of calculation which would establish accurately the relationship between growth of population and increase in housing accommodations, the obvious inaccuracy of the results in the method just described makes it exceedingly doubtful if dependence can be placed on this particular method in determining the existence of housing shortage or surplus. In the opinion of the Commission, no statistical analysis of mass data to show the existence of a gross housing shortage or surplus is sufficient to prove the presence or absence of a housing emergency. The important factor in the emergency is the adjustment or lack of adjustment in the supply of rentals at different levels and the distribution of family incomes. An empty apartment at $100 a month has little value to the man with an income of $25 a week, and a shortage or surplus at a certain rental has little immediate effect on the conditions existing at a widely different rental, although eventually adjustment comes through the working-out of the situation under the control of the laws of supply and demand. Rents in New Construction in Relation to Family Income. The rent which people can afford to pay is controlled by the amount of family income. Competition for housing accommodations is primarily within economic groups in the community rather than within the community as a whole. According to the best available estimate of the distribution of family income in New York city (see Appendix A) 69 per cent of all families have a family income of less than $2,500 a year, 23 per cent have an income of $2,500 to $5,000 a year, and 33 only 8 per cent have incomes above $5,000. All the evidence collected by the Housing Committee of the Reconstruction Commission and the Joint Legislative Committee indicated a condition of acute shortage of housing conditions in New York city in 1920 and 1921, especially for the great mass of the population with the smaller incomes. The important question to be decided with reference to the influence of the large amount of new construction now in progress in New York city, is not its influence in reducing mass shortage, but its effect in reducing shortage with reference to the various income groups. In the Rental and Income Survey of the Commission 3,841 families gave figures for family income which were considered sufficiently accurate for tabulation. In Table III will be found the number of families in each income class, the average rental and the percentage of the income for rent. As will be seen, the actual rent expenditure increases as the income increases, while the percentage of the income for rent decreases. When the average family income was less than $2,500 a year, the proportion of income for rent averaged 20 per cent, but a much smaller proportion was used with the larger incomes. TABLE III Rentals in Relation to Family Income As Shown by Rental and Income Survey, New York Housing and Regional Planning State Commission of PercentNumber Avrage Average age of INCOME CLASS of annual annual family families family rent income micome for rent Under $1,000.................... 371 $789 49 $224 40 28.4 $1,000-$1,500................... 1,036 1,224 16 282 00 23.0 $1,500-$2,000................... 1,024 1,684 38 315 48 18.8 $2,000-$2,500................... 605 2,169 33 384 48 17.7 $2,500-$3,000.................. 268 2,600 99 450 84 17.3 $3,000-$3,500................... 231 3,125 96 486 84 15.5 $3,500-$4,000................... 99 3,630 72 488 04 13.4 $4,000-$4,500................... 76 4,087 81 610 56 14.9 $4,500-$5,000................... 28 4,642 21 630 72 13.6 $5,000 and over.................. 103 5,922 33 822 36 13.7 All families..................... 3,841 $1,933 98 $354 25 18.3 Under $2,500................... 3,036 $1,514 88 $306 68 20.2 $2,500-$5,000................ 702 3,151 00 491 28 15.6 $5,000 and over................. 103 5,992 33 822 36 13.7 The Housing Committee of the Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce made a special investigation during the latter part of 1922 witlh reference to rent expenditures and also with reference to the availability of new construction on the basis of the earning or purchasing power 34 of employees in Brooklyn industries. The conclusions are based on the data secured from 500 families in eight of the large industries in Brooklyn, information on the weekly earnings of each employee being provided by the company. Over 79 per cent of the persons furnishing information had a weekly income of less than $40 a week, or about $2,000 a year. Assuming that family income is one and one-fourth times the earnings of the main support of the family (see Appendix A), the family income is $2,500 a year when individual income is $2,000 a year, making this group comparable with the group having family incomes of less than $2,500 a year as tabulated in the Rental and Income Survey of the Commission. The average annual rent of these families in the Brooklyn survey was $301.05 in comparison with an average of $306.68 as shown in the Rental and Income Survey of the Commission. In this study the proportion of income for rent decreases also with the larger incomes. It is commonly assumed in discussion of rent expenditures that families tend to keep their rent expenditures at about 20 per cent of the family income (see Appendix B). If we were to use this percentage in estimating maximum housing expenditure for families in New York city, we would find that 69 per cent of the families are unable to pay more than $500 a year for rent because this proportion of the families in New York city, as previously discussed, has an annual income of less than $2,500 a year. The demand for rentals between $500 and $1,000 a year is limited, according to this method of calculation, to the 23 per cent of the population with incomes between $2,500 and $5,000 a year. The demand for rentals above $1,000 a year is limited to the 8 per cent of the families in the population with incomes of $5,000 and over. However, the recent surveys of the Commission and of the Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce, as well as many earlier investigations, show that families with larger incomes use a smaller proportion of income for rent, so that the maximum rent expenditure is probably less than the amount estimated by use of the arbitrary figure of 20 per cent of the income for rent. The limited effect of new construction in relieving immediately the housing shortage for the mass of the population was shown by much testimony at the public hearings of the Commission with regard to the high rents being charged in new construction and also by a special survey of the Commission with reference to rents and vacancies in houses erected since September 27, 1920. Only a few instances were reported of rents in new construction at less than $15 per room per month, or $45 for a three-room apartment. Assuming 20 per cent of the income for rent, and also on the basis of average rentals paid, construction at this minimum rental is beyond the means of most of the 69 per cent of the population with family incomes below $2,500 a year. In most instances the rents in new construction were found to range upwards from $20 per room per month, or from $60 and $80 for apartments of three and four rooms, respectively. If we assume the maximum rent expenditure is 20 per cent of the family income, these 35 rentals are available only for about 15 per cent of the population with family incomes of $3,500 and upward. If we use the data on actual rent expenditure shown in the reports of families included in income and rent surveys, we find that most new construction is available only for the 8 per cent of the population with incomes of $5,000 and more. The Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce reaches similar conclusions with reference to the slight relief from new construction in the housing shortage faced by the industrial worker. Following a careful study of costs of construction in Brooklyn, it estimates that only 2.8 per cent of the new construction is within the renting power of persons earning up to $60 a week, and that there was none available in Brooklyn in 1922 for a person earning less than $45 a week. The allowable rents in new construction were found to average $15.60 per room per month, in contrast with the average of $6.23 per room per month reported by the families included in the survey, and the wide gap in rentals was found to prohibit workers from changing to quarters in new construction. The investigations of the Commission indicate a large amount of construction of one- and two-family houses for sale, and also a limited amount of construction of multi-family dwellings under a co-operative plan of home ownership. These are offered for sale under various plans requiring monthly payments of $40 or more, which, with carrying charges, including interest, insurance and depreciation, place them beyond the means of the mass of the population. The lowest rent in new construction already available for occupancy was found in a group of houses erected by tlh Phelps-Stokes Fund on East 97th street, Manhattan. When the houses were opened in March, 1923, a rent of $9 per room per month was charged, but rents are to be increased 121/2 per cent in January, 1924, making the average rent, including charge for bath rooms, $10.50 per room per month. According to a published statement of the Fund, this increase was necessary in order to make the investment yield 6 per cent and provide 2 per cent to take care of depreciation and provide for future taxation from which the buildings, under the present New York State law, are exempt for another eight years. The Metropolitan Life Insurance Company has now under construction a group of 54 buildings containing about 2,150 apartments, and it is expected that about six of these buildings will be available for occupancy next February. The buildings are located in Long Island City, Woodside and Astoria, the land costing approximately 20 per cent of the cost of suitable land in Manhattan. A maximum rent of $9 per room per month was fixed in the statute authorizing the use of insurance funds for housing construction, and this is the rate to be charged for living rooms, dining rooms, bedrooms, and kitchens, while a rate of $6.75 ismade for dining alcoves. Heat and hot water Are included in the rental, and no charge is made for bath rooms. The active demand for new construction at such moderate rentals is indicated by the fact that more than 6,000 applications had been received prior to May 1, 1923, at which time the lists were closed and no more applications were accepted. 36 The wide difference between necessary rents in old and new construction and the problems encountered in attempting to erect houses for rent at rates which can be afforded by the mass of the population, are shown in the following statement presented by Reginald Auchincloss, president of: the City and Suburban Homes Company, at the hearings of the Commission: "The City and Suburban Homes Company was incorporated in 1897 with purpose of supplying model apartments to wage earners. However, it was the hope of the incorporators that the rentals would permit such a return on the investment as to allow the company's growth along reasonable commercial lines... The policy of the company has always been to charge approximately the same rents as are prevailing in the neighborhood, but to give better service than given by neighboring landlords... The company to-day owns houses containing 2,945 apartments in Manhattan, as well as various suburban properties which have been developed for the wage earner. The company's Manhattan apartments to-day rent on an average of $8.63 per room per month on a week to week lease, payable in advance. Of course, we have no vacancies and last year no arrears. We have more than 2,000 applicants. The company's trustees are very anxious to build more tenements in order to relieve the housing shortage, but are unable to see their way clear to the erection of buildings, in view of the high rentals it would be necessary to charge. This company's policy is to cater to the class of wage earner, who to-day is able to pay approximately $12 or less per room per month. The company's officers have made very careful calculations on plans drawn by a well known architect and have reached the conclusion that at the present cost of building a tenement could not be constructed to rent for less than $15 per room per month in order to give a fair return on the investment. The rental required of $15 per room per month is too high for the class of people that this company has served in the past and is serving at the present."'' A later report from the Commission will discuss methods of relieving housing shortage through new construction. Even with the large amount of new construction now under way in New York city, the evidence seems conclusive that as yet it has brought but litle relief in the housing shortage affecting the masses of the population. 37 V. INFLUENCE OF PRESENT HOUSING CONDITIONS UPON PUBLIC WELFARE The relationship of health to housing is difficult to measure. But it is considered by health authorities and social workers in this country and in other countries, that improper housing conditions have a damaging effect on the health and welfare of the people. If we want healthy citizens we must have healthy houses. The old tenements, illventilated, dark places without necessary conveniences, without sunshine or pure air; the wretched sanitary equipment; the overcrowding; these and other factors of bad housing make for depression and unhealthiness and have a real influence on the prevalence of communicable diseases. In a letter to the Commission Dr. Henry Dwight Chapin, eminent authority on child welfare and president of the Children's Welfare Federation, which includes 235 organizations in New York city interested in child welfare, stated that the crowded, unsanitary conditions in the tenements are continuing to hamper the health work among children - "It is almost useless to teach mothers the value of sunlight and fresh air when we find in their homes bedrooms without windows, or windows which never let in any direct rays of sunshine. Despite all that can be done for the children in some of the neighborhoods, despite the fresh milk and the healthful nursery accommodations which we can provide for a few hours each day, no headway can be made, no physical improvement can be seen, for these children are the victims of unsanitary and congested housing conditions. Food, medical care, health instruction are all of little avail if we cannot provide proper sanitary conditions for children in their own homes." Evidence of Congestion Crowding is not limited to the worst blocks nor the worst houses. As shown earlier in this report it has become a general condition. New construction (unavailable though it is for the lower income groups because of its high rentals) shows a smaller average size of apartment. The family of five which used to live in an apartment of at least six or seven rooms now lives in three rooms. The increasing use of one- or two-room kitchenette apartments in the thousands of converted houses, with their limited facilities for decent living, in spite of exceedingly high rentals charged, are evidence of enforced congestion among a high standard group. The pressure of high reftals forces these families into smaller quarters, with the consequence that congestion and its attendant results have become more general. Evidences of congestion are confirmed in an extensive survey of housing conditions recently completed by the Department of Health of New York city. Dr. Frank G. Monaghan, Health Commissioner, 38 in submitting the report of this investigation to the Commission, states: "This survey showed conclusively that homes had been broken up, doubling up of families had resulted, the lodger evil had increased by leaps and bounds, vacancies were few and far between, and the rent demanded for these vacant apartments was beyond the reach of those requiring homes, or a considerable portion of the vacancies were in a state of disrepair, making their use as habitations almost impossible." This investigation, as does the block survey made by the Commission, show a greater average of persons per room than in 1920. A room to room survey was made in seven blocks showing increase in congestion. The following two blocks had been surveyed in 1920: Block A. East 112th street to East 113th street. First to Second avenues. Reported in December, 1920, 1.41 as the average number of persons per room; in 1923, 1.44. Block B. Rivington to Stanton streets. Columbia to Sheriff streets. In December, 1920, 1.25; in 1923, 1.33. "It is apparent", this report continues, "that overcrowding and congestion exist in the city to a large extent. It is in the cheaper class of apartments that most of the overcrowding exists and fewer vacancies appear. The large number of one- and two-room apartments in which families still live is really appalling. A great number of these buildings housing people are of the old type which only demolition and reconstruction could make habitable under any real sanitary condition. We are faced with the impossibility of housing the present occupants of these buildings during such a conversion, since there are no vacant apartments at a rental on a parity with that of their present quarters." The Tenement House Department and the Housing Committee of the Brooklyn Bureau of Charities report continuous conversion of dwellings into non-housekeeping apartments, which violate the law and greatly increase fire risk. In these one- and two-room apartments the landlords, after filing a plan with the Building Superintendent to alter the house into alleged non-housekeeping apartments, install stoves in closets with great hazard of fire. In these converted houses the halls are narrow and unventilated, although frequently carpeted. A private house, formerly a one- or two-family dwelling, is thus converted into a multiple dwelling for eight, sometimes ten families. The use of one- and two-room apartments, non-housekeeping or kitchenette, is in effect a phase of congestion and represents the compromise to which so many of the so-called white-collar group have been driven. The testimony at the hearings, as well as the investigation of some 39 8,500 families, made by the Commission, gave evidence of gross overcrowding in a great many parts of the city. "Three related families living in six rooms, eleven people", testified Mrs. Ethel Ader of the Fairplay Rent Association. "They could not, any of them alone, afford to pay the increase which the landlords demanded, so they all live together and pay $49 a month for rent." Bailey Burritt, the general director of the Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor, testified from the wide experience of his organization, citing a large number of typical cases. He stated that 44 per cent of the families were living in overcrowded conditions even by the generous standard of reckoning one and onehalf persons per room. Said Mr. Burritt: "The overcrowding of tenement homes has been accentuated. Many families have been obliged to go to the small homes of their relatives, already overcrowded by the original tenants. Among our allowance families occupying three-room apartments, 20 per cent of those families number seven or more individuals living in three rooms." He named a large number of instances where eight people were living in three rooms and nine in three rooms, and a few instances of ten people. And in one case Mr. Burritt said he found twelve people living in three rooms. The block survey made by the Commission of eight typical blocks for the purpose of comparing conditions in those blocks with the investigation of the same area made by the Housing Commitee of the Reconstruction Commission in 1919-1920, likewise reports seven people in three rooms, five of them being young children; instances of ten people in four rooms, ten people in three rooms, and again eleven in three rooms; five people in two rooms and some instances of eight and nine people in two rooms. In the aforementioned family of eight, living in two rooms, there were six young children. It requires no feat of the imagination to visualize the conditions under which those children were growing. And for the adults there is so little room, so little privacy, that, as Miss Sophie Irene Loeb, chairman of the Board of Child Welfare of the city, testified, the practice of bathing is frequently entirely abandoned "not only because there are no bathrooms, but because of the utter lack of privacy. The kitchen is the only room warm enough for the purpose, and the only room with running water, and it is difficult to find time when it is not occupied by the family.'' In an Italian section on the Lower East Side a study of 600 families was made by the Mulberry Community House. The majority of families lived in two-room apartments, more than one-half of which had only one window. The average number of people in these two-room apartments was 4.4 "The Italians in our neighborhood are doubling up in cellars and are living under conditions which are absolutely a menace to health and safety", testified Miss Rosalie Manning, chairman of the Housing Committee of the Women's City Club. "In ordinary times nobody lived there, but now all of these places are being rented." 40 Mary K. Simkovitch, the director of Greenwich House, asserted that there was also a great deal of doubling up of families in their neighborhood. Dr. Royal C. Copeland, United States Senator, former Health Commissioner of the City of New York, also made reference to this situation. In an investigation which was conducted by the Health Department during his term of office he found that 100,000 families had doubled up; whole families going in with other families or taking boarders and roomers. "We have one square mile in the city where live 500,000 people, in the Lower East Side. There are thousands of families living there, twelve persons in three rooms, and four sleeping in the kitchen; and in hundreds of these homes they live in inside rooms without any light or ventilation." Undernourishment results directly from the pressure of increasing rents. The result is that there is less money for food among these families. This was emphasized at the hearings in the testimony of social workers and physicians. Mona Caruso, a social worker of the Brooklyn Bureau of Charities, said: "The children in most cases are undernourished. The families are not able to buy the proper food." Sophie Irene Loeb, who, as president of the Board of Child Welfare of New York city, has the administration of allowances to widowed mothers, stated: "I believe that in most of our families there is malnutrition because they have to pay the terrific rent. The rent has got to be paid because they know that if they do not pay the rent they will be evicted. The children do not get enough proper food. They do not get enough nourishment because of these high rents." J. Byron Deacon, the director of the NTew York Tuberculosis Association, wrote to the Commission with reference to this vital subject, as follows: "When to the burden of overcrowding is added that of high rents, the deleterious effects are intensified. High rents decrease the moneys available for food and clothing, and by consequence the health level of the population must be lowered." Exhaustion, in short, is a result of overcrowding. Inadequate rest by night, inadequate elbow room by day. On the adolescent boy or girl this has a very deleterious effect. The parents become resigned; the young children do not realize it. But on the growing boy or girl of high school age the effect is very depressing. They are conscious of it, they strive to run aiway from it by being at home as little as possible. Their associates are all outside the home. And the family morale is thus gradually weakened. When four or five or even six people are forced to sleep in one room they cannot be said to be sleeping well. "The effect on the family morale", said Mir. Burritt, of the A. I. C. P., "is that there is no privacy, no opportunity for adequate rest of the bread-winners and earning people of the family. It almost inevitably means an increase in the amount of sickness, colds, and infectious diseases. And in general it is quite impossible to keep an 41 apartment of three rooms in sanitary shape if you have ten or eight people occupying it. It is really undermining the whole morale of the family. " This was also brought out by Edith B. Coff, social worker at Madison House, who testified as follows: "We find that the children do not sleep. There is no privacy. The gas is burning until 12 and 1 o'clock. Everyone is talking; everyone is walking. The street is noisy, and the child does not fall asleep until 12, half-past 12 and 1. I have gone up time and again to my families and helped put a child to sleep, and then I knew how little really I can expect of the mother who has three or four other children, to put that child to sleep at 8 o'clock. They sleep there together, four in the back bedroom, with one window, and they are naturally restless. When they get up in the morning they are not able to eat their breakfast because they did not sleep. They did not have any air. They get up tired and nervous and disturbed." Relation to Health "With the increase in room crowding," affirmed Dr. Haven Emerson, professor of Public Health at Columbia University, and formerly Health Commissioner of the City of New York, "there has been an increase in infant mortality, in tuberculosis, and in the general death rate. Insofar as infant mortality has decreased in the city it has been because of the better education and peristent health work". Asked if an improvement in the housing situation would reduce the mortality rate, Dr. Emerson said: "Doubtless we should have been able to obtain rates as low as those on the Pacific Coast, which cities have notoriously lower death rate than we have, if we had had the same favorable conditions of occupancy." Dr. Emerson further stated: "All experience in this country and abroad shows that reduction in the rooms, not crowding on lots so much, but crowding in rooms - a reduction of that crowding has resulted in reducing one disease group which hitherto we have not been able to control; and that is the diseases of the respiratory tract, notably pneumonia, bronchitis, influenza, and tuberculosis. That great group we have not yet really controlled and room crowding is probably the most important factor in the spread of those diseases." In his letter to the Commission, above referred to, Mr. Deacon, of the New York Tuberculosis Association, stated: "That overcrowding bears a direct and causative relation to tuberculosis has been established by numerous workers in the tuberculosis field, and is accepted as a basic factor in antituberculosis campaigns." Much statistical information has been collected to show that where families live under bad housing conditions the general mortality is 42 high and sickness is so frequent as to involve large expenditures of money. Grace L. Anderson, director of the East Harlem Nursing and Health Demonstration, reported to the Commission on a number of instances in which families were looking for other apartments (with little or no success, however) because they realized that their sickness and the consequent high expenditure for health were traceable to the improper housing conditions under which they were living. The Public Health Committee of the New York Academy of Medicine has just finished an intensive health study of seventeen sanitary districts in New York city. Dr. Leland E. Cofer, director of the Division of Industrial Hygiene of the State Department of Labor, referred to this study in a recent speech on the effect of housing conditions upon health. In the families investigated the general death rate, the prenatal and the post-natal death rates, were much higher among those living at a below-average standard than those at an average or aboveaverage standard. Says Dr. Watson F. Walker, former Deputy Health Commissioner of Detroit, now with the American Child Health Association: "The time is now at hand for the correlation of these factors relative to housing. The data herewith presented* indicates quite clearly a relationship between the sanitary environment and infant mortality, tuberculosis and pneumonia, which should not be considered lightly. Secondly, the relation of light to the development of rickets and the general welfare of child life has become an established fact.... and should be sufficient to stimulate interest in the improvement of housing conditions. That housing and environment, particularly insofar as they influence the amount of light which the human organism receives, have a very definite effect upon the development of the body is clearly demonstrated by the recent development in the study of rickets." John C. Gebhard, director of the Department of Social Welfare at the Association for Improving the Condition of the Poor, wrote to the Commission: "Recent research on the problem of rickets offers the best scientific evidence of the relation of housing conditions to health that has been produced in the last 50 years. It has been proved that rickets among children can be produced by two factors; by a diet lacking in certain elements which the nutrition experimentss have not yet been able to discover, and second, too inadequate exposure to the sun's rays. It is well known that rickets is a disease associated with a population who are living under wretched housing conditions. There can be no doubt that this serious nutritional disturbance of early childhood is in a large measure due to the fact that it is im* Watson F. Walker M. D., Relation Between Health and Environment, American Journal of Public Health, November, 1923. 43 practicable because of insufficient yard space, because of the difficulty of taking the baby daily up and down four or five tenement stairs to insure his getting the amount of exposure to the sun's rays which his growing organism needs. All these discoveries seem to indicate that adequate air and light are essential to healthful living and that it is the obligation of the community, through proper housing regulations, to provide abundance of light and air for every family." Dr. Alfred F. Hess, formerly president and visiting physician-incharge, Tuberculosis Preventorium for Children, eminent authority on the cause and treatment of rickets, wrote as follows to the Commission in regard to this subject: "As a result of clinical experience in the care of young children I am more and more impressed with the fact that sunlight is necessary for their normal growth and health. It is just as important for the growing child as it is for the growing plant. Adequate diet will not compensate for lack of sunlight. This was recently emphasized in the case of a nursing baby which came to the Home for Hebrew Infants from one of the dark tenements of the lower east side. In spite of being breast fed, this infant had the typical signs of marked rickets, which comes about from lack of sunlight. The investigation made by the Medical Research Committee of Great Britain (Special Report Series No. 20, 1918) showed how the health of the children varied in direct relationship to the amount of sunlight in their homes." We must direct our attention to providing home conditions which will reduce the amount of contact between individuals and which will provide facilities for abundant light and air. Sanitary Conditions Sanitary conditions in the blocks studied by the Commission for the purpose of comparison show no improvement over the conditions in 1920, when the Housing Committee of the Reconstruction Commission made its survey. They have, in fact, grown worse. The block survey shows a progressive deterioration, readily traceable to the housing emergency. From all parts of the city come reports of the state of disrepair into which apartments even in the better type of houses have been allowed to fall, by the refusal of landlords to renovate or repair. When the plumbing is out of order, when the sink is broken, when the window panes are broken, when the plaster is falling, when the roof leaks so that it is impossible to live in the room, the condition either remains or the tenant repairs it at fis own expense. Even new tenants have to move into apartments without the necessary repairs or usual renovation. The block survey as well as a questionnaire sent out by the Bronx Protective Tenants' Association reports countless such instances. "If you want the rooms, take the apartment as it is. Take it or leave it," says the landlord. The 44 tenants have spent from $25 to $150 and in some instances more, to clean up the flats. The reports from the house to house investigation, as well as hundreds of instances cited by tenants' associations, show a general condition of lack of even the most necessary repairs, making for a worse sanitary condition and for unwonted expense to the tenants. The testimony confirms this condition. Dr. Henry Fleischman, Director of the Educational Alliance, stated: "The conditions are abominable. I know of any number of houses in which no attempt has been made to repair the conditions or improve conditions that are actually menaces to life and limb. The sanitary conditions have gone from bad to worse. They are unspeakable. Plumbing repairs are made only when great pressure is brought to bear by the municipal authorities, and then only to a degree that complies with the letter of the law. The fire escapes rotten through and through for lack of paint. If you ride on the Allen street elevated and watch the tenement-houses as you go up and down, you will see the fire-escapes with scales of rust just dropping off of them. If anyone ever had to use them in an emergency the Lord help them. Painting has become obsolete. Conditions are worse than I have ever seen them in twenty years. I have never seen them so bad even in war years." Eleanor Blackman, Assistant Director, United Hebrew Charities, recounted many instances in which, in spite of exorbitant increases in rent, no repairs were made. As the block investigators went from house to house they were implored by the tenants to make effective their numerous complaints to the Tenement House Department and Department of Health, in regard to the wretched conditions of toilets or to leaks or other conditions of neglect. The annual increase in violations was brought out also, in the testimony of Tenement House Commissioner Frank Mann, who pleaded for an increase of his inspection staff to cope with the tremendous number of complaints. Tenants and social workers at the hearings added to this evidence of the increased number of appeals to the Department of Health and the Tenement House Department, in regard to leaks; the condition of the plumbing; insufficient water supply and so forth -from petty nuisances to matters that endangered life and limb. This is illustrative of a very general condition. In order to make concessions in this period of urgency, we have had to drop our standards. Emphasis was given to this fact in the testimony of Dr. Haven Emerson: "Whereas ten years ago there were always a considerable number of unfit tenements, unoccupied, a good many thousands always, so unfit that people would not be willing to occupy them except in extreme conditions, the conditions now are such that practically every unfit tenement in New York 45 city is occupied. It was bad enough under the old conditions when the tenements built under the old law were occupied. The people had a certain amount of leeway, and could escape the worst of those old law tenements which were unfit for human habitation. "Now they are practically all of them occupied, which means that babies are being born and children are being cared for in sickness under conditions of darkness and crowding which are recognized as below a human standard of existence. While Manhattan lost 100,000 population south of 14th street between 1910 and 1920, there has been such crowding in the tenements that remained that occupancy has continued through this period, these last four years, in buildings which with a proper enforcement of the sanitary and tenement house laws, would not have been considered habitable.'" The block survey has much to add to Dr. Emerson's description of the sanitary conditions of the old law tenements. Thousands and thousands of people in the city are sleeping and living in apartments so dark that gaslight must be burned all day; so airless that in summer the families are forced to sleep on the roofs; so foul smelling because of garbage in hallways, in courts and streets, and because of adjoining stables or factories, that one of the only two windows in the whole flat has to be kept shut. The tenants must climb five or six flights of stairs to dispose of garbage, for the dumbwaiters are seldom in repair. Toilets for two to five families are in the halls or in the yards. The sanitary condition of the toilet is indescribable. There is insufficient water, neglected plumbing, no ventilation or light - these tell the condition without further description. The lack of alternative accommodations, which has been discussed in the section on vacancies, forces the tenants to accept these conditions. Moral Aspects The social significance of the lack of the necessary alternative accommodation is indicated in a letter to the Commission, from Judge Edward F. Boyle of the Children's Court. (See Appendix C.) He makes vivid the causal connection between juvenile delinquency and the housing emergency. Difficulties of probation work are multiplied in cases in which the neighborhood environment is an important factor. There is danger of relapse for the child who is faced by the family's inability to find other accommodations at the same rental, who is therefore forced to remain in the neighborhood where bad associations have led him or her to evil habits. To move the family to another environment was the practice of probation work before the housing emergency. At present this is almost impossible. The unfortunate outcome is commitment to an institution. Among the many typical cases which Judge Boyle cites is that of a boy of 15, arraigned for juvenile delinquency, who was found to be a drug addict; he had contracted the habit in the neighborhood in 46 which he lived. After a few months in an institution the boy was discharged, cured of the drug habit. His future and his ability to withstand further temptation depended upon a total change of environment. The parents sought in vain for accommodations within their means; the outlook for this 15-year-old is very doubtful. The inability of families to get cheaper accommodations where they would not have to supplement their income by keeping lodgers has been the cause of misfortune for the adolescent girls of the family as shown in many instances cited by Judge Boyle. "In greater numbers than ever, there will be found in the small apartment of the poor the male lodger or lodgers (always a menace). As a rule the best room in the home is his, while the family itself is relegated to the meager quarters remaining; too often only a kitchen but usually a bedroom or two, invariably overcrowded. It is not rare to find instances where boys and girls as old as fourteen, fifteen and sixteen years are found sleeping in the same room together - as many as six in a small bedroom; and at times children of opposite sexes, as old as fifteen and sixteen, in the same bed. It is enough to state that the conditions found to exist, the intermingling both night and day of males and females, young and old in overcrowded quarters, are responsible for many cases that pass through the Children's Court, a description of some of, which would sound the very depths of moral depravity." In much intensified form, all the phases of the problem apply to the negro population of the city. Congestion is greater; rental increases higher; vacancies fewer; incomes smaller and the prospects for relief more remote. The following statement of Ferdinand Q. Morton, Municipal Civil Service Commissioner, presented to the Commission at the public hearings, gives a clear picture of the situation of the negroes in Harlem. It is confirmed by the block survey and investigation of the Commission. AMr. Morton said: "The fact that so many persons are lodgers is in itself a serious evil and constitutes a. grave menace to public morals and it brings about a condition that causes the thoughtful members of my race to look with a great deal of apprehension upon the future generations. "I personally have known of some most pathetic instances where poor people, perfectly respectable, hard-working people have been compelled to take uninvestigated lodgers and the lodgers turned out to be immoral persons. The necessity of having lodgers is so great that they cannot take time to investigate.'' All social workers, all who are interested in the welfare of the community and who are working toward a higher standard, have realized the close relation between housing and health, between bad housing and low morale. 47 The first point of attack in the offensive against disease and crime must be on the unhealthy, ugly, and overcrowded home. VI EXPRESSIONS OF PUBLIC DEMAND The following statements from the record of the hearings and communications addressed to the Commission justify quotation: Frank Mann, Tenement House Commissioner: "I believe the emergency rent laws should be extended while the emergency lasts, and that the emergency has not passed is indicated by the smaller number of vacancies and the comparatively small increase in the number of apartments compared with the normal increase that the city had in former years." Patrick J. Reville, Superintendent of Buildings, Borough of the Bronx: "I think the rent laws were an absolute necessity. The rent laws were as much an advantage to the investor as they were to the tenant. It would have been absolutely impossible to collect the rents if they insisted going along in the rampant way they were of raising rents, property changing hands from week to week, getting in the hands of new operators and speculators. It would have created a condition that your Police Department and even your military could not take care of, because your laws were affecting your working class, your worthy people. I think the rent laws have to be extended." Charles Brady, Superintendent of Buildings, Borough of Manhattan: "They (the rent laws) are absolutely necessary. Otherwise we won't have enough marshals in the city of New York to put the tenants out." John W. Moore, Superintendent of Buildings, Borough of Queens: "I think they ought to be extended, because at this time I am afraid if they were taken off the.old conditions would prevail." Dr. Frank J. Monaghan, Health Commissioner: "In view of the very few vacancies appearing in houses in which live the greater portion of our population the elimination of the Emergency Rent Laws, by expiration from our statute books, would work a hardship bordering on a calamity. Conditions in dwellings have become somewhat stabilized and settled under these laws. To change now would throw the gaunt spectre of worry, that greatest of health menaces, into these homes and result in a health hazard of no inconsiderable moment. While these statutes have undoubtedly resulted in a restriction of the bargaining for apartments under the law of supply and demand, still that they have not resulted in any great hardship on our landlords is apparent from the small number of foreclosures of tencments. It is our opinion, therefore, that these emergency rent laws should be continued and we so recommend to your committee," 48 Dr. Royal S. Copeland, United States Senator, former Health Commissioner, city of New York: "I am firmly convinced that we have a situation still which needs the serious attention of our law makers. And, going directly at the issue, it is my firm conviction that these rent laws should be continued in order that our people may be protected, so far as may be, until the time arises that we have in the community a sufficient number of houses to house our people in decency and respectability." Nathan Hirsch, former Chairman Mayor's Committee on Rent Profiteering: "I want to start this talk by saying that in my opinion the rent laws must be extended. There is no question about that in my own mind. They ought to be extended and they must be extended." Lillie Grant, Acting Chairman Mayor's Committee on Rent Profiteering: "In my estimation they (the rent laws) must be extended, because if they are not, I shudder to feel what is going to happen... if these laws are not extended we are going to see bloodshed right in New York city, and riot." Arthur J. W. Hilly, Acting Corporation Counsel: "From my experience as Chairman of the Mayor's Rent Committee during the emergency period of 1920, and up to the 15th of March, 1921, and by reason of my observation thereafter - two assistants from the Corporation Counsel's office are detailed to the Mayor's Committee on Rent Profiteering for the purpose of giving advice -the Emergency Rent Laws should be continued at least for a period of two years more." Albert F. Mathews, Vice-president and Secretary of the Mathews Model Flat Company: "I believe the rent laws should be extended for the reason that by all means we want to stop speculation in building. " John V. Campbell, Builder: "Q. Do you think the rent legislation is necessary? A. Absolutely, conditions to-day are worse than they ever were." Jacob Leitner, Real Estate, a member of the mortgage committee of the Title Guarantee and Trust Company: "I do believe that the emergency rent laws should be extended and not extended for a year, but for at least three years...I came to that conclusion that this rent situation for cheap houses cannot, no matter what they do, be solved within that time, and we are jollying ourselves from one season to another that it is going to come down, and as a matter of fact it has gone up constantly." John H. Hallock, Real Estate: "I believe in the extension of the laws. I do not think that you can get along without them, in some modified form, anyway. What you gentlemen agree to advocate I do not know, but it is too one sided at the present time. I represent a lot of reputable people, and the landlords I represent are willing to meet the people half way." 49 Franklin Taylor, County Judge, Brooklyn: "In the interest of humanity and the fair name of our beloved country, and also as a matter of sound economic judgment, I urge that the rent laws be extended until such time as the construction of cheap tenements capable of being rented at reasonable prices, will relieve the condition of congestion in houses of the poor."' Frederick Spiegelberg, Justice of the Municipal Court: "As to the advisability of extending these rent laws, I consider it nothing short of a civic calamity if they are repealed or if they are allowed to lapse in February, 1924." Aaron J. Levy, then President Justice Board of Municipal Court Justices, now Judge of the Supreme Court: "I would like to say that I think the continuance of these laws, after the first were enacted was helpful, and now a further continuance of these laws is woefully necessary, very badly necessary." Abram Ellenbogen, Justice of the Municipal Court: "I think that not only should the present rent laws be extended but I think they should be extended in the form they now exist in the statute books." Sidney C. Crane, Justice of the Municipal Court: "I think they (the emergency rent laws) should be continued. The emergency exists at the present time." John G. McTigue, Justice of the Municipal Court: "I should say, from my observation of housing conditions in the City of New York, and particularly with respect to the operation of these laws in the Municipal Courts, that they should be extended for at least two years." Leopold Prince, Justice of the Municipal Court: "I, too, am in favor as expressed by my colleague, Judge McTigue, of extending the emergency rent laws - I feel from my experience with the situation, that it is just as critical to-day as it was two years ago." Edgar M. Doughty, Justice of the Municipal Court: " My experience in the Brooklyn Municipal Courts prompts me to observe that although the litigation does not appear to be so heavy as it was last year at this season, yet it is manifestly dormant, and if the present rent laws are not continued I fear a flood of litigation and strife between landlords and tenants would ensue which would be exceedingly disastrous to the peace and good order of the community. In my judgment, the rent laws should be continued." Thomas C. Brown, Justice of the Municipal Court: "From an investigation made as to those who seek information at the offices of the courts in Richmond Borough, I can state to your Commission that, in my opinion, there is no question but that there will be a general raising of rents at the expiration of the present rent laws on February 15, 1924, if such laws are not continued beyond that time." 50 John R. Davies, Justice of the Municipal Court: "The housing crisis has not passed, and it would be a great calamity if the rent laws were not extended by the next Legislature." Other Municipal Court Justices giving similar testimony were Jacob S. Panken, Arnold J. B. Wedemeyer, William C. Wilson, William D. Niper, Charles B. Law, Carroll Hayes, Peter A. Sheil, William J. A. Caffrey, William Younfg. Jabez E. Dunningham, Executive Secretary, Community Councils of New York: "The Community Councils of the city advocate extension of the emergency rent relief laws for a period of two years." Similar expressions of opinion were made by the officers of tenants' associations organized within the last few years in various parts of New York city. John J. Murphy, Secretary of the Tenement House Committee of the Charity Organization Society and former Tenement House Commissioner of New York city: "I am entirely convinced from my own observation that a very great emergency still exists, with the evidence produced by inquiries from all sorts of people with whom I am constantly coming into contact." Dr. John L. Elliott, Headworker, Hudson Guild: "I am very earnest in my appeal from these facts and figures that they (the rent laws) should be extended." Similar statements were made by other prominent settlement workers, including Mary K. Simkhovitch of Greenwich House, Rosalie Manning of Lenox Hill Settlement (also Chairman Housing Committee, Women's City Club), Dr. Henry Fleischman of the Educational Alliance, and Edith B. Coff of Madison House. 51 PART TWO PRESENT STATUS OF HOUSING EMERGENCY IN CITIES IN THE CAPITAL DISTRICT, BUFFALO AND ROCHESTER The investigation included all cities to which the rent laws apply, viz., Albany, Schenectady, Amsterdam, Troy, Cohoes, Watervliet, Rensselaer, Buffalo and Rochester. Public hearings were held in Buffalo on October 1; Rochester, October 2; Schenectady, October 3; and in Albany, October 4. These hearings were successful in producing valuable evidence in regard to existing conditions. Following the public hearings a field investigation was made in these cities and also in Amsterdam, Cohoes, Troy, Watervliet and Rensselaer. Early in August a questionnaire was sent to all cities exceeding 10,000 in population, requesting detailed information with regard to housing shortage in 1920, new residential construction in the past three years, and the present status of housing shortage or surplus with relation to the existence of a housing emergency. At the request of the Commission, the New York State Association of Real Estate Boards secured and presented to the Commission valuable information on housing conditions as shown by surveys of local Real Estate Boards in thirteen cities, including the following to which the rent laws apply, viz., Albany, Schenectady, Amsterdam, Troy and Rochester. The Commission also received valuable assistance directly from the Real Estate Board in Buffalo. In all cities included in the investigation the Commission was assisted by public officials and by many civic and social agencies. I CITIES IN THE CAPITAL DISTRICT Albany The trend of rents in Albany is upward. The New York State Association of Real Estate Boards submitted to the Commission a summary of questionnaires which they sent out to their affiliated bodies, showing the following rental trend in Albany: Cheap Medium priced apart- High priced aparttenements ments and houses ments and houses 1921.... $7--$20 $35-$40 $75-$150 1922.... $8-$25 $40-$45 $75-$156 1923.... $8-$30 $45-$50 $80-$200 City Assessor Fahrenkopf estimates a 50 per cent increase in rents in the last three years, this being in his judgment a conservative estimate. Houses tht were selling at $7,500 and $7,800 three years ago 52 are now selling at $13,000 and $13,500, according to Judge Minkin of the City Court. Apartments that rented for $35 and $37.50 are now, in the Pine Hill section, renting for $70 and $75. The present average rental in apartments without heat, without hot water or even a fixture for hot water, without bath, and, in some cases, without gas, is $5.00 per room. This rental, in the opinion of realty people and social workers, is double the rent for similar accommodations three years ago. The reaction to insistent demand and limited supply is a constant buying and selling of property, with a consequent advance in rents. Buildings have changed hands three or four times during the year, selling at double their assessed value, according to Assessor Fahrenkopf. The tenant suffers by this speculation, especially because leases are not granted by the landlord in cases of moderate rentals. Many examples of increased rentals because of speculation were found. A four-room fiat rented a year ago for $21. The house was sold and a new landlord raised the rent on the fiat to $23. After six months he in turn sold the house and the new owner demanded $28. The tenant in this case had spent $42 in improving the flat. The direct investigation and the testimony at the hearings disclosed the fact that there are no vacancies in the city of Albany at a rental which the average wage earner can afford. There are no vacancies at from $25 to $50 per month, nothing advertised in the papers, no to-let signs, nothing to be gotten for that price through real estate offices. The New York State Association of Real Estate Boards reported 159 vacancies, by actual physical count, on November 30. This represents a condition considerably below normal. Although, in the opinion of the Board, there has been an increase of vacancies in Albany, the "strong demand for houses and apartments during the past three years has cut down the normal supply of vacancies by 50 per cent." New buildings constructed were stated at the hearings by James Nolan, Superintendent of Buildings, to be as follows: 1923 1920 1921 1922 (9 months) No. of one-family houses.. 81 125 249 109 No. of two-family houses.. 15 52 152 91 No. of tenements................. 2 4 No. of families accommodated................. 111 229 565 315 The cost of the single-family houses, as figured by the Building Superintendent, is between $6,500 and $8,500; of the two-family houses, between $10,000 and $15,000. As only about 27 per cent of the population are home owners, the problem of housing is a rental problem for the great majority. The new houses rent for not less than $10 per room; usually $65 or $75, and up to $125 for a six or seven-room apartment. But the real estate offices have no vacancies at the more moderate rental. 53 According to social and research workers who testified at the hearings, the rental which the average wage-earner could afford is between $25 and $50 per month. The new construction, therefore, is beyond the reach of the majority of the city's population. DeLancey M. Ellis, President of the New York State Association of Real Estate Boards, stated at the hearings that the withdrawal of many houses from the rental field, because of purchase by permanent residents, because of obsolescence, fires, and conversions, has resulted in congestion. Helen C. White, Secretary of the Albany Associated Charities, testified as follows in regard to housing conditions: "I find families living in entirely too crowded quarters, sometimes nine in four rooms, or, in basements that are unfit for human habitation. Sanitary conditions in these places are very bad. There are outside toilets in the city not connected with the sewer system. " All the evidence which the Commission has indicates that there is no return of bargaining power for the tenant in Albany. There has been a consistent rise of rents since 1920, with no indication that the peak has already been reached. Vacancies within the range of the average wage-earner are practically non-existent. The existing vacancies are either in undesirable quarters or in high-priced new apartments. Because of the high rentals charged for new construction there is no relief for the majority of the population from new construction. Schenectady Average rentals in Schenectady as reported by the State Association of Real Estate Boards are: Cheap Medium priced apart- High priced aparttenements ments and houses ments and houses 1921.... $6 to $12 $12 to $20 $20 to $60 1922.... $7 to $15 $15 to $25 $25 to $70 1923.... $8 to $18 $18 to $30 $30 to $80 This tabulation of the range of rents as well as the Commission's investigation showed that the trend of rents is upward, without any indications of stabilization. As in Albany, there is constant buying and selling. The real estate transfers in 1923 were over 3,000, whereas in 1921 they were 2,160. The limited supply of rentals and the speculation in buildings have reacted upon rents in Schenectady as elsewhere. Single apartments are being converted into several apartments, resulting in higher rents, A six-fiat house which rented a year ago at $16 a month for each five-room apartment has been converted into flats for light housekeeping, each of two rooms and bath. It now rents for $12 weekly. Rents in individual cases have been increased from 50 to 300 per cent since 1920. Carlton Chamberlain, Commissioner of Charities, cited a case where the rent was raised three times during a recent 54 month. He summed up the situation with reference to rents as follows: "A few years ago a man could rent a house within his means; he knew what his income was and could find a house with very little difficulty; but rent prices have gone up faster than wages, and the scarcity of houses has increased. The acute shortage, I think, is in quarters in which people can live at moderate rents." The Real Estate Board reports 57 apartments vacant in November, 1923, in the city of Schenectady, which has a population of nearly 100,000. The investigation of the Commission disclosed almost no vacancies, with the exception of a few "shacks" in the Italian section. The shortage is most acute at moderate rentals. The greatest shortage is in apartments under $20, but there are practically none at any price, according to Assessor Henry Buhrmaster. A building contractor stated before the Commission of Housing and Regional Planning that from 1,200 to 1,500 houses were needed to adequately meet the needs of the population. Families are therefore forced to double up. "Some of the families are packed in like sardines," testified Carlton Chamberlain, Commissioner of Charities. Richard D. Mott, of the City Planning Commission, told, at the hearings, of families who are living in garages. Amy Burlingame, investigator for the Department of Public Charities, stated that in three instances she had had to separate families, because she could find no apartments in which to house the whole family. In some cases there is acute doubling up, resulting in crowding nine people into three rooms. So great is the demand for additional accommodations that new construction is rented before the houses are finished. Fred Zollner of the Building Trades stated that in thirty or forty instances the houses were rented, of which only the excavation was made. The Real Estate Board reports that there are under construction some 185 houses for rental and 105 for owner's use. The trend of new construction is indicated by the following table of building permits for new dwellings from 1920 to 1923: 1923 1920 1921 1922 (10 months) No. of one-family houses.. 99 115 175 214 No. of two-family houses.. 9 41 87 64 No. of three-family houses.... 1 1 No. of tenements............... 1 No. of families accommodated................. 117 200 352 382 Nearly one-half of the population in Schenectady are home-owners, and the gain in one-family houses indicates mainly increase in home ownership rather than accommodations for rent. This is especially true in Woodlawn, a suburban section, where practically all the houses belong to their occupants. Building for home ownership, however, is reported to be retarded by the unavailability of second mortgage money at reasonable rates. 55 With increasing rents, with lack of vacancies and resultant congestion, the conditions in Schenectady are such as to justify the conclusion that the emergency has not passed. Amsterdam Rents in Amsterdam have continued to increase, especially in the less expensive tenements and single houses, according to the following data secured from the local Real Estate Board and reported by the New York State Association of Real Estate Boards: Cheap Medium priced apart- High priced aparttenements ments and houses ments and houses 1921.... $10 to $12 $18 to $22 $30 to $40 1922.... $12 to $14 $20 to $35 $40 to $50 1923.... $14to$16 $25 to $35 $40 to $50 The following case of demanded rent increase is cited by J. H. Dealy, attorney. Rents of $14 to $16 a month were raised by the new owner of a tenement house to $22, $25 and $28, and eight months later a further increase to $36 was demanded from the tenants on the lower floor. They refused to pay, and the landlord's petition for eviction because of non-payment of rent was dismissed by the Court. Without the protection of the rent laws, according to Mr. Dealy, the tenants would have had no redress and would have been forced to pay the increase because of the shortage of flats. Although less than a hundred cases of summary proceedings to recover rent were commenced in the City Court during the last eight months, there have been as many as a dozen inquiries a day, from both landlords and tenants, regarding their rights, according to Judge John S. Maxwell. In a letter to the Commission, he states: "I am sure that the emergency rent laws should, and I trust will, be continued." Last year the housing shortage was acute. Factories found difficulty in securing sufficient help because of lack of housing accommodations. Combination of families in the same flat was common. Charlotte Keep, Secretary of the Good Will Club, states that her club girls reported frequently at that time their families were caring for relatives and neighbors who were unable to find houses. At the present time the situation is much improved although a number of persons interviewed expressed the belief that the housing situation in Amsterdam is still abnormal. Direct investigation by the Commission revealed that the few rentals advertised in the newspapers are for rooms in the poorer sections of the city. Almost no places for rent were found in a careful.search of other sections. According to the report of the Real Estate Board there were 25 vacancies found on November 15, 1923, as the result of an actual physical count. 56 The Bureau of Buildings reports the following increase in the number of new dwellings erected each year: 1920..................................... 18 dwellings 1921.................................... 60 " 1922.................................... 125 " 1923.................................... 178 " Included in the 1923 construction is a group of 63 houses erected by the Sanford Mills for rent to employees at $30 to $40 per month, including heat. Before excavations had begun there was a waiting list of 80 families., About half of the families in Amsterdam are home owners, according to F. C. Carolan, Building Inspector. LTnder the leadership of J. MW. Ferguson, Chairman of the Housing Committee of the Board of Trade, certain of the local industries have arranged to endorse employees' notes for second mortgages as an aid in facilitating the erection and purchase of homes. The conclusion of the Real Estate Board is that the present demand for housing is well taken care of in Amsterdam, and that there is no housing shortage at the present time. However, there still seems to be evidence of a housing shortage for the family that rents, as indicated by the few vacancies and the continued increase of rents. Troy Rents in Troy have shown -a continued tendency towards increase. The figures for monthly rent reported in the investigation of the New York State Association of Real Estate Boards show the following increases: Cheap Medium priced apart- High priced aparttenements ments and houses ments and houses 1921.... $ 8 to $10 $25 to $30 $50 to$ 75 1922.... $ 8 to $15 $30 to $40 $75 to $100 1923..... $10 to $20 $30 to $50 $75 to $125 Even with this tendency towards rent increase, comparatively few cases have been brought into court under the rent laws. According to City Clerk B. P. Kavanagh, a number of landlords and tenants have come to him for advice, who have not brought their cases before the Court. In his opinion, the rent laws have been of value in controlling the demands of unscrupulous landlords. This opinion is shared also by Judge Edmund Sweeney of the City Court, who states he favors these laws because of "their moral effect in keeping rents down and clarifying the situation." However, Judge F. S. Parmenter, also of the City Court, feels that there is no need for continuing the rent laws in Troy. The amount of new construction in Troy has been comparatively small considering that the city has a population of about 72,000 per 57 sons. The following permits have been issued during the years since 1920: 1920...................................... 22 perm its 1921...................................... 51 " 1922...................................... 86 " 1923...................................... 116 " The Real Estate Board reports 31 vacancies November 15, 1923, as the result of an actual physical count. In the opinion of the Board there is still a slight shortage indicated by the many inquiries for lower priced houses and flats. Personal investigation revealed vacancies in unimproved houses at minimum rentals and also a few vacancies at rentals above $50. For the great mass of the population able to pay not more than $50 a month, the housing shortage is still acute in Troy. Cohoes Rents in Cohoes have doubled in the last three years, according to the estimates of Mayor Daniel J. Cosgro and of Charles H. Coonrad, Treasurer of the Cohoes Savings Bank. The situation here is especially acute because of the marked increase in the industrial population during recent years and the slight amount of new construction. Direct investigation by the Commission showed no vacancies even in old houses in bad repair. Tenants reported that they searched for places for months and were forced to continue to occupy undesirable houses even though they were willing to pay for better accommodations. This condition of shortage has caused a number of complaints concerning rent increases, and last July James Conboy was appointed Public Defender to handle rent cases. Up to October 1st, between 15 and 20 cases per week were brought to Mr. Conboy for advice, 16 of these cases being brought to trial and a compromise effected. Although the number of complaints has been reduced recently, Mr. Conboy gave his opinion that "the law should be continued because it keeps constantly before public attention the fact that landlords cannot be unfair in dealing with tenants as to evictions and raises in rent." Mayor Cosgro feels that without the rent laws there would have been excessive increases in rent because of the condition of housing shortage in Cohoes. There is little new building going on to relieve the shortage, according to Mr. Coonrad of the Cohoes Savings Bank, as people cannot afford to build or to pay the rents that would have to be charged in new houses. This reason is given also by J. D. Gilchrist, Realtor, who felt that the high cost of new construction precluded the Jow rents which the residents could afford, many of whom are unskilled workers in the mills. An interesting experiment is in progress in one section where a group of enterprising workmen engaged in the various branches of the building trade are erecting about a dozen houses in spare time, thus obtaining their own homes at a considerable saving. Mayor Cosgro has also helped to relieve the shortage by selling, at a nominal 58 price, certain lots which the city had taken for unpaid taxes, and the buyers are doing their own construction of houses for personal use. As yet, but little relief has come to the rentpayer in Cohoes from new construction, and the housing shortage has remained acute. Watervliet Rents have increased comparatively little in Watervliet, according to City Manager Henry Gabriels and William O'Connell of the O'Connell Real Estate Agency. However, there is evidence of a housing shortage in all types of rentals, but especially for rentals between $30 and $50. According to Mr. O'Connell, he could rent 100 houses immediately at $30 a month, and he knew of several families combining because they could get no accommodations. There is some new construction, but about 60 per cent is for home ownership. The housing shortage in Watervliet is related especially closely to the housing shortage in both Troy and Albany, as a number of families are attracted there by the lower rents in comparison with those in the neighboring cities. While no case has come to trial under the rent laws, a small number of cases have been started and from 100 to 150 inquiries have been received from landlords and tenants, according to Judge Sydney Forsyth of the City Court. In his opinion the rent laws should be continued, primarily for their moral effect, for, as he asserts, "they are always there if anyone wants relief." Rensselaer There are practically no vacancies in Rensselaer. There has been a gradual increase of rents, due both to the absence of vacancies and to a movement from Albany where the housing shortage is marked. There is very little new construction. This has resulted in speculation in the old buildings, with the consequence that rents are forced up. Tenants coming over from Albany are outbidding the old residents, according to Judge George W. Stevens. Although there have been but few court cases under the rent laws, the existence of the laws has acted as a deterrent to rent increases. Judge Stevens stated that without the protection of the law, conditions would have become worse and recommended that they be continued. II BUFFALO - ROCHESTER Buffalo That there has been consistent increase in rentals in Buffalo in the past three years is shown by the figures for rent in the cost of living index number for Buffalo prepared by the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, as follows: December, 1919.................................. 29.0 December, 1920.................................. 48.5 Decem ber, 1921.................................. 61.7 December, 1922.................................. 64.9 June, 1923.................................. 70.0 September, 1923.................................. 70.9 59 According to the report of a survey of the Bureau of Sanitation in 1922, "Rents in general have been increased from 50 to 100 per cent in the past few years, and in some instances the increases have been even greater. At present there is little or no competition and people are obliged to pay the rent asked because they have no choice." Many instances of recent and marked increases of rent were brought to the attention of the Commission at the hearings. James P. Doyle of the Central Labor Council reported increases which had been demanded. "In 1914 I was renting at $16 per month," he said. "Now I am paying $50 per month and the house I occupy at this time is in bad repair and in no better condition than this house had been in 1916, at $16 per month." He stated that the house which he occupied in 1914 had been sold five times in seven months, the rental being increased until he was compelled to move. George W. Woltz, Judge of the City Court, citing an increase of rental from $28 to $40 per month demanded from eight different tenants, said that vacancies could be found at rentals ranging from $60 to $70 per month and upward, but that it was practically impossible to find any vacancy for $50 per month and less. He cited instances of increases from $35 to $60 and $70 and estimated the total rent increase in the past five years at 80 to 100 per cent throughout the city as indicated by sworn statements presented in court. Mrs. Cecil B. Wiener, Secretary of the Jewish Federation for Social Service, cited numerous recent increases in rent ranging from 10 to 100 per cent. "We know that rents have jumped all over our neighborhood. Women hunt for days and weeks to find rooms and if they have children the landlords often refuse to rent." The greatest increases discovered by the Commission are in the middle and lower ranges. The greatest pressure has been exerted upon the wage and salary-earning class whose income will not permit the expenditure of more than thirty dollars per month for rent. The field investigation conducted by the Commission and the unanimous testimony presented at the public hearing in Buffalo disclosed that there are practically no vacant dwellings or apartments to be had at rentals at $30 per month or less. That the number of vacancies now existing in Buffalo is considerably below the normal and totally insufficient to offer any appreciable effect upon the upward trend in rentals, is acknowledged by representative real estate men, by public officials and by tenants. Frank B. Smering, of the Bureau of Sanitation, said at the hearing: "As to the number of vacancies, I think there are not any more now than in 1920." He testified further that the rents charged for most.of the vacant apartments which he discovered were in excess of $75 per month and that there were very few to be found at lower rentals. Confirmation of the lack of vacancies available at rentals within the means of the wage and salary-earning class was given in the testimony of John W. Van Allen, Chairman of the former Housing Commission, Rev. J. C. Carr of Mt. Carmel Guild, Arthur M. Suor, Vice-president of the Buffalo Real Estate Board, David C. Adee, 60 Secretary of the Charity Organization Society, Albert L. Kinsey, Realtor, Adam H. Cormack, Real Estate and Insurance, and others. Consequent upon the increasing rentals and the housing shortage of the past few years there has been increasing congestion, as evident in the practice of two families sharing the same apartment and the increase of the lodger evil. In reporting on a survey of the Bureau of Sanitation with regard to the necessity of further issuance of temporary emergency tenementhouse permits, Superintendent Smering states: "All over the city private rooms are converted into rooming houses. In two-family houses some of the rooms are sublet or rented out to roomers. This condition is also found in tenement and apartment houses. The bathroom or toilet is used in common by lodgers and the family, and privacy is also otherwise destroyed. This condition is not in conformity with the Tenement House Law which we are trying to enforce, and if the law in respect to roomers in tenement-houses is literally enforced I believe that many families and roomers will be obliged to move out of Buffalo. Roomers and boarders naturally destroy all privacy of the home. Cheaper rent would have a tendency to stop families doubling up... A paramount obligation rests with the Health Department to see that good housing conditions are provided, to prevent overcrowding and certain 'contact infections.' " The unrelieved housing congestion in Buffalo is clearly shown also in the reports received by the Commission from the Charity Organization Society, the Mt. Carmel Guild, the Jewish Federation for Social Service and the Erie County Board of Child Welfare. It is the opinion of the executives of these agencies that the very decided shortage of housing facilities for wage earners in Buffalo has resulted in a marked lowering of standards of living. The downward pressure exerted in response to high rents bears most heavily upon the colored population in Buffalo which has been increasing greatly in the past few years as the result of industrial expansion. Rev. S. 0. B. Johnson, representing the Colored Ministers Council, and Claire L. Payne, Investigator for the Public Welfare Bureau, testified before the Commission with regard to congestion, lack of necessary sanitary facilities and deterioration of property in the distriict occupied by the colored population. James E. Ross, testifying before the Commission, said, "We find that conditions pertaining to our people in the City of Buffalo are to be deplored more so than in any other city of the first class, in America." He also reported numerous cases of demands for increased rentals and stated that the colored people pay 30 to 40 per cent more for rent than is charged to the white families for the same type of accommodations. That there has been an increasing amount of housing construction per annum since 1920 is shown by the records of the Building Depart 61 ment and also by a survey with particular reference to the outlying districts beyond the corporate limits of the city. Actual building operations are reflected in the following number of permits issued by the City Building Bureau: Year 1-story frame dwellings 2-story frame dwellings 1915/16............. 460 1237 1916/17............ 447 1134 1917/18............ 317 855 1918/19............ 460 594 1919/20.............870 639 1920/21............ 593 564 1921/22............ 892 1222 1922/23............ 1171 1472 Totals......... 5210 7717 The records of the Building Department do not include the new construction in the outlying suburbs and it is in the suburbs that the more extensive development has taken place during the last three years. Within the city, in the Kensington-Bailey Avenue district there has been extensive construction of homes and in the Hertel Avenue section on Hertel avenue, Delaware avenue and Main street. Outside of the city limits, there has been a large number of dwellings constructed in the city of Lackawanna, the town of Amherst, the village of Kenmare, and the town of Tonawanda. These dwelling cost from $6,000 upward. Practically all newly constructed dwellings are for sale. These houses may be bought for an initial payment of $750 and monthly payments of $40 and more for the more expensive dwellings. Robert L. Kinsey, a builder, who testified that there is now a shortage of houses in Buffalo, has constructed dwellings of a type just described. He explained the financial arrangements by which these houses may be bought for a monthly payment of $40. Mr. Kinsey made it clear that $40 does not include taxes, insurance and depreciation, and said that these houses are not available to those individuals who could not pay as much as $70 a month rent. In testifying before the Commission, Arthur M. Suor, Vice-President of the Real Estate Board, stated that the chief problem of home building in Buffalo is a lack of available capital. He stated that savings banks will loan about 50 per cent of the purchase price and that the prospective home owner can pay not more than 20 per cent of the cost, leaving 30 per cent to be covered by a second mortgage. In the past three years second mortgage companies have been organized in Buffalo to carry such loans. Because of the excessive costs of such mortgages it is the judgment of many of the real estate representatives who testified before the Commission, and of citizens and others, that some alternative means must be found to provide capital necessary to encourage home ownership and the building of homes for families of moderate means. J. W. Van Allen emphasized the necessity of providing loan money at lower rates of interest than is available at Buffalo. " But your con 62 tention is that these high costs of money are stopping building activity?" He answered, "As a matter of fact it is probably throttling it." Mr. Van Allen testified that in many cases the cost of second mortgage money ranges from 10 per cent to 35 per cent. John Alan Hamilton expressed the belief that the difficulty in procuring money for the building of houses and the condition of the second mortgage money market is the most important single factor entering into. the housing situation in Buffalo to-day. He said: "Anything that will release money to housing or direct money into housing, will to that extent help solve the problem more effectively than any measure. To that end, I believethoroughly in the State attempting first, to encourage all the cooperative and semi-philanthropic five per cent voluntary movements it can to attract money into housing channels; second, any measure that the State may take, that tends to make mortgages attractive as contrasted with other investments, that tends in a reasonable manner to induce savings banks to invest their money in first mortgages, are all helpful. I think the State might well go further than that and provide for State assistance for housing along the lines of the recommendations of the Reconstruction Commission." In the opinion of the Commission, the housing emergency in Buffalo has not passed. Rents have been increasing constantly since 1920. The greatest rental increases have been in the middle or lower range of rents affecting most of the families of moderate incomes. Although there has been a marked increase of construction within the past two years there is as yet no adequate margin of vacancies to insure a bargaining power to the tenant. The tenant has no place to go in search of relief. Most of the vacancies that exist are offered at greatly increased rents over that paid by the previous tenant. Conditions of tenure have not improved. Marked depreciation of property is found particularly in the lower rent districts. Newly constructed dwellings are held at highest rentals and are not available to families whose income does not permit a monthly rent payment of $50 and more. Apartments in newly constructed buildings are available only to that part of the population having family incomes in excess of $2,500 per annum. For this large group - more than two-thirds of the families of Buffalo - no improvement has been made in the past three years. Rochester Evidence secured by the Commission indicates a rapid increase in rentals between 1920 and 1921, with a slight decrease between 1921 and 1922. The present tendency is toward stabilization. The Index Number of the Rochester Chamber of Commerce shows the following averages per year in relation to 100 in 1914: 1920.......................................... 159.8 1921.......................................... 185.6 1922.......................................... 193.8 1923.......................................... 194.8 63 Between September 15, 1922, and September 15, 1923, the Index Number remained unchanged. The following figures on rentals presented by the Real Estate Board indicate the same tendency towards stabilization during the last year: Cheap Medium priced apart- High priced aparttenements ments and houses ments and houses 1921.... $15 to $30 $30 to $50 $50 to $150 1922.... 15to 35 35to 60 60to 200 1923.... 15 to 35 35 to 60 60 to 200 Edward A. Halbleib, General Manager of the North East Electric Company, testified at the public hearing of the Commission that rents had about doubled since 1916 in the class of houses occupied by his employees, but that rents are no longer rising and employees are having no di culty in finding houses for occupancy. Simon J. Fennell, Superintendent of Buildings, testified concerning two surveys of vacancies which he has made in the 19th ward, this ward being selected because it included all classes of residences from the cheapest to the most expensive. This year, in October, he found 318 vacant buildings, which would accommodate 378 families, while last year in September there were only 232 buildings, with acconunodations for 270 families. The Real Estate Board made a survey of vacancies covering the entire city and found 1,122 vacancies in October, 1923, and estimates that this is from 20 to 25 per cent above 1922. Personal investigation by the Commission showed that most vacancies in Rochester are in houses renting from $45 to $60 a month. A dozen or more such houses are advertised daily in the newspapers and a search of various districts revealed many "To Let" signs on houses at approximately this rental. Three realtors reported that they could supply nothing at less than $45 a month, and one of them expressed doubt if he could supply anything at less than $50. Margaret J. Bacon, head of the Income Management Bureau of the Monroe County Savings Bank, recommends $35 for rent in budgets for families with monthly incomes of $100, but stated that it was almost impossible to find living quarters in Rochester at this price. E. J. Walsh, editor of the Labor Herald, reported that average wages in Rochester are not more than $35 a week and yet there is practically nothing for the workman to rent at less than $40 a month. Edwin A. Fisher, Superintendent of City Planning, and a member of the Housing Committee appointed by the mayor in 1919, testified that there was an acute housing shortage in 1919 and 1920, and that. the committee found difficulty in finding places for people to live, especially when applications were for lower rentals. He feels that the housing emergency is now over and that a general housing shortage no longer exists. Judge Raymond E. Westbury of the city court testified that the only rent cases that have come into court have been those in connection with the expiration of rental term and those for non-payment 64 of rent. No action has been tried in the court on the question of unjust or unreasonable rent. Frequent -use has been made, however, of the power to stay issuance of a warrant when tenants -report inability to find other living quarters at the expiration of their rental term. Relief from the earlier housing shortage has come from the large amount of new construction in Rochester both within the city and in certain outlying districts. Much of this new construction is for home ownership financed by assistance of banks and certain of the indus 'tries. According to the statistics of the Building Department the following number of families have been provided for within the city of Rochester: 1920 - 524 families 1922 - 2,7086 families 1921 - 1,504 families 1923 (nine months) - 1,876 families In addition to the construction within the city it is estimated that about 2,000 houses have been built during the last year in outlying districts for the occupancy of 'wage-earners in Rochester. While this large amount of new construction has apparently supplied a demand at rentals above $30, a shortage seems to still persist for families requiring rentals at less than this amount. However,, evidence of continuing improvement and the absence of those conditions of stress and public apprehension which are assocated with a housing emergency justify the conclusion that housing conditions in Rochester are -rapidly approaching a normal status. 65 APPENDIX A DISTRIBUTION OF FAMILY INCOME IN NEW YORK STATE* Any analysis of housing conditions in New York city to show the presence or absence of a housing emergency necessitates attention to income as well as to rent. Is there a sufficient supply of rentals at different cost levels to satisfy the rental demands of the different income groups in the locality? Are there satisfactory housing conditions available at the rentals for which the mass of the population must be housed? An answer to either of these questions involves the use of data showing distribution of income. While various estimates have been made of the distribution of individual incomes in different localities, notably the studies of the income of the United States by the National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., the Commission has been unable to discover any estimate of the distribution of family income, as is necessary for the special discussion of income in relation to rents. A special analysis of the 1920 returns of the New York State Tax Department has therefore been made for the Commission as the basis for certain estimates of the distribution of individual and family income in New York State, New York city and elsewhere in New York State. While figures have been used only with reference to the year 1920, the distribution of incomes in different localities and at different periods remains relatively unchanged as illustrated by the figures of income tax returns for the entire United States for a number of years and for the different divisions of New York State for both 1920 and 1921. (See Table I.) Two different calculations have been made as the basis for the estimates of income distribution in relation to necessary rents. The first one shows the distribution of individual incomes according to amount of income and also the relationship between persons with and without a separate income in the total population shown by the 1920 census. (Table II.) The second calculation is with reference to the distribution of families according to the income of the main support of the family and also according to an estimated family income. (Table III.) * Report prepared by Emma A. Winslow, Ph.D., member investigating staff of Commission. 66 TABLE I Differences in Distribution of Income Tax Returns for Different Years and Districts As Shown by Annual Reports of the U. S. Treasury Department and the New York State Tax Department No. of returns PERCENTAGE OF RETURNS IN INCOME CLASS Under $2,000- $3,000- i$4,000- $5,000 -$2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 and Total over TERRITORIAL UNITED STATES 1917............. 1918............... 1919............. 1920.............. 1921............... NEW YORK STATE Federal returns: 1920............. 1921............ State returns: 1920............. 1921............. NEW YORK CITY State returns: 1920............. 1921............ NEW YORK STATE OUTSIDE NEW YORK CITY State returns: 1920............. 1921............. 3,472,890 4,425,114 5,332,760 7,259,944 6,662,176 47.3 34.3 36.1 36.6 42.6 24.1 33.8 29.4 35.4 33.4 10.8 13.8 13.9 12.2 10.6 5.3 7.3 8.2 6.1 5.5 12.5 10.8 12.4 10.7 7.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1,047,634 35.4 32.2 13.5 6.9 11.9 100.0 1,066,637 41.7 32.1 10.5 5.4 10.3 100.0 1,089,129 40.2 33.6 11.0 4.9 10.3 100.0 892,793 39.6 31.5 11.9 5.6 11.4 100.0 660,217 39.7 33.3 11.2 5.1 10.7 100.0 584.281 38.4 31.2 12.7 5.8 11.9 100.0 428,912 308,512 41.0 44.7 34.3 32.0 11.2 10.6 5.0 5.1 8.5 7.6 100.0 100.0 Under the New York State Law, no income tax return was required in 1920 from single persons with incomes of less than $1,000 a year, or from married persons with incomes of less than $2,000 a year. A complete estimate of the number of persons with separate incomes necessitates the determination of the number of persons with separate income under $2,000, who were not required to file income tax returns. The method here used is one which has been used in estimates of the New York State Tax Department as reported to the Commission, the number of returns shown for the income group $2,000 to $3,000 being multiplied by 10.75, the ratio between the number of persons with incomes below $2,000 and with incomes between $2,000 and $3,000 shown in the investigation of the National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.* The results of this calculation are as follows: * National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc. "Income in the U. S." Vol. I, pages 132, 133. 67 TABLE II NEW YORK NEW YORK BALANCE OF STATE CITY STATE INCOME CLASS Number Per Number Per Number Per of persons cent of persons cent of persons cent Under $2,000 (estimated).. 3,832,188 85.5 2,298,773 85.3 1,533,415 85.8 $2,000-$3,000............ 366,016 8.2 219,558 8.2 146,458 8.2 $3,000-$4,000........... 119,371 2.6 71,606 2.6 47,765 2.7 $4,000-$5,000............ 53,543 1.2 32,118 1.2 21,425 1.2 $5,000 and over......... 112,127 2.5 74,154 2.7 37,973 2.1 Total......4........ 4,483,245 100.0 2,696,209 100.0 1,787,036 100.0 As will be seen from this table the distribution of incomes is quite different when shown with reference to all persons with separate incomes than when shown with reference only to persons filing income tax returns. (Table I.) The number of persons without separate income can be shown by subtracting the above figures from the figures of total population in the 1920 census. This gives the following results: NEW YORK STATE NEW YORK CITY BALANCE OF STATE Number Per Number Per Number Per of persons cent of persons cent of persons cent Persons with separate income...... 4,483,245 43.2 2,696,209 48.0 1,787,036 37.5 Persons without separate income..... 5,901,982 56.8 2,923,839 52.0 2,978,143 62.5 Population, 1920 census........... 10,385,227 100.0 5,620,048 100.0 4,765,179 100.0 If we express this relationship in the form of average persons with and without separate income, we find that each person with separate income supported 1.32 dependents in the State as a whole, 1.08 dependents in New York city and 1.66 dependents in the rest of the State. Obviously such a group of persons is smaller in size than most families, and illustrates the fact brought out in the later calculations that the income of a family of average size comes from the 68 earnings of more than one wage earner. Any use of the above data as the basis for estimating distribution of family income necessitates adjustment to a unit of family size, and as yet it seems impossible to make such a calculation because of lack of information on size of family in different income groups. The second method of calculating income distribution uses figures for families in the population rather than persons and has greater value in the discussion of income distribution in relation to necessary rent expenditures. As discussed previously the family as defined by the Census Bureau varies somewhat in size and composition from the natural family. With this type of calculation, however, considerable variation in number of families or their exact size makes little difference in the final results as final expression is in the form of percentage distribution rather than actual number of families. Following the advice of a number of experts, the assumption has been made in this calculation that each person filing an income tax return of $2,000 or more is the main support of a family group. The balance of the families in the population, as shown by the 1920 census, is therefore assumed as belonging to the group in which the income of the main support of the family is less than $2,000 a year. This assumption gives the benefit of the doubt to the estimate of number of families above the $2,000 level rather than below. The distribution of families according to this method is shown in Table III. TABLE MI Estimated Distribution of Families in New York State (1920) with Reference to Annual Income of Main Support of Family and Family Income Assumed as One and One-fourth Times Individual Income of Main Support A AL INCOME NEW YORK NEW YORK BALANCE OF STATE CITY STATE Number Per Number Per Number Individual Family of cent of cent of enr families families families Under $2,000....... Under $2,500... 1,790,068 73.4 830,905 69.0, 909,163 78.1 $2,000-13,000...... $2,500-$3,750... 366,016 15.0 219,558 17.1 146,458 12.6 $3,000-S4,000...... $3,750-$5,000... 119,371 4.9 71,606 5.6 47,765 4.1 $4,000-$5,000..... $5,000-$6,250... 53,543 2.2 32,118 2.5 21,425 1.8 $5,000 and over.... $6,250 and over. 112,127 4.5 74,154 5.8 37,973 3.4 Total families, 1920 census....... 2,441,125 100.0 1,278,341 100.0 1,162,784 100.0 An additional step is necessary, however, in order to determine the distribution of families in relation to family income rather than in relation to the income of the main support of the family. A man may be earning only a small wage but he may be able to pay a high rent because other members of his family are making a generous contriEution to the family purse. On the other hand, a man may be earning a much larger salary and be able to pay but little for rent because 69 he is the only wage-earner in the family group. A number of budget studies have shown the average earnings of the man of the family is about 80 per cent of the family income. It has been assumed in calculating the amount of family income shown in Table III that this ratio between individual and family income holds true for all income groups although this probably exaggerates the relationship between individual and family income at the higher levels. A somewhat different calculation of family income based on data on number of dependents shown in the income tax returns for 1920, gives similar results, with the exception that average family income is lower in relation to individual incomes between $3,000 and $5,000 than shown by the above method. The figures of distribution of family incomes, as used in this report, are therefore favorable with reference to the number of families classified in the higher income classes and also with reference to the amount of their income. According to the figures in Table III, which are accepted as the basis for the discussion of distribution of family incomes in relation to rent expenditure in the present report of the Commission on the housing emergency in New York State, Approximately three-fourths of the families in New York State have incomes of less than $2,500 a year. Approximately one-fifth of the families in New York State have incomes between $2,500 and $5,000 a year. Less than a tenth of the families in New York State have incomes of more than $5,000 a year. In New York city more than two-thirds of the families have incomes of less than $2,500 a year, not quite a fourth have incomes between $2,500 and $5,000 a year, and less than a tenth have incomes above $5,000. 70 APPENDIX B RELATION OF RENT TO FAMILY INCOME Three factors influence the amount of income used by a family for rent - the size of the family income, the size of the family, and the current rents in the particular locality. In popular discussion rent is likely to be expressed in relation to the earnings of the main support of the family. " Not more than one week's pay for one month's rent" and "One day's pay for one week's rent" are expressions of widespread opinion which have guided many families in determining whether or not a certain rent could be afforded. However, such general statements have little value in showing either the exact amount being paid by families or the exact amount which should be paid. As discussed in Appendix A, rent expenditure should be compared with family income rather than with individual earnings. The percentage relationship of rent expenditure to family income is less than the percentage given in many budget studies which express the relationship of rent expenditure to total family expenditures instead of to total family income. With the smaller incomes the difference is relatively slight, but with the larger incomes the percentage of expenditure for rent with relation to total family expenditures is considerably larger than the percentage in relation to total family income. What is or is not included in the rent expenditure also affects the proportion of the income being used for rent, a large proportionate expenditure meaning perhaps only that the rent payment includes heat, hot water, and other items of service for which separate payment is often made with a consequent difference in the proportion of the income reported as used for rent. Actual rents vary in different localities and at different periods of time, so that the proportion of the income does not remain constant. This is illustrated by the different proportion of the income used for rent in relatively the same income groups as reported in three recent investigations in New York city. New York State Commission of Housing U. S. Bureau of Labor Brooklyn Chamber of and Regional Planning Statistics, 1918 Commerce, 1922 1923 (518 families) (433 families) (3,841 families) Annual Percentage Annual Percentage Annual Percentage income for rent income for rent income for rent Under $900 20.1 Under $1,040 32.0 Under $1,000 28.4 $900-$1,500 15.9 $1,040-41,560 22.2 $1,000-$1,500 23.0 1,500- 2,100 12.9 1,560- 2,080 17.9 1,500- 2,000 18.8 2,100- 2,500 11.9 2,080- 2,600 16.9 2,000- 2,500 17.7 2,500 and over 11.9 2,600 and over 14.4 2,500 and over 15.4 71 In 1918 the cost ol rents had not increased as rapidly as the cost of food and clothing, making the percentage of the income for rent somewhat lower than found in earlier and later investigations. In localities where rents are unusually low or high, differences are found also in the proportion of the income commonly used for rent, making it exceedingly difficult to establish a figure with reference to the proportion of the income necessary for rent which will hold true for all places and all times. All budget studies, however, show that the smaller the income and the smaller the family, the larger is the proportion used for rent. With minimum incomes all expenditures are reduced to the smallest possible amount and certain items are omitted altogether. Especially under urban conditions, rent cannot be reduced below a figure which is likely to be large in relation to income, and we find the rent normally a heavy burden when the income is small. The proportion decreases rather rapidly as the income becomes more adequate and then tends to decrease more slowly. The range of variation in actual and proportionate rent expenditure as shown in certain budget studies, is presented in Table I. A summary of the decrease in rent expenditure in relation to total income in these and certain other studies follows: Proportion of income for rent Group with Group with Locality Date lowest income highest income England (1)............ 1914 35.0 10.5 Germany (2)........... 1909 20.0 14.9 France (3)............. 1907 12.3 8.4 Belgium (4)............ 1908 13.2 8.6 United States (5)....... 1900-2 22.1 14.1 United States (6)....... 1909 19.5 9.9 United States (7)....... 1918-9 14.3 9.3 New York City (8)...... 1903-5 31.7. 14.3 New York City (9)...... 1907 27.6 16.2 New York City (7)...... 1918-9 20.1 11.9 New York City (10). 1923 28.4 15.4 Buffalo (7)............. 1918-9 18.3 12.3 Philadelphia (11)........1916-8 20.5 10.2 Philadelphia (7)........ 1918-9 22. 0 8.5 Tabulation according to size of family is less frequent than with reference to size of income, but all available data indicate that the proportion of income for rent is large when a family is small, and that it tends to become less as size of family increases and more money has to be used for food, clothing and various other items. In no country and at no period of time is there indication of a fixed relationship between income and rent for all income levels and all sizes of family. While it is frequently assumed that 20 per cent of the income is used for rent, this seems to be true only with reference to a certain income class and a certain size of family at a particular time in a particular locality, while other families may be using normally a higher or lower proportion of the income for rent. 72 However, because of the frequency with- which this arbitrary figure is used in rent discussions in relation to income, it has been. used in certain discussions in the body of this report in addition to figures showing actual rent expenditures in relation to various income levels at the present time in New York city. BUDGET STUDIES REFERRED TO ABOVE 1. Bowley A. L. Livelihood and Poverty. 2. Imperial Statistical Bureau. Cost of Living in Germany. 3. British Board of Trade. Cost of Living in French Towns. 4. British Board of Trade. Cost of Living in Belgian Towns. 5. U. S. Dept. of Labor. Cost of Living and Retail Prices of Food. 6. British Board of Trade. Cost of Living in American Towns. 7. U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Cost of Living in the United States. 8. More, Louise B. Wage-Earners Budgets. 9. Chapin R. C., and others. The Standard of Living in New York City. 10. N. Y. State Commission of Housing and Regional Planning. (See page 33 of present report.) 11. Philadelphia, Bureau, of Municipal Research. Workmen's Standard of Living for Philadelphia. TABLE I ANNUAL RENT PER FAMILY IN RELATION TO FAMILY INCOME FoR ALL BUDGET FAMILIES AND FOR THOSE IN MINIMUMT AND MA XIMUM INCOME GRGoUPS LocA-r i~y United States...... StaLte of o Yorl.. Citv of New York. Buffalo........ Sace.......... Johlnlstown,....... Investigator Date U. S. Deprrtmen-t of Lhbor...... 1889-90 1900-2 BriiTi Borrd of Trde........ 109 U. s. Bureuc of Labor Sttitis.. 195-9 U. S. Deprtment of Labor... 1.. 9-2IS 100-2 Louise B. Moc........ 1 I03-5 R. C. Chopin:.. 190i N. Y. State Factory mvestwrat-l,,19, U. Bureau 01fLol.o.r " 1, i "'; 's.1 N'I 1J. 3 o 1 21 Sa r. 1008 J. R Ho rd..... 1008 N. Y. State Factory Invc ati 1 Com m-iitu.............. 10.. 1 U. S Burr of I r t 1 I 1913 t1 10................... j 18i AvERsAGE PER FaMILY AVERAG PER tMINIhMM KAND MAXIMUM TICcOME r GuCP Nurnber of budgets -I E PER CENT Income 6,g 00r 3 28 2, 5C62 573 78 25 40 749 50 1 11,156 60 99 3,21 64 8C 1,83L1,451 74 70 75 '51 o65 36 S 9 5 01O S 675 21 200 851 13S m91 800 91 3. 879 40 510 1556 33 100 C 600 00 18 772 43 256 1560 21 18 1491 721 78 1333 37 Rent $82 40 80 42 118 40 111 97 174 95 2189 25 98 0 85 23 128 46 122 14 162 26 165 96 2(0 00 2214 62 95 00 120 00 2225 45 2209 61 2 148 51 PFr cent 1iI - 1---I------- INCOMEa Minimrnm Maximum 12.0 14.0 15.8 17.2 15.0 -12.7 13.6 15.1 16.8 18.1 19 0 20. Under. 200............ 5200.......400.............. 00-4................. $200 $200............. ýA400-499............... $1,200 and over. 82,024 and over. $2,500 and over............................... S1500 and over.. 81500-1599..... RENT Mini- Maximum mun $33 W6 183 08 88 92! 259 48 2115 481 260 10..................... 109 07 245 84 124 501 254 00 PER CENT nTi- Maximum mum 22.1 11 19.5 9.9 3 14.3 9.3 31.7 14.3 27.6 16.6 22 91 *.. ***' *'.............. e..... d.... 1. 2-3.5 -7 3 2 13 8 Under $900............. $2500 and over.. 2 167 52 355 70 15.5............................................ 15.6..................... J4.5 Under $900............ - 14.3 3 S900 and under $1200... 211.1 Under $900........... 2 20.1 2 18.3 216.4 2 13.5 211.9 212.3 270 2500 and over.. 2152 33 '321 16 $2500 and over.. 2176 14 2246 00.2500 and over.. 2109 90 2 180 00 Nos. Nral amle. leltO friuc rlo~~g oo cnliodwihfulan lgt. 2Bolde inmm ropcotinn 1fmiy No'O'zs.-- 1 Normal " fanilie; - reportilg rent comibjincd with fuel and lighit. N Escludes minimum group containing 1 family. 74 APPENDIX C LETTER FROM EDWARD F. BOYLE, JUSTICE CHILDREN'S COURT, NEW YORK CITY November 24th, 1923. Hon. BERNARD L. SHIENTAG, State Industrial Commissioner, Counsel to State Housing Commission, New York City: MY DEAR COMMISSIONER.- You know of my keen interest in the purposes of the State Housing Commission. I have kept in touch with its work, especially during the public hearings held in this city recently, and noted the various aspects - social and economic-' from which the housing situation was treated by the witnesses who testified before your Commission. There is an angle of the subject which was touched upon at the hearings and which in my judgment should be lined out more sharply and amplified so that its effects, actual and potential, may be better understood and appreciated, for it transcends in importance, I think, certain other phases of your inquiry which - properly enough - have had considerable emphasis. My experience in the Children's Court and the opportunity afforded me as a member of Governor Smith's Reconstruction Commission, which as one of its functions studied and reported in 1919 upon the housing situation, have given me an insight into conditions and their consequences which perhaps qualifies me to discuss the subject with some degree of competency; in particular with reference to certain features of our work in the Children's Court, which it seems to me have a very direct bearing upon it. The accompanying memorandum includes a few typical cases - omitting identities of course - in the Children's Court which have a direct relation to the housing situation. Subjoined to the memorandum is a summary statement which speaks for itself. In this letter I shall take the liberty to discuss the matter of housing somewhat more broadly. Economic laws, it seems, are taking care of our well-to-do folks as regards housing. On that point apparently there is little, if any, controversy. But what of the masses - the middle class, the wageearner and the poor of our city? Are they any better off than they were in 1919 when Governor Smith recommended to the Legislature the creation of a permanent State Housing Commission based upon a report of his Reconstruction Commission? The answer is that they are infinitely worse off. It is true we have the so-called Emergency Rent Laws, which thus far have served to avoid that which in their absence would have been a calamity and the extension of the operation of which no sane person will undertake to oppose, at least not until there has been worked out a solution of the housing problem - a permanent, lasting solution 75 that will serve to insure to the poorest among our people decent accommodations in which to live and raise their families at a cost in rental that will not rob them of the means to provide necessary food and clothing. Had the Governor's recommendation, back in 1919, looking to a permanent solution been translated into action, we would now be that much farther advanced towards taking care of a situation, bad enough at the time and grown much worse meanwhile until it has become a very real menace to health and morals. It appears by the testimony before your Commission that in the last three years housing accommodations have been provided for five hundred thousand people in New York and it was urged in view of the fact that the population had increased only three hundred thousand in the same period, the housing condition was just that much improved. This is a fallacy. It appears there was just one house built in the past three years, which would provide housing at $10.00 a room. Whatever further accommodations have been provided are far beyond the reach of the average family in New York, because the average family, as we know, cannot pay rents as high as $20.00 per room and upwards. The limit, I think, is $10.00 per room or perhaps less. Surely no one will seriously urge that there was any appreciable change for the better as regards congestion and high rents, by the enormous building enterprises which have been put through in the past three years. The three hundred thousand increase in population has only added to the difficulties of the problem, for it is certain that at least two-thirds of the number, or two hundred thousand, were obliged to fit themselves into dwellings or tenements already congested beyond reason. It was testified at your hearings that there are at present five thousand illegally constructed tenement-houses, which, if closed, as required by law, would render thirty thousand people homeless; that the existing laws providing for standards of safety and sanitary conditions are not being enforced because thousands would be "camping in the parks and streets"; that it was normal for children of congested districts in our city to weigh from five to fifteen pounds less than normal children elsewhere; that we are facing "an acute social problem"; "that home is a less decent place to live in for the wageearner's family than it was two years ago"; that there are families living in "holes"; that tenement-houses vacated ten years ago as 4"unfit" are now occupied; that one low-priced flat was offered and twenty applicants presented themselves ready to take it "sight unseen"; that more and more children are being cared for in the day nurseries because mothers are obliged to leave their families and go to work in order to meet the high rent; that the "doubling up" of families and the awful congestion in certain neighborhoods have given rise to "loathsome familiarities"; that there is less food and lower morals and that standards of common decency have been lowered. All this constitutes a terrible indictment and, unfortunately, it is true. It seems to me, private enterprise having failed utterly, that the 76 time for temporizing has gone by and that the matter must be faced fairly and squarely by the State itself, or by the city under authority from the State. Far from debating Emergency Rent Laws, a question which it seems to me is outside the realm of debate, we should be discussing what manner of legislation, what means shall be employed by the State to provide for relief of the present crisis and for a permanent program which will insure to the masses of our people, which includes the so-called "white collar" man, decent, sanitary accommodations at a reasonable rental. Sincerely yours, (Signed) EDWARD F. BOYLE, Justice Children's Court, City of New York. THE HOUSING SITUATION AND THE CHILDREN'S COURT-MEMORANDUM BY EDWARD F. BOYLE, JUSTICE CHILDREN'S COURT, CITY OF NEW YORK November 24th, 1923. TYPICAL CASES (1) Boy 15 years old; arraigned for juvenile delinquency. Found to be a drug addict as well, the habit having been contracted through association in the neighborhood in which he lived. Boy was remanded to an institution for a few months and parents advised to move out of the neighborhood. Boy was discharged recently cured of the drug habit. Parents have searched in vain for accommodations within their means. Boy is now on probation but the outlook is very doubtful unless a change in neighborhood environment can be brought about. (2) Two boys 12 and 15 years old respectively brought to court by parents for having been associating with undesirable companions. They were not vicious, but of the type that may be easily led into waywardness or delinquency. The parents realize that companionship in the neighborhood was responsible, but notwithstanding their strong desire and effort to find suitable quarters elsewhere they have thus far failed. Both boys were remanded to an institution for a period in the hope that it might have a good effect and at the same time give an opportunity for the parents to look around for new quarters. The boys are back again in the same old congested neighborhood under a probation officer, a condition which constitutes a serious handicap. (3) A family consists of grandmother, parents and little girl three years old. The case came before the court on a charge of improper guardianship because of the conditions under which the family were living. The home consists of two rooms on the ground floor of a rear house, behind a stable. It was complained that the apartment 77 was filthy, dark and altogether undesirable. At first effort was made to find another place but it was impossible to do so at the rental that the family could afford to pay. Considerable cleaning has been done and the child permitted to remain with its parents as undoubtedly they were doing the best that could be done under the circumstances. Although the place is now fairly clean the rooms are still dark and highly unsanitary. (4) Girl 14 years old charged with having been disorderly because of the character of her associations and alleged improper relationship with a male adult. The girl is the oldest of ten children and lived with her parents in four rooms in a double tenement on the East Side in Harlem, in one of its most congested sections. The home consisted of four rooms with three beds for the twelve persons living there. Parents were urged to find another place but after trying found they could not do so at a rental within their means. The real origin of the girl's trouble grew out of the companionship she kept in the neighborhood and when it appeared that the parents could not change the environment a home was found for her through outside sources in a remote part of the city where she is living in apparent content and giving satisfaction. Of course she cannot be returned to her home unless the neighborhood environment is changed and this possibility is very remote. (5) Girl 12 years old. It was alleged that she had had improper relations with a male adult living in the same tenement-house in an opposite apartment, but for lack of proof no case could be made against the adult. The mother, a respectable woman, has made every effort to find another home. She says the nearest she came to it was finding the suitable place, but the landlord required two months' rent in advance and the janitor insisted upon a bonus of $10. Such payments were beyond the mother's means. Through the kindness of the Big Sisters a home has been found for the girl with a private family where she appears to be doing well. (6) Family consists of parents and seven children ranging from 12 years old to four months old, four boys and three girls. The charge was improper guardianship "In that the children were found to be living in a squalid condition in dark and dirty rooms." The home consists of three very small rooms in the rear of a tenement. The kitchen lies between two small rooms and is itself so small that it will not hold a bed or couch, with the result that the family of nine persons must sleep in two small rooms. The rent was formerly $9 per month and is now $27 per month. The sole family income is the father's wages of $32 per week and they cannot get better puarters at a rental he can afford to pay. They are quite decent people and are still hopeful of finding another place. Meanwhile the rooms have been cleaned which is the best that can be done under the circumstances. (7) Girl 13 years old alleged to have had improper relations with a male boarder in the house. The family conduct a small candy store 78 and live in three rooms in the rear of it. The family consists of parents and six children, all living in the overcrowded quarters indicated and in addition for a time they had a male boarder. The adult went scot-free because of lack of proof. The parents insist that they cannot afford to obtain another home and it was necessary to commit the girl to an institution. (8) Boy 14 years old brought to court by his mother for staying out at night and for being a truant. The mother blames it on unwholesome neighborhood companions. Father earns about $25 per week. Nothing very bad about the boy, his sole trouble seemed to be a disposition to "play hookey" from school and he was placed on probation. The family consists of parents and twelve children, all living in three small rooms in the rear of a tenement; poorly ventilated and dark. All fourteen sleep in two rooms. Both parents are decent and respectable but they cannot possibly change home conditions because they cannot afford to pay any higher rent. (9) Boy 13 years old arrested for unlawfully entering a building and stealing certain articles. Family consists of parents and five children. Father earns $35 per week and there is no real poverty in the home. The boy was sent to an institution for three months, the parents having promised meanwhile to use their best efforts to find a home in a different neighborhood. At the expiration of the period mentioned the parents reported that they had made every effort but were unable to find another place at a reasonable rental. The boy is now on probation, having been permitted to live with an aunt residing in the suburbs, and is doing well, away from the bad neighborhood environment in which he formerly lived. (10) This was a case in which it was claimed that there was improper guardianship in that the home in which the two children live was in a dirty and filthy condition. The rooms have since been cleaned and made as presentable as it is possible to do under the circumstances, but the accommodations are wholly inadequate and unsanitary. The family consist of mother, uncle, grandmother and two children and they live in two rooms. The mother seems anxious to get out of the environment but insists that she cannot find other accommodations at a rental that she can afford to pay. (11) Boy 12 years old accused of stealing. Father is a bookkeeper and earns about $30 per week. It appeared that two older boys had considerable influence on this boy and led him into his trouble. He was remanded to an institution for a short time and meanwhile the father promised to do his best to find a home in another neighborhood. Upon the expiration of the period of the remand the father stated that despite his best efforts he could not locate an apartment in another neighborhood at a rental that he could afford to pay. The boy is being tried out on probation but the handicap of living in the same old neighborhood renders success very problematical. 79 (12) Family consists of father, mother and four children. The children were brought before the court, it being alleged that they were "without proper guardianship." It appeared that the mother was ill, at the time, in the hospital and the father was employed during the day and could not give proper care to the home. The children were sent to an institution for the time being and as the mother's illness continued for some months the father was obliged to break up the home. He earns $25 per week. The mother is now out of the hospital and the parents are living in a furnished room with one child, the others living with relatives temporarily. The parents state that they have searched in vain for accommodations, the rental of which would be within their means. (13) Boy 13 years old. Family consists of parents and five children. For two years before bringing the boy to court the mother tried to get an apartment in another neighborhood but failed. The boy kept bad companionship but his chief trouble was truancy. He was never accused of stealing. The family occupy three rooms for which they pay $20 per month. The father's wages are $25 per week. The boy is now in an institution, having been remanded for a short period in the hope that it may do some good and also to give an opportunity to the parents to find a home in another neighborhood if such be possible. (14) Boy 15 years old, charge truancy and staying out at night, all of which was due to bad neighborhood companionship. The parents are very decent people. There are seven children. All nine persons live in three rooms. The father did his best to obtain other quarters in a different neighborhood but failed. He is rather thrifty and having saved a little money placed a deposit on a small house in the Bronx, intending to purchase it on instalment. From month to month, however, the present owner of the house keeps putting off the date for taking possession on the ground that he himself cannot find an apartment at a reasonable rental. (15) Boy 13 years old under the influence of an older and much bigger boy 16 years old, was arrested in February of this year and again in October. In both cases it was alleged he had stolen certain articles -he was sent to an institution. At the time of his first offense, as to which there seemed doubt about his guilt, it was realized that unless he could be gotten away from the neighborhood in which he lived he would go from bad to worse, which is what really happened. The parents made a serious effort to obtain a home in another neighborhood but failed. The family live in a congested neighborhood and pay $30 a month, which is their limit as the father makes but $28 per week and in all probability in order to obtain accommodations at anything like the same rental they will have to go to an even worse neighborhood or accept smaller accommodations. (16) Two girls aged 13 and 15 respectively were brought before the court on a charge of having used abusive language to a neighbor. One of the girls has been a problem for some time. Neither of the 80 girls is really bad or vicious and in a new environment there is good ground to believe they would do well. The parents have tried to get accommodations in another neighborhood but have failed. The family now live in a fairly good neighborhood and pay $39 per month for five rooms. These girls, since there is nothing serious against them, must continue to live in the same neighborhood unless the slim hope of finding quarters elsewhere be realized. (17) Boy 11 years old. Kept bad company and ran away from home. Not a bad boy but has had considerable trouble at school. Spent five months in an institution and meanwhile the parents tried to get accommodations in another neighborhood so the boy could go to a different school, but they did not succeed. The boy is now on probation. The family, consisting of parents and six children, live in an old-fashioned ramshackle house heated with old-fashioned gas stoves. They occupy four rooms, as the other rooms of the building are not fit for human habitation. Recently the mother thought she had rented a place for $40 per month, but upon learning that she had six children, the landlord returned her deposit and refused to let her move in. (18) Boy 11 years old accused of stealing. Family consists of parents and seven children, living in four rooms, which are kept exceptionally neat and tidy, and for which they pay $28 per month. It was clear that the boy was not the principal in the case alleged against him and that there was no moral turpitude behind his action in the matter, but it was also clear that a change in the neighborhood environment was highly advisable and the mother has been trying for months to find another home, but reports she cannot do so because when she finds a vacancy, either the rent is beyond her means or the landlord refuses to take in any children. (19) Two boys ran away from school because of school trouble. Family consists of parents and eight children, one a girl suffering from incipient tuberculosis. After trying for several months, the father finally succeeded in renting four rooms on the outskirts of the city in a two-family house. The family now reside there. The two boys are doing well under the new environment, but the rent instead of being $32 as they paid formerly, is now $50 per month. (20) Boy 14 years old before the court for alleged improper guardianship which grew out of a dispute between the parents. The family consists of father, mother, the boy mentioned and two girls, 15 and 11 years old, respectively. The parents have separated, the two girls having gone to live with their mother in a furnished room big enough to hold one bed, while the father is living in an apartment of five rooms with the boy. The father has rented the three bedrooms and the boy and himself sleep in the dining-room. Two of the bedrooms are occupied by married couples, the other by an unmarried woman. The father insists he cannot possibly support himself and his son under any other circumstances, while the mother states that she cannot find rooms at a rental within her means and so must continue as she now is living in a small bedroom with her two daughters. 81 SUMMARY STATEMENT (1) Difficulties in probation work multiplied As adverse housing conditions grow more and more acute, difficulties in handling certain classes of probation cases are multiplied; and failure, all too often, may fairly be ascribed to such conditions. In probation cases, in which neighborhood environment is a factor to be reckoned with, although there may be improvement shown or perhaps an apparent cure for a time, despite inability to change such environment, there remains the constant danger of a relapse by the child to old habits and former temptations just so long as he or she is obliged to live in the same neighborhood. Thus, under existing housing conditions the probationary period is frequently prolonged in such cases beyond what it need be normally, ending very often in failure and consequent commitment of a girl or boy to an institution. Failure written instead of the success that in all probability would have attended upon a change of neighborhood environment. The most frequent cause of difficulty encountered in dealing with probationers relates to those whose misconduct or delinquency find their origin partly or wholly in school troubles. Before the housing crisis, cases of this sort were dealt with successfully in time with few exceptions, by getting the family to move to another neighborhood and transferring the child to a different school. Now, unless there is another school nearby to which transfer can be made, success in sucih cases is highly doubtful and at times hopeless. Past reputation is known or soon becomes known throughout the school whereat the child attended, the principal and the teaching staff probably have already labored in vain on the case, and the child realizes that he or she is "in bad" all around. These considerations, taken together with continued contacts with former school associates, some of whom may have been responsible at least in part for, or perhaps shared in the child's original trouble with the authorities, render the prospect of success under probation doubtful in the circumstances. There is the same drawback as to probationers whose trouble originated outside the precincts of the school itself, but knowledge of which becomes generally known to school companions and teachers. Prior to the housing crisis the first step in applying probation methods would be to require the family to move to another neighborhood. Obviously it is out of the question to invoke such rule now, save in very rare instances. (2) Foreclosure of probationary opportunity There are many cases quite often involving comparatively blight delinquencies - which from the outset are utterly hopeless from the standpoint of probation because of unwholesome home environment, neighborhood gossip or other reasons growing out of previous surroundings - conditions which offer no promise of change in view of the housing situation. In such circumstances, unless a suitable home 82 for the child can be found elsewhere - a relatively rare happening - there is no choice save to place the boy or girl so unfortunately circumstanced in an institution. (3) Broken homes that cannot be rehabilitated There was a time when homes that were broken up due to one cause or another - sickness, intemperance, misfortune or what not - could be rehabilitated if the original cause or causes of the breakdown were remedied. Nowadays the prospect of reestablishing a home in New York for people of small means, especially where there are children, is so remote as to be almost negligible. Rents are either too high or the sort of place that may be obtained is generally so deplorably bad that there is practically no choice remaining. (4) Morals and the Housing Situation Families are "doubled up "in small apartments to an extent which was never before experienced in this city. Some of the results of this practice are too shocking to describe. The inevitable result in general is a serious lowering of moral standards. Girls more and more and in proportion as the home space is preempted because of the existing congestion in housing, are substituting hallways for the old-fashioned parlor or living rooms in which to find place for the entertainment of their companions - male and female. In greater numbers than ever, there will be found in the small apartments of the poor, the male lodger or lodgers (always a menace). As a rule the best room in the home is his, while the family itself is relegated to the meagre quarters remaining; too often only a kitchen, but usually a bedroom or two, invariably overcrowded. It is not rare to find instances where boys and girls as old as fourteen, fifteen and sixteen years are found sleeping in the same room together - as many as six in a small bedroom and at times children of opposite sexes as old as fifteen and sixteen, in the same bed. (One cannot in decency specify here some of the results of this kind of living, if it may be described as such.) It is enough to state that the conditions found to exist, the intermingling both night and day, of males and females, young and old in overcrowded quarters, are responsible for many cases that pass through the Children's Court, a description of some of which would sound the very depths of moral depravity. 83 APPENDIX D LEASE FORM COPY OF EXHIBIT No. 20 UROA 30 days notice to terminate existing month to month tenancy, and creating new month to month tenancy at old or increased rent. GOPY OF EXHITBIT NO. 20-OCTOBER 18, 1923 New York, July 24th, 1923. To Westervelt, Tenant (First name fictitious, real name unknown to petitioner. Party intended occupying premises herein described.) Take notice, that the landlord of the premises hereinafter mentioned, elects to terminate your month to month tenancy of Apartment No. 43 consisting of five rooms in premises known as No. 211 West 101st Street, Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, and that said landlord requires you to surrender and deliver up possession of said apartment occupied by you, and that you vacate the same on the first day of October, 1923, at 12 o'clock noon, that being the day on which your term expires. Take further notice, that should you not vacate and surrender up said premises on said date, the landlord elects that if you remain in possession thereof, you do so as a month to month tenant, and that the rent of the apartment occupied by you, commencing with the first day of October, 1923, will be Eighty-five ($85.00) Dollars per month, payable without demand on the first day of the calendar month in advance and in such event you will hold over pursuant to all the following terms and conditions: 1st-The Tenant agrees to pay without demand to the Landlord on the first day of the calendar month in advance the rent as herein specified. 2nd-The Tenant agrees not to assign or mortgage this lease, nor let or under-let the whole or any part of said leased premises, nor occupy or use or permit to be occupied or used, any part of said leased premises, for any purpose other than a private residence, nor permit any part of the same to be used or ooccupied by any person other than the Tenant and the Tenant's immediate family, without the written consent of the Landlord first endorsed hereon. iShould the Tenant, however, without the written consent of the Landlord endorsed hereon, and in violation of the terms of this lease, sublet or underlet any part of or all of the leased premises or permit them to be occupied by more than three persons (except increase due to birth in the Tenant's family) the Landlord shall have the right of either evicting said subtenants or additional occupants or of requiring the Tenant to pay and which the Tenant agrees to pay, one-half of the amount that such sub-tenants or additional occupants agree to pay to the Tenant in excess of the rent reserved in the within lease but such increased rent shall not be less than the rent reserved in this lease increased in the same ratio as the number of occupants in the leased premises have been increased. And which increased rent the Tenant agrees to pay to the Landlord as and in the manner provided for in the 16th clause hereof. 3rd-It is part of the consideration of this lease, the rental having teen fixed in view thereof, that the Tenant agrees to make all repairs, renovations and decorations of every kind within the leased premises and to keep the walls, ceilings, floors, windows and plumbing thereof clean, in good repair and in sanitary condition and to comply with all present and future laws, orders, ordinances, requirements and regulations of the Federal, State or Municipal Governments, their Departments and Bureaus and of the New York Board of Fire Underwriters and the New York Fire Insurance Exchange affecting the leased premises and pay the cost thereof, and pay all fines and penalties which may be imposed for violation thereof. The understanding being that the 84 Landlord shall not be required to incur any expenditures therefor or for repairs or decorations of any kind within the leased premises and that the Tenant shall surrender the leased premises at the termination of the occupancy in good condition, reasonable use and wear excepted. iShould the Tenant fail to promptly execute and obey all the aforesaid laws, orders, ordinances, requirements and regulations or to comply with this agreement, the Landlord as the Tenant's agent may enter in and upon the leased premises and execute and comply with the same and the Tenant agrees to pay the cost of so doing. The Tenant agrees that all such payments, fines and penalties shall be paid by the Tenant, as and in the manner provided for in the 16th Clause hereof. If any mechanics lien or liens shall be filed against said leased premises for work done or materials furnished or claimed to be done or furnished to the Tenant, the Tenant shall within ten days thereafter cause such lien or liens to be discharged by filing the bond for that purpose required by law, at the expense of the Tenant. 4th-The Tenant shall not drive any nails or make any alterations, additions or improvements in said leased premises, without the written consent of the Landlord, and all alterations. additions or improvements, whether fixtures or otherwise, which may be made or put in by either of the parties hereto upon said leased premises, except movable furniture put in at the expense of the Tenant, shall be the property of the Landlord, and shall remain and be surrendered with said leased premises as a part thereof, at the termination of this lease, without disturbance, molestation or injury. In case any alteration or alterations of said leased premises shall be made by the Tenant or by the Landlord at the Tenant's request, the Tenant agrees to pay to the Landlord on the termination of said term a sum of money equal to the cost of restoring said premises to their condition as at the commencement of said term. Should the occupancy of the Tenant be such as shall increase the Fire Insurance rate or premium on the building of which the leased premises form part, the Tenant agrees to pay to the Landlord such increased premium as and in the manner provided for in the 16th clause hereof. The leased premises are rented in their present condition, unless stipulated otherwise in this lease. 5th-The rules and regulations in regard to said building, printed on the back of this lease, and all rules and regulations which the Landlord hereafter may from time to time, in the Landlord's discretion, adopt and promulgate for the government and management of said building, are hereby made a part of this lease, as fully to all intents and purposes as if they were incorporated herein and shall be in all things observed and performed by the Tenant. And this lease shall be subordinate to all present or future mortgages or deeds of trust covering said land and building, of which the leased premises form whole or part. 6th-If during the term of said tenancy, said leased premises are damaged by fire or otherwise (such damage not being caused by the negligence of the Tenant, his agents, employees or visitors) the Landlord shall repair the same with reasonable diligence after notice of said damage. In case the building generally be so injured or destroyed (although said leased premises may not he affected) that the Landlord shall decide within a reasonable time to rebuild or reconstruct said building, then this tenancy shall terminate and the rent ble apportioned and paid up to the time of such injury or destruction and the Tenant shall surrender said leased premises. No compensation or claim shall be made by reason of loss, damage, inconvenience, or annoyance arising from the necessity of repairing any portion of said building or its plant or appurtenances. however the necessity may occur. 7th-Tt is understood and agreed that if steam-heat, elevator service, lighting, hot water, janitor or other service, be supplied, any or all of said service, is furnished by the Landlord as an additional accommodation on his, part to the Tenant, for which it is understood and agreed no charge is made or included in the rent reserved hereunder, and that if. for any reason, whether intentional on the part of the Landlord or otherwise, any or all of such service shall be discontinued at any time, it is agreed that such discontinuance on the part of 85 the Landlord shall be deemed to be by and with the consei. of the Tenant, and that no reduction in the rent, nor any damages shall accrue to the Tenant by reason of the suspension, elimination or discontinuation of any or all of such service. If telephone service is installed in the leased premises, the Tenant agrees to pay to the Landlord as and in the manner provided for in the 16th clause hereof, the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) for telephone extension in and to the leased premises and Ten Cents (10c) for each outward City telephone call and the Telephone Company's long distance rates for other than City telephone calls. 8th-The Landlord shall not in any event be liable for any loss, damage or injury to the Tenant, Tenant's family, employees or visitors, whether caused by the Landlord's negligence or otherwise, or to Tenant's property, caused by or from boilers, engines, dynamos, elevators, Croton or other water, rain, snow, steam, gas, electricity or other cause or for loss of Tenant's property in the leased premises or elsewhere in the building. The Tenant is liable for all damages to the Landlord's property caused by the Tenant, the Tenant's family, employees or visitors. 9th-Provided always and it is expressly agreed that if and whenever said rent or any part thereof shall be in arrears, whether legally demanded or not, or if and whenever there shall be a breach of any of the agreements herein contained on the part of the Tenant, said Tenant's executors, administrators or assigns, or if and whenever said leased premises or any part thereof shall become unoccupied, or if the conduct of any of the occupants of or visitors to the leased premises be considered by the landlord, who shall be the sole judge thereof, improper or objectionable, or, if said Tenant shall be judicially declared bankrupt or insolvent or shall make a general assignment for the benefit of said Tenant's creditors, or, if said lease shall be pledged or hypothecated or become subject to levy, or, if said term shall be taken on execution, then, in any of the said cases the Landlord shall have the right, without taking summary or any other proceedings at law or in equity, (any and all of which are hereby expressly waived by the Tenant) to re-enter and take possession of said leased premises and remove any and all persons and property therefrom by force or otherwise, without being liable to an action or prosecution for damages or otherwise, or for any claim by reason thereof and thereupon the tenancy shall at the option of the Landlord immediately cease and terminate and in such event or in case said Tenant or said Tenant's executors, administrators, or assigns, shall be dispossessed by due process of law, the Landlord is hereby given the option of terminating this lease and re-renting the leased premises for the Landlord's own account and risk, or of sub-letting the leased premises for the unexpired term of this lease as the Agent of and for account of and at the risk of the Tenant and if the rent received from such sub-letting, less the reasonable expense of such sub-letting and rent collection, and cost of necessary repairs to secure a sub-tenant, be less than the amount reserved under this lease, the Tenant agrees to pay to the Landlord such deficiency on the last day of every month, and if the rent received from such sub-letting less said deductions, be more than the rent reserved under this lease the Landlord agrees to pay to the Tenant, such excess on the last day of every month. 10th-The failure of the Landlord to insist in any one or more instances upon the strict performance of any of the terms or conditions of this lease, or to exercise any option herein conferred, shall not be construed as waivijg or relinquishing for the future any such covenants, conditions or options, but the same shall continue and remain in full force and effect. 11th-Nothing herein contained shall be construed or deemed to be a waiver on the part of the landlord of any right or remedy in law or otherwise, which the Landlord may be or become entitled to by reason of the breach of anv of the Tenant's agreements herein contained. It is distinctly understood and agreed that this lease and every renewal thereof shall be renewed for a further term of like duration as the aforesaid term, and subject to all its terms and 86 conditions including the obligation to pay rent, the amount of which, however, shall in the event of any renewal of the term, be fixed by the Landlord or be determined by the Court in cases where the Court can make any determination, but which amount shall in no event be less than that reserved in this lease or the rent last paid if it exceeds the said rent reserved. Either the Landlord or the Tenant shall have the right to cancel any renewal hereof by giving to the other written notice by registered letter with return card of such cancellation at least thirty days next preceding the expiration of the then existing term. Should either the Landlord or the Tenant give and serve such notice and the Tenant refuse or fail to so vacate and surrender the leased premises and continue in possession, then upon such refusal or failure the Landlord may institute summary proceedings to recover possession of said premises or may elect that such notice shall become null and void and of no effect and thereupon the Landlord shall have the option either of treating this lease as in full force and effect with the right to the Landlord to increase the rent, or of treating the Tenant as a Tenant from month to month. Should the Landlord, after the date upon which either of the said notices shall have been sent by registered mail as aforesaid, have rented the leased premises to another Tenant and the present Tenant shall then fail to vacate the leased premises the Tenant agrees to pay to the Landlord on the first day of every month that the Tenant continues to occupy the leased premises the difference between the monthly rent agreed to be paid by the new Tenant and the monthly rent paid by the present Tenant. The Tenant agrees that any petition by which summary proceedings are instituted to recover possession of premises, may omit therefrom the allegation that thirty days notice to vacate was personally served upon the Tenant. Should the Tenant be required to pay a higher rent than the old rent and notwithstanding such requirement, pay the old rent with a stipulation that it is in full payment, the Tenant agrees that the acceptance of said payment by the Landlord, shall be on account of said rent instead of in full of said rent, without prejudice to the rights of either party hereto, notwithstanding any conditions, written or oral, imposed by the Tenant before, at or after the time of said payment. 12th-The Landlord shall have the right, at all reasonable hours, of entering into and upon the leased premises, for the purpose of making repairs and alterations which the Landlord is obligated or may desire to make and for examining or showing the same to prospective tenants or purchasers. 13th-In the event of an action for rent, or of a dispossess proceeding for non-payment of rent, or in a proceeding to recover possession of said leased or occupied premises, the Tenant agrees to serve a verified answer on or before the return day and concurrently therewith, and irrespective of any defenses that may be interposed, the Tenant agrees to deposit with the Clerk of the Couirt, in which such action or proceeding is instituted, the amount of the rent for which such action or proceeding is brought, but not exceeding such sum as equals the monthly rate of rent reserved under this lease or the rent last paid, if it exceeds said rent reserved, and thereafter the Tenant agrees to pay a like sum direct to the Landlord without demand, on the first day of every month, until the final adjudication of such action or proceeding. And said sum in the case of a proceeding to recover possession of said premises, shall be paid by the Tenant and accepted by the Landlord, not as rent, but for the use and occupancy of said premises without prejudice to the rights of the Landlord or Tenant. If the Tenant fails to file the aforesaid verified answer or to make the aforesaid deposit on or before said return day, or fails to pay direct to the Landlord the aforesaid rent demanded on the first day of every month thereafter until the final adjudication of such action or proceeding. the Tenant does hereby stipulate that judgment shall be entered in favor of the Landlord for the relief demanded, without further notice, and the Tenant does hereby constitute and appoint the Landlord as the Tenant's true and lawful attorney in fact, hereby authorizing said Attorney in fact to sign and execute any stipulations or consents to withdraw any answer interposed and to consent to judgment or a final order in favor of the Landlord. If there be a judgment for rent, other than increased rent, or for use and 87 occupancy, or a final order issued in favor of the Landlord, the Tenant agrees to pay to the Landlord, as and in the manner provided for in the 16th clause hereof, the sum of Ten 'Dollars ($10.00) to reimburse the Landlord for the Landlord's expenses. IShould the Landlord institute an action for increased rent, which shall terminate adversely to either party hereto, the Landlord and Tenant agree that any costs which may be taxed against either party are hereby expressly waived and that no costs shall be imposed in favor of either as against the other. 14th-If the leased premises or any part thereof, be taken by virtue of eminent domain, or for any public or quasi-public improvement, this lease shall, at the option of the Landlord, expire thirty days after written notice by registered letter to the Tenant. In the event that an excavation shall be made for building or other purposes upon land adjacent to the leased premises, or shall be contemplated to be made, the Tenant shall afford to the person or persons causing or to cause such excavations, license to enter upon the leased premises for the purpose of doing such work as said person or persons shall deem to be necessary to preserve the wall or walls, structure or structures upon the leased premises from injury and to support the same by proper foundations. No diminution or abatement of rent, or other compensation shall be claimed or allowed for inconvenience or discomfort arising from the making of repairs or improvements to the buildng. 15th-The Tenant has this day deposited the sum of Dollars and will keep continually deposited with the Landlord a sum which shall never be less than said original deposit as security for the faithful performance by the Tenant of this or any other lease or renewal thereof, holdover or tenancy of the leased premises. And should the Landlord be obliged to spend any part of such sum so deposited to comply with any conditions of this lease, which the Tenant has failed to perform, the Tenant agrees 1o forthwith deposit such additional sum as shall keep the said security deposit not less than the amount originally deposited. After the expiration of this or any other lease or renewal thereof, hold-over or other tenancy and upon the leased premises being vacated by the Tenant and surrendered to the Landlord free from all occupancy, the Landlord agrees within twenty days thereafter to return said deposit less such amount as the Landlord shall have expended pursuant to the terms of this lease and all damages sustained by the Landlord by reason of any breach by the Tenant of any of the terms or conditions of this lease. 'Should the damages so sustained exceed said deposit, the Tenant agrees forthwith to pay to the Landlord such excess. 16th-Whenever in this lease there is any provision that any increased rent, charges of any kind or sums of money for any purpose are agreed to be paid by the Tenant, such increased rent, charges or sums of money shall be added to the next month's rent and the amount so added, together with the amount of rent reserved hereunder, shall be the rent for such next month and which rent the Tenant agrees to pay at the time and in the manner herein provided for the payment of the rent reserved hereunder, and should the Tenant fail to pay such increased rent or fail to pay any increased rent demanded by the Landlord under the terms of or at the expiration of this lease, the Tenant agrees that the Landlord may institute summary proceedings for the non-payment of the same and that the petition in such proceeding may have omitted therefrom, the allegation that the rent demanded and sought to be recovered is no greater than the rent paid or agreed to be paid by the Tenant for tle preceding month and the Tenant does hereby further stipulate that for the purpose of instituting such proceeding, it is agreed that the Tenant shall be deemed liable for a like amount for the month preceding. If the Tenant agrees, under this lease or any other separate agreement, to pay to the Landlord an increased rent in consideration of the Landlord making certain renovations, repairs or improvements in the leased premises, he does so, as and in the manner provided for in the 16th clause hereof. 17th-It is understood and agreed between the parties hereto that no oral statement or agreement made by either of said parties or their agents before or after the execution of this lease and as long as the Tenant occupies the 88 leased or other premises in said building, shall be binding on either party hereto. 18th-This lease shall apply to and bind the successors and assigns of the Landlord, if a corporation, and if not, it shall bind the heirs, administrators, executors, successors and assigns of the Landlord and also of the Tenant. 72ND ST. HOTEL CO., INC., Patrick Fleming, Pres. Landlord's Signature. PERSONAL ISERVICE City of New York, County of..................ss.:............................b.. eing duly sworn, says he is over eighteen years of age, that on the day of............... 192.., he served on.......... First name fictitious, real name unknown to petitioner.................party intended occupying premises herein described the Tenant therein named and that such service was made at No.................................... Street, Avenue Borough of................ City of New York. Sworn to before me this....... day of................ 192..., Signature of party serving Commissioner of Deeds, New York City Notary Public............. County Witness to the serving Have server sign before notary. RULES AND REGULATIONS The public halls and stairways shall not be obstructed nor used for any other purpose than for ingress to and egress from the apartments. The passenger and service elevators, if any, shall be operated only by employees of the Landlord, and there shall be no interference whatever with the same by the tenants, members of their families or their servants. No tenant shall make or permit any disturbing noises in the building by himself, his family, friends or servants; nor do or permit anything by such persons that will interfere with the rights, comforts or convenience of other tenants. No tenant shall play upon or suffer to be played upon any musical instrument in the leased premises between the hours of eleven o'clock p.m. and the following eight o'clock a.m. if the same shall disturb or annoy other occupants of the building. The tenants and their servants are expressly forbidden to throw anything whatever out of the windows or doors, or in the halls or light shafts of the building. Kitchen supplies, market goods and packages of every kind are to be delivered at the entrance provided therefor, through service elevators or dumbwaiters, if any, to the tenants, and the ILandlord will not be held responsible for the loss or damage of any such property, notwithstanding such loss or damage may occur through the carelessness or negligence of the employees of the building. The Landlord will not be responsible for any article left with any employee. All garbage and refuse must be sent down by the tenant to the basement from the apartments and kitchens at such times and in accordance with the directions of the superintendent or janitor. No baby carriages, velocipedes, or bicycles will be allowed in passenger elevators, or in the halls, passageways, areas or courts of the building. Each tenant shall keep the premises leased in a good state of preservation and cleanliness and shall not sweep or throw or permit to be swept or thrown 89 from the leased premises, any dirt or other substance into an, of the corridors or halls, elevators' or stairways of said buildings, or into any of the light shafts or ventilators thereof. The obstruction of the fire escapes is a menace to life and is prohibited by the Fire and Tenement House Departments and also by the Landlord. No ash-can, garbage-can, coal-holder, wood-box, kitchen supplies, ice or other article shall be placed in the halls or on the staircase landings, nor shall anything be hung from the windows or balconies, or placed upon the window sills. Neither shall any table cloths, clothing, curtains or rugs be shaken or hung from any of the windows or doors. The water-closets and other water-apparatus shall not be used for any purpose other than those for which they were constructed, nor shall any sweepings, rubbish, rags nor any other improper articles be thrown into the same; and any damage resulting from misuse thereof shall be borne by the tenant by whom or upon whose premises it shall have been caused. 'Children shall not play in the public halls, stairways, or elevators, nor be permitted in the service elevators. The service elevators, if any, shall be used by servants, messengers and trades people for ingress and egress, and the passenger elevators, if any, shall not be used by them for that purpose, except that nurses with children may use the passenger elevators. Each tenant shall use the laundry and drying apparatus, if any, only on such days as the Landlord shall designate. No sign, signal, advertisement or illumination shall be inscribed or exposed on or at any window or other part of the building, except such as shall be approved in writing by the Landlord; neither shall anything be projected out of any window without such consent. Nothing shall be placed on any window sill or ledge. No shades, awnings or window guards shall be used except such as shall be first approved by the Landlord and all such shall be paid for by the Tenant. No dogs or other animals' shall be kept or harbored in the leased premises. The Landlord reserves the right to make such other rules and regulations from time to time as may be deemed needful for the safety, care and cleanliness of the premises and for securing the comfort and convenience of all the tenants....E-... 0 E-i P <1\ S::::: 90 APPENDIX E SUMMARY OF EMERGENCY RENT LAWS This appendix contains the emergency rent laws as amended up to the close of the legislative session of nineteen hundred and twenty-three, with a brief explanation of each law. They all apply to premises used for dwelling purposes. These laws originally expired on November 1, 1922, and by chapters six hundred and sixty-three and six hundred and sixtyfour of that year were extended to February 15, 1924. It will be noted that many of the laws are limited in their application to cities of the first class. Such cities include New York City, Buffalo and Rochester. CHAPTER 664, LAWS OF 1922 Amending Chapters 136 and 944 of the Laws of 1920 and Chapter 434 of the Laws of 1921 EXPLANATION: This is the so-called reasonable rent law. It applies to a city of the first class and to a city in a county adjoining a city of the first class. It sets up a new defense to an action for rent as follows: "It shall be a defense to an action for rent accruing under an agreement for premises in, a city of the first class or in a city in a county adjoining a city of the first class occupied for dwelling purposes that such rent is unjust and unreasonable and that the agreement under which the same is sought to be recovered is oppressive." The defense is not allowed if under certain conditions specified in the law the tenant has paid three monthly instalments of rent in successive months. In an action for rent, the landlord must allege and prove that the amount demanded is no greater than the rent paid by the tenant during the month preceding that which is the basis of the action, or if a greater amount is demanded, that at least thirty days' notice in writing of the increase was given to the tenant. Where the tenant claims that the rent is unjust, unreasonable or oppressive, he is required to deposit in court the amount of rent last paid by him, which is to be paid over to the landlord on the first day of each monthly rental period. The landlord is required to file with the court a bill of particulars containing certain detailed specified information as to the 91 value of the property, the income therefrom and the expenditures made in connection therewith. The law contains certain provisions as to the presumption of the unreasonableness of the rent sought to be recovered and of the value of the property. The law does not apply to a room or rooms in a hotel containing one hundred and twenty-five rooms or more, or to a lodging house or rooming house occupied under a hiring of a week or less. Every action for rent shall be brought in the county in which the premises are located, or if the action is brought into the municipal court, district in which the premises are situated. If not so brought the action shall be dismissed with costs to the tenant. AN A CT to amend chapter one hundred and thirty-six of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty, entitled "'An act in relation to defenses in actions based upon unjust, unreasonable and oppressive agreements for rent of premises occupied for dwelling purposes in cities of the first class or in cities in a county adjoining a city of the first class," generally. Became a law April 13, 1922, with the approval of the Governor. Passed, three-fifths being present. The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: Section 1. Section one of chapter one hundred and thirty-six of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty, entitled "An Act in relation to defenses in actions based upon unjust, unreasonable and oppressive agreements for rent of premises occupied for dwelling purposes in cities of the first class or in cities in a county adjoining a city of the first class," as last amended by chapter four hundred and thirty-four of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty-one, is hereby amended to read as follows: ~ 1. Unjust, unreasonable and oppressive agreemlents for the payment of rent having been and being now exacted by landlords from tenants under stress of prevailing conditions whereby the freedom of contract has been impaired and congested housing conditions resulting therefrom have seriously affected and endangered the public welfare, health and morals in certain cities of the state, and a public emergency existing in the judgment of the legislaturie by reason thereof, it shall be a defense to an action for rent accruing under an agreement for premises in a city of the first class or in a city in a county adjoining a city of the first class occupied for dwelling purposes that such rent is unjust and unreasonable and that the agreement under which the same is sought to be recovered is oppressive. If it appear that the defendant pursuant to the terms of a written or oral agreement for a term of one year or more has paid after the commencemient of the term and after April thirtieth, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, three monthly instalments of rent in successive months, which accrued*under such agreement, such defense shall not be allowed; but the defendant may plead such defense in relation to any rent or rental value claimed for a period within three months after the expiration of such term. If it appear that the defendant is a monthly tenant or a tenant from month to month and has paid three equal monthly payments of rent in successive months. Such defense shall not be allowed after this section as amended takes effect against a claim for rent or rental value not exceeding the rate so paid and accruing within nine months after such third payment; but the defendant may plead such defense in relation to rent or rental value claimed for a period within three months after the expiration of such nine months. 92 ~ 1-a. In an action mentioned in the preoeding section, it shall be necessary for the plaintiff to allege and prove that the amount demanded in the complaint is no greater than the rent or rental value paid by thle defendant during the month preceding that which is the basis of the action or, if greater, that at least thirty days' notice of such increase in writing ha d been given to the defendant before such amount had been so increased. ~ 2. Where the answer contains the defense mentioned in section one of this act and the deposit provided for by section six has been made, the plaintiff within five days after the filing of the answer or within such time as the court upon good cause shown may determine, shall file with the clerk of the court a verified bill of particulars, setting forth the gross income derived from the building of which the premises in question are the whole or a part; the number of apartments in the building and the number of rooms in each apartment, and the number of stores in such building; the rent received for each such apartment or store for the period of one year last past; the consideration paid by the landlord for the building, if he be the owner thereof, or if he be a lessee the rent agreed to be paid by him; the assessed valuation of the property and the taxes for the current year; the annual interest charge on any incumbrance paid by the landlord; the operating expenses with reasonable detail; and such other facts as the landlord claims affect his net income from such property. Issue shall not be deemed joined until the filing of such bill of particulars. Upon the plaintiff's failure to file said bill of particulars within the time limited the court upon motion of the defendant shall dismiss the complaint. ~ 3. Where it appears that the rent has been increased over the rent as it existed one year prior to the time of the agreement under which the rent is sought to be recovered, such agreement shall be presumptively unjust, unreasonable and oppressive. ~ 4. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the plaintiff from pleading and proving in such action a fair and reasonable rent for the premises and recovering judgment therefor, or from instituting a separate action for the recovery thereof. ~ 4-a. For the purpose of determining the fair and reasonable rent or rental value, the value of the real property, of which the premises in question are thbe whole or a part, shall be presumed to be the assessed valuation thereof for the year in which the first instalment of rent or rental value for which the action is brought accrued. ~ 5. If in an action for rent or for the rental value of the use or occupation of premises, the plaintiff recovers judgment by default, the judgment shall contain a provision that if the same be not fully satisfied within five days after entry and service upon the defendant of a copy thereof, the plaintiff shall be entitled to the premises mentioned in the complaint and to the direction that a warrant shall issue commanding the sheriff, marshal or other officer charged by law with the duty of iexecuting judgments to remove all persons therefrom. Service of a copy of the judgment shall be made personally, or if personal servile cannot be made, by leaving the same at the residence of the defendant with a person of proper age. ~ 6. If in any action for rent or rental value, the issue of fairness and reasonableness of the amount demanded in the complaint be raised by the defendant, he must at the time of answering deposit with the clerk such sum as equals the rent or rental value of the premises in arrears computed at the monthly rate of the rent last paid or reserved as the monthly rent in the agreement under which he obtained possession of the premises. If the defendant fails to make such deposit, the court shall strike out the denial or defense raising such issue. Where the defendant deposits a sum in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section, which is less than the amount demanded in the complaint, the court, on motion of the plaintiff made ex parte and on affidavit stating the facts, shall order the clerk to pay to the plaintiff the amount so deposited, and thereafter during the pendency of the action the defendant, on demand, shall pay a like sum monthly directly to the plaintiff, on the first day of each monthly rental period. 93 Where the defendant deposits a sum equal to the amount demanded in the complaint the plaintiff on five days' notice to the defendant may apply to the court for an order permitting him to withdraw such deposit or such part thereof as the court may direct pending the final determination of the action and thereafter during the pendency of the action the defendant on demand shall pay an amount to be fixed by the court in said order on the first day of each monthly rental period to the plaintiff and shall deposit with the clerk the difference between such monthly payment and the amount theretofore deposited. Money heretofore deposited in court by a defendant in such an action shall be payable to the plaintiff in accordance with the provisions of this section. No paynlent need be made by a defendant to a plaintiff unless such plaintiff shall at the time of the demand tender a receipt for the amount demanded. Any such payment and the receipt regardless of its terms, stipulations or qualifications, shall be without prejudice to the rights of either party to the action. If the defendant refuses to make any such additional payment to the plaintiff during the pendency of the action the court on motion of the plaintiff may strike out the denial or defense raising the issue of fairness and reasonableness of the amount demanded in the complaint. All moneys remaining in the hands of the clerk to the credit of the action shall be applied to the satisfaction of the judgment rendered or otherwise disposed of as justice requires. Where a judgment is rendered for the plaintiff it shall contain a provision that if the same be not fully satisfied from the deposit or otherwise within five days after the entry, and service on the defendant of a copy thereof, the plaintiff shall be entitled to the premises described in the complaint and a direction that a warrant shall issue commanding the sheriff, marshal or other officer charged by law with the duty of executing judgments to remove all persons therefrom. The plaintiff shall be entitled to costs only in the event that he recover the full amount demanded in the complaint, and if, in an action for increased rent, the plaintiff recover no more than the amount of rent last paid the defendant shall be entitled to costs. ~ 7. Where there has been an adjudication of the reasonable rental value of premises, such adjudication shall determine and be binding in any subsequent action between the same parties involving the rental value of the same premises for a subsequent period, unless the plaintiff or the defendant, as the case may be, plead and prove facts which shall have arisen since the period for which the prior adjudication has been made, affecting the rental value of the premises. ~ 8. Whenever the court in which the action is brought has jurisdiction to vacate a judgment rendered upon default, it shall have power to open a default in an action mentioned in section five of this act to vacate, amend, correct or modify any process, judgment or warrant in furtherance of justice, for any error in form or substance, and to grant a new trial upon any of the grounds for which a new trial may be granted by the supreme court in an action pending therein. ~ 9. In case of an appeal by the defendant, the execution of the judgment and warrant shall not be stayed, unless the defendant shall deposit with the clerk of the court the amount of the judgment and thereatfer monthly until the final determination of the appeal an amount equal to one month's rental computed on the basis of the judgment. The clerk shall forthwith pay to the plaintiff the amount or amounts so deposited. * ~ 10. This act shall not apply to a room or rooms in a hotel containing one hundred twenty-five rooms or more, or to a lodging house or rooming house occupied under a hiring of a week or less. ~ 11. Every such action shall be brought in the county in which such premises are situated, if the action be brought in the supreme or county court; or in the municipal court district in which such premises are situated if the action be brought in the municipal court of a city. If not so brought thle action shall be dismissed with costs to the defendant. ~ 12. This act as hereby amended shall not apply to a new building in the course of construction on September twenty-seventh, nineteen hundred and twenty, or commenced thereafter and shall be in force until February fifteenth, nineteen hundred and twenty-four. This act shall take effect immediately. 94 CHAPTER 948, LAWS OF 1920 EXPLANATION: This law in its original form (chapter 137 of the Laws of 1920) applied to all cities of the first class and to cities in a county adjoining a city of the first class. It was subsequently amended by chapter 948 so that its operation is now limited to Buffalo and Rochester solely. The act provides in substance that where a final order has been issued in a hold-over proceeding, the court may in its discretion grant a stay of not to exceed twelve months when it appears that the tenant after a reasonable effort cannot secure a, suitable dwelling within the neighborhood similar to that which he occupies, or for other good cause shown. As a condition of such stay, the tenant is required to deposit in court the amount of rent determined by the court. AN ACT to amend chapter one hundred and thirty-seven of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty, entitled "An act in relation to summary proceedings to recover the possession of real property in cities of the first class or in cities in a county adjoining a city of the first class during the existing emergency," in relation to the application of such act. Became a law September 27, 1920, with the approval of the Governor. Passed, three-fifths being present. The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: Section 1. The title of chapter one hundred and thirty-seven of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty, entitled "An Act in relation to summary proceedings to recover the possession of real property in cities of the first class or in cities in a county adjoining a city of the first class during the existing emergency," is hereby amendjed to read as follows: An act in relation to summary proceedings to recover the possession of real property in certain cities of the first class during the existing emergency. ~ 2. Section one of such act is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 1. Application. The provisions of this act shall apply only to a summary proceeding in a city of the first class having a population of one million or less to recover the possession of premises occupied for dwelling purposes, other than a room or rooms in a hotel, lodging house, or rooming house, upon the ground that the occupant is holding over and continuing in possession of the premises after the expiration of his term, without permission of the landlord, and shall govern such a proceeding notwithstanding the provisions of any general or special act inconsistent herewith. The relief hereby provided shall be in addition to relief provided by any other act the provisions of which are not inconsistent herewith. This act being emergency legislation, its provisions shall be liberally construed to carry out thie intent thereof. This act as amended shall not apply to a new building in the course of construction at the time this amendment takes effect or commenced thereafter. ~ 2. Effect of Petition. The presentation of a petition in such a proceeding to a court, judge or justice having by law jurisdiction thereof shall be an election by the landlord to terminate the tenancy which might otherwise arise by operation of law. 95 ~ 3. biscretionary Stay. Where the final order in such, proceeding establishes that the occupant is holding over and continuing in possession of the demised premises, after the expiration of his term, without permission of the landlord, the court, judge or justice making such order, on application of the occupant, may, in its or his discrletion, and subject to the conditions prescribed by this act, stay the issuance of a warrant and also stay any execution to collect the costs of the proceeding, for such period, not more than twelve months, as the court, judge or justice, in its or his discietion, may deem proper. ~ 4. Application for and Granting of Stay. Upon application for a stay, the court, judge or justice shall hear the parties, and if upon such hearing it appears that the premises described in the petition are used for dwelling purposes; that the applicant cannot secure suitable premises for himself and his family within the neighborhood similar to those occupied; that he has used due and reasonable effort to secure such other premises; that his application is made in good faith and that he will abide and comply with thle terms and provisions prescribed by the court, judge or justice; or that by reason of other facts such action will be warranted, the court, judge or justice may grant a stay as provided herein, on condition that the terms upon which the stay is granted be complied with. ~ 5. Terms and Conditions of Granting and Continuing Stay. Such stay shall be granted and continue leffective only upon the condition that the person against whom the final order is made shall make a deposit in court of the entire amount, or such instalments thereof from time to time, as the court, judge or justice may dinect, for the occupation of the premises for the period of the stay, at the rate to which he was liable as rent for the month immediately prior to the expiration of his term or tenancy plus such additional amount, if any, as the court, judge or justice may determine to be reasonable; such deposit shall also include all rent unpaid prior to the period of the stay. The amount of such deposit shall be determined by the court, judge or justide at the hearing upon the application for the stay, and such determination shall be final and conclusive in respect to the amount of such deposit, and the amount thereof shall be paid into court, in such manner and in such instalments, if any, as the court, judge or justice may direct. A separate account shall be kept of the amount to the credit of each proceeding, and all such payments shall be deposited in a bank or trust company and shall be subject to the check of the clerk of the court, if there be orne, or otherwise of the court, judge or justice. ~ 6. Payment to Landlord. The clerk of the court, if there be one, and otherwise the judge or justice, shall pay to the landlord or his duly authorized agent the amount of such deposit, in accordance with the terms of the stay, or the further order of the court. ~ 7. Waiver of Act. Any provision of a lease whereby a lessee or tenant waives any provision of this act shall be deemed against public policy and void. ~ 8. This act shall take effect immediately and shall be in force until November first, nineteen hundred and twenty-two. CHAPTER 199, LAWS OF 1921 EXPLANATION: This law applies to New York City and to cities in a county adjoining such city. It allows a landlord to dispossess a tenant for four reasons only, which in substance are as follows: 1. Where the landlord proves to the satisfaction of the court that the tenant is objectionable. 2. Where the owner desires the premises for his immediate use for a dwelling for himself and his family. 96 3. Where the owner desires to demolish the premises for the purpose of constructing a new building, plans for which new building shall have been duly filed and approved by the proper authority. 4. Where the premises have been sold on a cooperative plan under certain specified conditions. The pertinent section of this chapter is subdivision 1-a of section 1410, which reads as follows: "~ 1-a. A public emergency existing, no proceeding as prescribed in subdivision one of this section shall be maintainable to recover the possession of real property in a city of a population of one million or more or in a city in a county adjoining such a city, occupied for dwelling purposes, except a procdeding to recover such possession upon the ground that the person is holding over and is objectionable, in which case the landlord shall establish to the satisfaction of the court, that the person holding over is objectionable; or a proceeding where the owner of record of the building, being a natural person, seeks in good faith to recover possession of the same or a room or rooms therein for the immediate and personal occupancy by himself and his family as a dwelling; or a proceeding where the petitioner shows to the satisfaction of the court that he desires in good faith to recover prtemises for the purpose of demolishing the same with the intention of constructing a new building, plans for which new building shall have been duly filed and approved by the proper authority; or a proceeding to recover premises constituting a part of a building and land which has been in good faith sold to a corporation formed under a co-operative ownership plan whereof the entire stock shall be held by the stockholders in proportion to the number of rooms occupied or to be occupied by them in such building and all apartments or flats therein have been leased to stockholders of such corporation for their own personal, exclusive and permanent occupancy to begin immediately upon the termination of any tenancy of the apartments or flats leased by them existing on the date when this subdivision takes effect. " In a pending proceeding for the recovery of real property in such a city on the ground that the occupant holds over after the expiration of his term, a warrant shall not be issuied unless the petitioner establishes to the satisfaction of the court that the proceeding is one mentioned in the exceptions enumerated in this subdivision. "This subdivision shall not apply to a new building in course of construction on September twenty-seventh, nineteen hundred and twenty, or commenced thereafter and be in effect only until the first day of November, nineteen hundred and twenty-two." CHAPTER 367, LAWS OF 1921 EXPLANATION: This law applies to New York City and to cities in a county adjoining such city. It restricts actions by a landlord to recover possession of real property to four classes: 1. Where the landlord proves to the satisfaction of the court that the tenant is objectionable. 2. Where the owner desires the premises for his immediate use for a dwelling for himself and his family. 3. Where the owner desires to demolish the premises for the purpose of constructing a new building, plans for which new building shall have been duly filed and approved by the proper authority. 97 4. Where the premises are cocperatively owned under certain specified conditions. AN ACT to amend the civil practice act, in relation to actions to recover real property in certain cities. Became a law April 30, 1921, with the approval of the Governor. Passed, three-fifths being present. T2he People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: Section 1. Section ten htundred and eleven-a of the civil practice act is hereby amended to read as follows: ~ 1.011-a. Limitation of Actions Under this Article in Certain Cities. A public emergency existing, no action as prescribed in this article shall be maintainable by a landlord against a tenant to recover the possession of real property in a city of a population of one million or more or in a city in a county adjoining such city, occupied for dwelling purposes, except an action to recover such possession upon the ground that the person is holding over and is objectionable, in which case the landlord shall establish to the satisfaction of the court that the person holding over is objectionable; or an action where the owner of record of the building, being a natural person, seeks in good faith to recover possession of the same or a room or rooms therein for the immediate and personal occupancy by himself and his family as a dwelling; or an action to recover premises for the purpose of demolishing the same with the intention of constructing a new building plans of which new building shall have been duly filed and approved by the proper authority; or an action to recover premises constituting a part of a building and land which has been in good faith sold to a, corporation formed under a co-operative ownership plan whereof the entire stock shall be held by the stockholders in proportion to the number of rooms occupied or to be occupied by them in such building and all apartments or flats therein have been leased to stockholders of such corporation for their own personal, exclusive and permanent occupancy to begin immediately upon the termination of any tenancy of the apartments or flats leased by them existing on thie date when this section as amended takes effect. This section shall be in effect only until the first day of November, nineteen hundred and twenty-two. ~ 2. This act shall take effect October first, nineteen hundred and twenty-one. CHAPTER 37.1, LAWS OF 1921 EXPLANATION: This law applies to a city of the first class and to a city in a county adjoining a city of the first class. It prohibits a dispossess proceeding for non-payment of rent of property occupied for dwelling purposes, unless the landlord alleges and proves that the rent of the premises is no greater than the amount for which the tenant was liable for the month preceding the default. The tenant is permitted to interpose the defense that the rent mentioned in the petition is unjust and unreasonable. In so far as they do not conflict, all of the provisions of the so-called reasonable rent statute (chapter six hundred and sixty-four of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty-two) are made applicable to dispossess proceedings for non-payment of rent. 98 There is exempted from the operation of this law a room or rooms in a hotel containing one hundred and twenty-five rooms or more, or a lodging house or rooming house occupied under a hiring of a week or less. AN ACT to amend the civil practice act, in relation to summary proceedings to recover the possession of real property in certain cities. Became a law April 30, 1921, with the approval of the Governor. Passed, three-fifths being present. The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: Section 1. Subdivision two-a of section fourteen hundred and ten of the civil practice act is hereby amended to read as follows: 2-a. No proceeding as prescribed in subdivision two of this section shall be maintainable to recover the possession of real property in a city of the first class or in a city in a county adjoining a city of the first class, occupied for dwelling purposes, unless the petitioner alleges in the petition and proves that the rent of the premises described in the petition is no greater than the amount for which the tenant was liable for the month preceding the default for which the proceeding is brought. Nothing in this subdivision shall preclude the tenant from interposing any defense that he might otherwise have. The tenant may interpose the defense that the rent mentioned in the petition is unjust and unreasonable and that the agreement under which the same is sought to be recovered is oppressive. All the provisions of chapter one hundred and thirty-six of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty, as amended, shall apply to a proceeding brought under this subdivision so far as applicable and not in conflict with the provisions of this subdivision and other provisions, of statute governing summary proceedings to recover the possession of real property. This subdivision shall not apply to a room or rooms in a hotel containing one hundred and twentyfive rooms or more, or a lodging house, or rooming house, occupied under a hiring of a week or less. This subdivision as amended shall not apply to a new building in course of construction on September twenty-seventh, nineteen hundred and twenty, or commenced thereafter and shall be in effect only until the first day of November, nineteen hundred and twenty-two. ~ 2. This act shall take effect October first, nineteen hundred and twentyone. CHAPTER 663, LAWS OF 1922 EXPLANATION: This chapter, together with chapter 664 of the laws of 1922, extended all of the emergency rent legislation from November 1, 1922, to February 15, 1924. AN ACT extending the time of application of certain acts of the years nineteen hundred and twenty and nineteen hundred and twenty-one, relating to defenses in actions based upon unjust, unreasonable and oppressive agreements for rent of premises occupied for dwelling purposes in certain cities, and to summary 99 proceedings to recover the possession of real property in certain cities. Became a law April 13, 1922, with the approval of the Governor. Passed, three-fifths being present. The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: Section 1. The public emergency, which existed at the time of the enactment of the statutes below enumerated, having continued, in the judgment of the legislature, to the present time and still existing, chapter one hundred and thirty-six of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty, entitled "An Act in relation to deflenses in actions based upon unjust, unreasonable and oppressive agreements for rent of premises occupied for dwelling purposes in cities of the first class," as amended by chapter nine hundred and fortyfour of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty and chapter four hundred and thirty-four of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty-one; chapter one hundred and thirty-seven of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty, entitled "An Act in ilelation to summary proceedings to recover the possession of real property in cities of the first class or in cities in a county adjoining a city of the first class during the existing emergency," as amended by chapter nine hundred and forty-eight of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty; section ten hundred and eleven-a of the civil practice act, as added by chapter one hundred and ninety-nine of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty-one and amended by chapter three hundred and sixty-seven of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty-one; subdivision one-a of section fourteen hundred and ten of the civil practice act, such section having been added by chapter one hundred and ninety-nine of tle laws of nineteen hundred and twenty-one and subdivision two-a of section fourteen hundred and ten of the civil practice act, such section having been added by chapter one hundred and ninety-nine of the laws of nineteen hundred and twentyone and such subdivision having been amended by chapter three hundred and seventy-one of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty-one shall, notwithstanding any provisions in any such chapters, sections or subdivisions, remain and be in full force and effect until the fifteenth day of February, nineteen hundred and twenty-four. ~ 2. This act shall take effect immediately. CHAPTER 278, LAWS OF 1923 EXPLANATION: This law extends to the cities of Albany, Amsterdam, Cohoes, Rensselaer, Troy and Watervliet, all of the emergency rent laws heretofore set forth as applicable to the city of New York. AN ACT extending to the cities of Albany, Amsterdam, Cohoes, Rensselaer, Troy and Watervliet the application of certain acts of the legislature passed in the years nineteen hundred and twenty, nineteen hundred and twenty-one and nineteen hundred and twenty-two, in relation to defenses in actions based upon unjust, unreasonable and oppressive agreements for the rent of premises and to summary proceedings for the recovery of real property. Became a law April 27, 1923, with the approval of the Governor.* Passed, three-fifths being present. The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: Section 1. The public emergency, which existed at the time of the,enactment of the statutes hereinafter enumerated, having continued, in the 100 judgment of the legislature, to the present time and still existing and such emergency having extenled to the cities of Albany, Amsterdam, Cohoes, Rensselaer, Troy and Watervliet and now existing therein, in the judgment of the legislature, Chapter one hundrel and thirty-six of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty entitled "An act in relation to defenses in actions based upon unjust, unreasonable and oppressive agreements for rent of premises occupied for dwelling purposes in cities of the first class or in cities in a county adjoining a city of the first class," as extended by chapter six hundred and sixtythree of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty-two and last amended by chapter six hundred and sixty-four of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty-two; Subdivision one-a of section fourteen hundred and ten of the civil practice act as added by chapter one hundred and ninety-nine of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty-one and extended by chapter six hundred and sixty-three of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty-two; Subdiviison two-a of section fourteen hundred and ten of the civil practice act, as added by chapter one hundred and ninety-nine of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty-one and extended by chapter six hundred and sixty-three of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty-two; and Section ten hundred and eleven-a of the civil practice act, as added by chapter one hundred and ninety-nine of the laws of nineteen hundred anul twenty-one and extended by chapter six hundred and sixty-three of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty-two; And all acts amendatory thereof or supplemental thereto, shall remain and be in full force and effect until the fifteenth day of February, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, and shall apply to the cities of Albany, Amsterdam, Cohoes, Rensselaer, Troy and Watervliet notwithstanding any provisions in such chapers, sections or subdivisions. ~ 2. This act shall take effect immediately. CHAPTER 874, LAWS OF 1923 EXPLANATION: This law amends the preceding chapter by making it apply to the city of Schenectady. All of the rent emergency legislation heretofore set forth as applying to the city of New York is made applicable to the city of Schenectady. AN ACT to amend chapter two hundred and seventy-eight of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty-three, entitled "An act extending to the cities of Albany, Amsterdam, Cohoes, Rensselaer, Troy and Watervlict the application of certain acts of the legislature passed in the years nineteen hundred and twenty, nineteen hundred and twenty-one and nineteen hundred and twenty-two, in relation to defenses in actions based upon unjust, unreasonable and oppressive agreements for the rent of premises and to summary proceedings for the recovery of real property," in relation to the transactions to which such acts of the legislature apply and extending such acts to the city of Schenectady Became a law June 1, 193, with the approval of the Governor. Passed, three-fifths being present. The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: Section 1. Section one of chapter two hundred and seventy-eight of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty-three, entitled "An act extending to 101 tie cities of Albany, Amsterdam, Cohoes, Rensselaer, Troy and Watervliet the application of certain acts of the legislature passed in the years nineteen hundred and twenty, nineteen hundred and twenty-one and nineteen hundred and twenty-two, in relation to defenses in actions based upon unjust, unreasonable and oppressive agreements for the rent of premises and to summary proceedings for the recovery of real property," is hereby amended to read as follows: ~ 1. The public emergency which existed at the time of the enactment of the statutes hereinafter enumerated, having continued, in the judgment of the legislature, to the present time and still existing and such emergency having extended to the cities of Albany, Amsterdam, Cohoes, Rensselaer, Schenectady, Troy and Watervliet now existing theiein, in the judgment of the legislature, Chapter one hundred and thirty-six of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty, entitled "An Act in relation to defenses in actions based upon unjust, unreasonable and oppressive agreements for rent of premises occupied for dwelling purposes in cities of the first class or in cities in a county adjoining a city of the first class," as extended by chapter six hundred and sixty-three of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty-two and last amended by chapter six hundred and sixty-four of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty-two; Subdivision one-a of section fourteen hundred and ten of the civil practice act, as added by chapter one hundred and ninety-nine of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty-one and extended by chapter six hundred and sixty-three of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty-two; Subdivision two-a of section fourteen hundred and ten of the civil practice act, as added by chapter one hundred and ninety-nine of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty-one and extended by chapter six hundred and sixty-three of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty-two; and Section ten hundred and eleven-a of the civil practice act, as added by chapter one hundred and ninety-nine of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty-one and extended by chapter six hundred and sixty-three of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty-two; And all acts amendatory thereof or supplemental thereto, shall remain and be in full force and effect until the fifteenth day of February, nineteen hundred and twenty-four and shall apply to the cities of Albany, Amsterdam, Cohoes, Rensselaer, Schenectady, Troy and wvatervliet, notwithstanding any provisions in such chapters, sections or subdivisions; and the provisions of such chapters, sections and subdivisions, in so far as the same relate to such cities, shall be held to apply to leases and agreements made at any time since the first day of February, nineteen hundred and twenty-three. ~ 2. If any provision or part of this act shall for any reason be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder thereof, but shall be confined in its operation to the provision or part thereof directly involved in the controversy in which such judgment shall have been rendered. ~ 3. This act shall take effect immediately. CHAPTER 892, LAWS OF 1923 EXPLANATION: This is the so-called Rosenman Law and applies to all of the emergency rent laws, except those affecting the cities of Albany, Amsterdam, Cohoes, Rensselaer, Troy, Watervliet and Schenectady. This law provides that the emergency rent laws, except as above set forth, shall be deemed to include and to apply with full force and effect to all tenancies agreements and leases entered into or executed subsequent to September 27 1920. 102 AN ACT to amend chapter six hundred and sixty-three of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty-two, entitled "An act extending the time of application of certain acts of the years nineteen hundred and twenty and nineteen hundred and twenty-one, relating to defenses in actions based upon unjust, unreasonable and oppressive agreements for rent of premises occupied for dwelling purposes in certain cities, and to summary proceedings to recover the possession of real property in certain cities," so as to extend the application of the said acts to tenancies and leases entered into or executed after the twenty-seventh day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty. Became a law June 1, 1923, with the approval of the Governor. Passed, three-fifths being present. The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: Section 1. Section one of chapter six hundred and sixty-three of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty-two, entitled "An Act extending the time of application of certain acts of the years nineteen hundred and twenty and nineteen hundred and tw-enty-one, relating to defenses in actions based upon unjust, unreasonable and oppressive agreements for rent of premises occupied for dwelling purposes in certain cities, and to summary proceedings to recover the possession of real property in certain cities," is hereby amended to read as follows: ~ 1. The public!emergency, which existed at the time of the enactment of the statutes below enumerated, having continued, in the judgment of the legislature, to the present time and still existing, chapter one hundred and thirty-six of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty, entitled "An Act in relation to defenses in actions based upon unjust, unreasonable and oppressive agreements for rent of premises occupied for dwelling purposes in cities of the first class," as amended by chapter nine hundred and fortyfour of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty, chapter four hundred and thirty-four of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty-one, and chapter six hundred and sixty-four of the laws of nineteen hundred and twentytwo; chapter one hundred and thirty-seven of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty, entitled "An Act in relation to summary proceedings to recover the possession of real property in cities of the first class or in cities in a county adjoining a city of the first class during the existing emergency," as amended by chapter nine hundred and forty-eight of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty; section ten hundred and eleven-a of the civil practice act, as added by chapter one hundred and ninety-nine of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty-one and amended by chapter three hundred and sixty-seven of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty-one; subdivision onte-a of section fourteen hundred and ten of the civil practice act, such section having been added by chapter one hundred and nonety-nine of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty-one and subdivision two-a of section fourteen hundred and ten of the civil practice act, such section having been added by chapter one hundred and ninety-nine of the laws of nineteen hundred and twenty-one and such subdivision having been amended by chapter three hundred and seventy-one of the laws of nineteen hundred and twentyone shall, notwithstanding any provisions in any such chapters, sections or subdivisions, remain and be in full force and effect until the fifteenth day of February, nineteen hundred and twenty-four; and shall be deemed to include, and to apply with full foroe and effect to all tenancies, agreements and leases entered into or executed subsequent to the twenty-seventh day of September, nineteen hundred and twenty. ~ 2. This act shall take effect inmmediately. THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN GRADUATE LIBRARY DATE DUE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 3 9015 05527 5492 ( DO NOT REMOVE OR MUTILATE CARD.1 ~has~c~Zg"~~Ta~aSe~g25ia~Fa~~~L~~~~l~~~n -+;~ ~~-31