My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
1998_0413_packet
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Packets
>
1998
>
1998_0413_packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/7/2011 3:12:42 PM
Creation date
10/7/2011 3:03:04 PM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
98
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Europe. f=requently these immigrants arrived without money or jobs and were forced to <br /> move in with friends or relatives. This led to severe overcrowding. Most of the information <br /> available pertains to New York city, because the situation there was worse than that in any <br /> other city in the country. It received the majority of the immigrants, many of whom were <br /> unable to move beyond the city. The most serious housing problems began in new York <br /> about 1 840 when the first tenements were built. These provided such substandard <br /> housing and such unhealthy, crowded living conditions that a social reform movement was <br /> imminent in New York. <br /> During the early part of the 19th century, the only housing control authority was that vested <br /> in the fire wardens, whose objective was to prevent fires, and the health wardens, who <br /> were charged with the enforcement of general sanitation. In 1 867, with the passing of the <br /> Tenement Housing Act, New York city began to face the problem of substandard housing. <br /> This lava represented the first comprehensive legislation of its kind in this country. The <br /> :principal features of the act are summarized as follows: for every room occupied for <br /> -,sleeping in a tenement or lodging house, if it does not communicate directly with the <br /> ,external air, a ventilating or transom window to the neighboring room or hall; a proper f re <br /> escape on every tenement or lodging house; the roof to be kept in repair and the stairs to <br /> have banisters; water closets or privies -- at least one to every twenty occupants for all <br /> such houses; after duly 1, 1867, permits for occupancy of every cellar not previously <br /> occupied as a dwelling; cleansing of every lodging house to the satisfaction of the Board <br /> of Health, which is to have access at any time; reporting of all cases of infectious disease <br /> to the Board by the owner or his agent; inspection and, if necessary, disinfection of such <br /> houses; and vacation of buildings found to be out of repair. There were also regulations <br /> governing distances between buildings, heights of rooms, and dimensions of windows. <br /> The terms "tenement house," "lodging house," and "cellar' were defined. <br /> Although this act had some beneficial influences on overcrowding, sewage disposal, <br /> lighting, and ventilation, it did not correct the evils of crowding on lots and did not provide <br /> Jor adeq u ate ventilation for inner rooms. In 1 879, a second tenement act, amending the <br /> first, was passed adding restrictions on the amount of lot coverage and providing for a <br /> window opening of a least 12 square feet in every room. Several attempts in 1 882, 1 884, <br /> and 1 895 were made to amend this original act and provide for occupancy standards, but <br /> they were relatively uinenforceable. While these numerous acts remedied only slightly the <br /> serious problems of the tenements, they did show the city's acknowledgement of the <br /> problems. This public acknowledgement., however, was seldom shared by the owners of <br /> the tenements, or, ins some cases, by the courts. The most famous case, in 1892, <br /> involved Trinity Church, at that time one of the largest owners of tenements in New York <br /> city. <br /> In the case, the city of New York mused Trinity church of violating provisions of the Act <br /> of 1882 by failing to provide running water on every floor of its buildings. A district court <br /> levied a fine of 00 against the Church, which in turn appealed to the Court of Common <br /> Pleas to have the law set aside as unconstitutional* Incredibly, the court agreed <br /> unanimously to uphold the landlord's position, stating there is no evidence nor can the <br /> court judicially know that the presence and distribution of mater on the several floors will <br /> 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.