A model housing law

Front matter

)I>EL HOUSING LAW

EDITION

V'EILLER

Table Of Contents

I. Housing Reform through Legislation II. Building Codes, Tenement House Laws and Housing Laws

III. How TO Use THE Model Law

IV. A Model Housing Law

II Building Codes, Tenement House Laws And Housing Laws

II

BUILDING CODES, TENEMENT HOUSE LAWS AND HOUSING LAWS

IF we accept the principle that the largest results in housing reform will come through legislation, the immediate practical questions which present themselves are: W^hat kind of laws shall we work for, how shall we prepare them and how obtain them?

As a rule, the first suggestion which comes to mind is to amend the building code. Every city of considerable size has a building ordinance of some kind and in those places where there is no building code it is very natural to concentrate effort upon securing one. While it is true that we do want to secure the enactment of laws which will regulate the way houses may be built, yet the remedies which most people interested in housing reform are seeking will not be found in the ordinary building code.

It is important, therefore, at the outset to clearly distinguish between three kinds of building laws — a building code, a tenement house law and a housing law.

A building code is, as its title indicates, a code of laws dealing with the methods to be employed in the construction of buildings. It concerns itself chiefly with questions of building materials and processes. Housing reformers are not as a rule interested in these questions; in the quality of brick and mortar, in methods of fireproofmg, in the advantages of terra cotta as compared with reinforced concrete, in factors of safety, in dead and live loads, in wind stresses, in automatic sprinklers, in fire and water tests, in rivets and flanges of iron beams and columns, in wall thicknesses and similar technical questions. Important as these are from the point of view of safety and construction and the reduction of fire risk, they do not touch the questions which most vitally concern the welfare of the great mass of our people.

1 1

In Other words, a building code does not so much aflfect living conditions as it affects the building industry. At best a building code is nothing more nor less than a gigantic specification. It is a document to interest architects and builders and manufacturers of building materials, not the housing reformer. As a rule, it is a long, detailed, abstruse, highly technical and uninteresting document, not understandable in most of its provisions by the layman.

Only in rare instances do we find in a building code provisions which deal with the conditions under which people live. Ordinarily no building code concerns itself with anything but the construction of new buildings. It is seldom that we find it dealing with the conditions which must be maintained in order that people may have sanitary homes.

It is apparent, therefore, that housing reformers will not find in the enactment of building codes the legislation which they are seeking.

The question then presents itself whether one should work for a tenement house law or for some other kind of a law. The answer to this question will depend very much upon the conditions which prevail in each city where the problem is taken up. In a city like New York, for instance, or Boston, or even Chicago, there are many reasons why housing reformers should seek at first at any rate to secure tenement house legislation. In these cities the tenement house is the type of dwelling in which the great mass of the people live. It is also the type in which the most serious evils are to be found. It is but natural under such circumstances that housing reformers should seek remedies for the worst conditions first.

Up to five years ago the course followed in America has been along these lines. Housing reform has been sought chiefly through tenement house legislation; that is, through laws which regulate the conditions in buildings in which many people live; and which deal not merely with the construction of such buildings when new, but also require the improvement of the older ones and the maintenance of all dwellings in a safe and sanitary condition.

Housing laws are essentially different from building laws. They concern themselves primarily with sanitary questions — with

BUILDING CODES AND HOUSING LAWS

light and ventilation, plumbing and drainage, intensive use of land, privacy, sewage disposal, egress in case of fire, reasonable fire protection, and to a large extent with maintenance and use, regulating conditions under which water-closets are maintained, prohibiting improper use of cellars, regulating and restricting basement and cellar occupancy, providing for adequate water supply in convenient places, insuring cleanliness and the keeping of buildings in repair, providing receptacles for waste materials of various kinds, forbidding the keeping of animals and similar improper use of the premises; they require a resident caretaker, prohibit overcrowding, forbid the taking in of lodgers, authorize the health department to vacate houses which are unfit for habitation, and generally require buildings to be kept in sanitary condition.

It is at once seen that such a law is materially different from a building code and that it concerns itself with totally different things.

The question. What is a tenement house? presents some difficulties. In most cities the law includes in this category buildings which are occupied in common as the home or residence of three or more families. In a few cities the standard is set at four families, but in recent years it more properly has been set at two families. The city of Chicago, for instance, in its ordinance includes as tenement houses all buildings occupied by two families or more. The tenement house law of the state of Indiana similarly sets the standard at two families, though New York City still keeps its standard at three families. Columbus, Ohio, has gone further. It not only treats all two-family houses as tenement houses but includes under many of the provisions of the same law certain types of one-family houses as well.

There is, of course, no reason why people who live in houses in which there are but two families should not be afforded the same protection against unsanitary conditions that is afforded to people who live in houses in which there are three families. All are equally entitled to light and air, proper drainage, modern sanitation, adequate water supply and the rest of the things which go to make up proper housing conditions.

One reason why housing reformers have heretofore confined their efforts to tenement house legislation has been that they have necessarily in the beginning of this work, as a matter of policy, felt constrained to proceed along lines of least resistance and take up those conditions for which there would be the strongest public support.

Obviously, only in those cities where the tenement house is the prevailing type, will a tenement house law do much to solve the housing problem. In the great majority of cities, however, the tenement house is not the usual type but the exception. In most cities in America the great mass of the people live in one^family houses, many of them in detached houses; nevertheless, the housing evils which prevail there are the same evils that are found in the tenement houses of our larger cities.

Dark rooms, cellar dwellings, lack of drainage, inadequate water supply, overcrowding, the lodger evil, and the other countless evils encountered in our cities are found just as frequently m the small cottages in which the mass of the working people live as in the taller tenements of our older cities.

It is apparent, therefore, that housing reform to be effective must in most cities concern itself not merely with the tenement house but with the private dwelling.

There would be little difficulty in this were it not for the fact that any law which effectively regulates the dwelling in which the workingman lives must also apply to the mansion of the millionaire and the home of the average well-to-do citizen, who as a rule resents the idea that the house in which he lives needs regulation, and is consequently apt to oppose such efforts at housing reform.

The tenement house and the private dwelling are not the only types of buildings which need regulation. There are others which need it quite as much. It would seem that the time had come in America when we should regulate all buildings in which human beings live, and that it is folly for us any longer to permit dark rooms in any building where people dwell. A dark room in a boarding house or hotel is as dangerous as one in a tenement house; possibly in some ways more dangerous. Bad plumbing has the same bad effects in all buildings.

For these reasons the housing reformer should work for housing legislation; not merely for a tenement house law which in

BUILDING CODES AND HOUSING LAWS

most communities deals with one comparatively small and limited class, but for a law which affects all citizens, a law which makes dark rooms quite as impossible in the rich man's home as in the poor man's cottage, which makes a dark hall quite as illegal in a modern high-class, fireproof hotel as in a common lodging house.

The only kind of legislation that will do this is a law which affects all buildings in which people live, whether those buildings are private dwellings, two-family dwellings, tenement houses, apartment houses, flats, hotels, boarding houses, lodging houses, apartment hotels or bachelor apartments.

It is apparent that the scope of such a law is far wider than that of a mere tenement house law. The opposition to it will also be wider. And yet notwithstanding this, it is the kind of legislation to work for. By no other means can we secure right conditions.

It is, moreover, a rather restricted view to assume that one's duty as a good citizen is thus limited. It is also a short-sighted view; for it will be a question of only a few years when we shall have to take the second step if we do not take it now. And it is easier to make the advance in one step than in several. It is wise economy to make the momentum of the initial campaign carry through the broader law.

On the other hand, the term "tenement house" is something of an asset. One can rally to the support of tenement house reform a vast amount of public sentiment which does not respond so quickly in behalf of a mere housing law. The word immediately conjures up to the popular mind a picture of sordid, squalid conditions. When we hear of ''tenement house reform" our minds instinctively revert to the city slum. But the public, we are glad to say, is becoming educated in this regard and is beginning to apprehend the significance of "Housing" in a way that it did not a few years ago.

But it is also a liability. When applied to the high-class apartment house or to the better grade flat, to the private dwelling or the two-family house, there is resentment on the part of many members of the community whose support we should otherwise have, because they feel that a stigma is being attached to their property and their homes. They resent the idea of a tenement house law as applicable to the houses in which they live; for, their conception of a tenement house is the popular one.

These advantages and disadvantages are both lost when we work for housing legislation. While it is true that the stigma attaching to the tenement house label disappears, on the other hand we shall extend the opposition to new groups.

I see no escape, however, from this dilemma. If the laws are to be of any value they must have "teeth in them" and someone is sure to be hurt. This is inherent in the situation and cannot be avoided.

If we wish, therefore, to make our efforts of the widest influence we should seek housing legislation and not merely tenement house reform. The latter will do for a few cities, but will prove of little value to the great mass of communities in America. Housing evils are not confined to cities. Slums are found wherever people live, in small towns, in villages, even on the open prairie, and the only effective way to overcome these evils is through housing legislation; legislation which at first should apply only to the larger cities, but which gradually can be extended with little change to the smaller communities until ultimately every section of the state is embraced within its beneficent protection.

Ill

WHILE this book is called A Model Housing Law it is so only in the sense of being a working model upon which others may build. It is in no sense meant to be an ideal or perfect statute. It perhaps can be best described as "canned legislation." Its purpose is to save persons interested in housing reform many years of effort, and if rightly used should accomplish this purpose. It is intended to make unnecessary the painful operation of collecting the housing laws of all the different cities and states throughout the country, preparing a comparative digest of them, and slowly and painfully setting to work to construct a new law from these elements, cutting a piece here and adding a patch there, the result being a crazy-quilt of legislation which does not accomplish what is desired.

As all the housing laws in the United States are based upon three models, either the New York Tenement House Law or the present author's Model Tenement House Law, published in 1910,* or the Model Housing Law as published in 1914, it at once appears that there is little advantage to an\' community in thus collecting the laws of the different states and cities. At best all that one can get from them is to discover the local variations that have been made from the parent stock.

As a rule these local variations hinder rather than help. They frequenth' mean nothing more than a concession made to some individual on a local committee who has in mind some particular t\'pe of house and who declines to agree to a report or to support proposed legislation unless the particular point which he has in mind is favored. Concessions of this kind when copied in other communities without an understanding of the reasons which led to their enactment, do incalculable harm.

* Veiller, Lawrence: A Model Tenement House Law. New York, Charities Publication Committee, 19 10.

In A Model Tenement House Law, the disadvantages of this method of procedure are pointed out. It may not be amiss to repeat some of the warnings given there.

Writing a housing law is a difficult task. It requires much time and effort and a good deal of technical knowledge. As usually done it is undertaken by one or two public-spirited citizens who come to the task generally unprepared. Unless guided by the experience of others the results of this kind of effort are apt to prove disastrous. The law prepared under such methods is as a rule found inadequate when put into practice. It is then discovered that many important matters have been overlooked, that some parts have been so drawn as not to accomplish what was intended, that others are so involved that they are understood neither by the officials who have to enforce them nor by the citizens who are called upon to obey them, and that there are loopholes in the law by which it may be easily evaded and often its whole purpose defeated.

It is because of these considerations that the Model Law has been evolved.

All those enactments which any city would wish to make to regulate past, present and prospective housing evils have been included. It has been prepared for practical use by laymen, as well as by lawyers and public officials, and has been kept as simple and concise in form as it is possible to make it.

Housing laws deal with the construction of new buildings, the alteration of existing ones, and the maintenance of all, and are therefore used by many different classes in the community: builders, architects, plumbers, owners, tenants, social workers. In most laws, especially building codes, the provisions which relate to different classes of buildings are jumbled together and the person using them is compelled to hunt through the whole law to find that part in which he is interested.

In this respect the Model Law represents a great advance. The various provisions have here been so classified that each person can quickly and readily find those matters which interest him. A builder need only consider the provisions of one chapter of the law; namely, that relating to New Buildings. A man wishing to alter his house will find everything bearing on it in one separate chapter entitled Alterations; the landlord will find grouped together under Maintenance in another chapter, all those provisions which govern the maintenance of such houses; and here too tenants and social workers will find what they want to know.

The law is accordingly divided into six chapters: Chapter I, General Provisions (including Definitions); Chapter 11, New Buildings (divided into three divisions: Title i, Light and Ventilation; Title 2, Sanitation; Title 3, Fire Protection); Chapter 111, Alterations; Chapter IV, Maintenance; Chapter V, Improvements; and Chapter VI, Requirements and Remedies.

A special word of caution should be given in this connection. Some people have in their desire to "simplify" and reduce the bulk of the law because the law "looks so long" to them, sought to combine the various provisions and have disregarded this important plan of classification and thrown the various sections together. In every case where this has been done the result has been disastrous. The law thus evolved has been not only complicated and troublesome but has failed to remedy the evils involved.

Those seeking housing reform should realize at once that there is no way to enact a short housing law which will be adequate. There is no escape. If the conditions are to be adequately dealt with, the housing law must deal with all the important phases of the problem. No short cuts are possible. This is quickly demonstrated by going through the Model Law section by section and asking, " What sections can we safely omit? " 1 1 is quickly discovered that there are practically none.

A housing law to be appropriate should necessarily be adapted to local conditions. What is necessary and practicable in one city may not be necessary in another. In order to make such local adaptation easy, the plan has been adopted of printing in capital letters those standards which may vary in each city; thus, in the provision dealing with the percentage of lot which may be occupied, in the Model Law this has been fixed at SEVENTY per cent in the case, for instance, of interior lots not over 60 feet in depth. Some cities may wish to impose either a higher or a lower standard, to make this amount say 60 or 75 ; all that each city needs to do under the scheme of this law is to change the one word "SEVENTY" and leave the rest of the section as it is. The convenience of such a plan is obvious.

Where there is no featuring of a standard in this way it means that the requirement as written is deemed right for every city and should be enacted without change.

Too much emphasis cannot be placed upon adhering strictly to the phraseology and punctuation employed in the Model Law. Efforts should not be made to " improve " or " simplify " it. Every word, every comma has been weighed and has its exact and definite meaning. Many of the provisions have stood the test of many years' enforcement and interpretation.

Similarly, there are advantages in retaining the order of arrangement of the various sections and where possible the same section numbers. When your law comes to be tested in the courts, as it of course will, it will be helpful to be able to show the court that the provision under review is not some novel and untried venture, but that the identical provision in a very similar statute is to be found in the laws of Michigan, Minnesota and other states.

Following each section of the Model Law will be found copious notes and illustrative diagrams. While it is true that there are few sections of the law to which such notes are not appended, yet the plan has been to make no unnecessary comment but only to discuss those points which experience has shown are likely to give rise to difficulty and concerning which those using the law should be fully informed. The notes are in the form of a running commentary on each section, pointing out where there is any doubt the reasons which have caused its enactment and what is intended to be accomplished by it; also calling attention to ways in which its meaning may be misinterpreted and explaining wherever necessary to the lay mind all technical points involved.

Similarly, the illustrative diagrams which accompany the text are employed where it is felt that without them what is intended will not otherwise be plain, especially to persons not familiar with the technical aspects of the problems involved. These diagrams will be more useful to the layman than to the architect or builder, but will it is hoped prove useful even to them.

To persons especially familiar with the technical details of housing laws many of these notes may seem superfluous, but it should be remembered that the Model Law will necessarily be used by many persons who do not have this technical equipment.

In addition to these explanatory notes it has been thought wise to build "a flight of steps" both up and down from each of the more important sections. In other words, while each section of the Model Law represents the best consensus of opinion as to what it is desirable and practicable to adopt, it is recognized that it will not always be possible for each city to enact every provision as written in the law. Concessions will necessarily have to be made to meet the views of various persons in each community, and it is important, therefore, for the housing reformer who is working for this result to know where he may safely make concessions and how far it is wise to go. In order to aid him to the greatest possible extent a flight of steps has been built leading down from each section. In other words, where concessions can be made a series of "Concessions" is indicated after the explanator\' notes, and the exact phraseology of each concession is given.

On the other hand, it is also recognized that in many cities it may be possible to adopt higher standards than those established in the Model Law. There are many sections in which undoubtedly it would be wise if higher standards could be adopted. A flight of steps upward has therefore similarly been erected from each section and a series of "Variations" appended to those sections where it is believed that higher standards can be adopted. Here, too, the exact form of each variation is given in precise terms so as to aid those using the law to the greatest degree.

Equipped in this wa\', thus prepared to make the law stronger or weaker as may be necessary in each locality, it is believed that the housing reformer will be furnished with a complete armory of weapons with which to wage his fight.

This book would not be complete without a consideration, also, of what ma\' be termed an Ideal Housing Law so far as light and ventilation are concerned. This is an attempt to do awa\- with air-shafts and light-courts and other unsatisfactory makeshifts for direct light and air b\- permitting no dwellings to be erected which exceed two rooms in depth.

Whether American courts have advanced sufificientl\- at this time to sustain such legislation is a nice question. Whether they will or not, the author thinks it not inappropriate to include in this book a suggestion indicating the direction in which an ideal housing law is to be sought.

A word of caution to those using the Model Housing Law.

There is a subtle temptation in the form of local pride which sometimes makes a group of housing reformers desire to have the law they draft seem more essentially their own. A distaste for "copying" and an exaggerated desire for individual expression lead them to change for the sake of changing, to fix other standards because they are theirs.

The result of this course has generally proved to be disastrous. The profitable course to pursue is the direct reverse. Every person who is using the Model Law as the basis of his legislation should approach it with the idea in mind that as few changes as possible should be made, and only those for which affirmative evidence can be presented.

The burden of proof is on him for every change' or departure made from the standards therein established. His conception of his work should be to try and have the Model Law enacted in his community with the fewest possible changes, and no change should be made for which there are not strong and cogent reasons.

A failure to heed this advice has brought about disastrous and unexpected consequences; in several instances resulting in imposing unnecessary hardships upon real estate and in other cases defeating the very purposes the framers of such laws had in mind.

IV An Act

To promote the health, safety and welfare of the people b\- regulating the light and ventilation, sanitation, fire protection, maintenance, alteration, improvement and use of dwellings; to defme the classes thereof, to establish administrative requirements and to establish remedies and fix penalties for the violation thereof.

Note i : In order to base the act upon the founda- Explanations on which the Police Power of the State rests, ^j T^ viz., health, safety and welfare — it is good practice to write these important words into the Title of the Act.

The People of the State of represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:

Note: The enacting clause will vary in different Exolanastates; it should be made to conform strictly to the ^j^J^ form locally in use.

ARTICLE 1