ARHU-American Studies

The legislation with teeth was a new movement that was aimed to help the poor conditions in tenement buildings. At #97 Orchard Street there was only one room per apartment that had outside sunlight. Many rooms people were unable to read without artificial light even during the daytime. There were no toilets inside the building and if you were to have to go to the bathroom it would have to be outside. the housing act of 1901 addressed all these problems and mandated the landlords give adequate light as well as ventilation and restrooms indoors. this is the legislation with teeth they talk about, because the city was so unforgiving about their requests. I guess it is kindof similar with what they are doing today in downtown D.C. and other urban areas. Mandating that certain living conditions be met otherwise landlords will be held accountable.

Legislation is unable to complelely eliminate poor housing conditions because they increase the cost of housing without increasing the wealth of those renting the apartments. The people living in a slum are there becuase it is all they can afford, forcing a landlord to upgrade ventilation, plumbing, or electricity means the landlord must raise rent to cover the added costs. Or the landlord could shut the place down becuase it would no longer be profitable. Leaving all the renters out on the street. The only way to elimanate slums is to those living in the slums into a financial position to afford better. Or the government can fork over tons of cash to cover the difference, but in the long run that is too much a drag on the economy and hurts everyone instead of helping a few.

What Sean said is right. It is impossible to improve the living conditions unless the families increase their wealth. Like the Chereska Family, there isn't enough money to see a doctor, how could there be money to fix up a house?? Or take the Rogarshevskys, the children are doing anything they can to earn even a few pennies. The residents don't have the money to improve living condition, and it would be too much for the landlords to upgrade everything for so little. It would be up to the government to help.

I agree with Sean, especially his analysis of the landlord's challenge to upgrade without raising rent. Unfortunately this forces landlords to do the bare minimum as evidenced by the lack of improvements in the tenement buildings between 1918 and 1988.

I don't think it is up to the government to help. It is up to people to help, the government is only going to get in the way and make it worse. This doesn't mean everyone is forced to face the world alone, but the best way to improve your life is 1. to help yourself and 2. if that isn't working, seek help form the private sector. ie. churches, community organizations, etc...

"The government is not the solution to our problems; it is the problem." - Ronald Reagan

The legislation with teeth is the Tenement House Act of 1901 that “outlawed the construction of new tenements on 25-foot wide lots, required improved sanitary arrangements and access to light, and mandated changes in pre-existing tenements.” Before the sources of light were so poor that the residents could hardly see. The Act implemented major changes such as requiring dark interior rooms of pre-Law tenements to have a window; structural alterations, removal of all school sinks and privies; and individual water closets...properly sewer connected. I don’t understand why there was so much opposition when there were so many positive improvements and based on the photographs of the families who live at 97 Orchard Street, things didn’t look too miserable.

Reading the passages brings a couple things to mind. While the pictures painted in my mind through the readings on the tenements and those pictures drawn for me, I see several things about today's world that need to be addressed.
While the Tenement House Act of 1901 required those improvements you have to look at how others were living at the time to see whether they were necessary. I do believe they were necessary because it is standard decency that people have light to work by and plumbing to live off of.

I disagree with Sean's statement about the two options that people have. I do think the government needs to step in and make sure people are living in healthy conditions. Our government needs to take an interest in the people, those that are making a hundred-thousand dollars a year and those that won't make a hundred-thousand dollars in their lifetime.
While people do need to help themselves and there rae agencies that offer help, Americans also need to be educated.

Under the assumption that this class is filled with students from low- to high-income families, msot of us will never have to live or even see tenement housing on the inside. While we can say these people can help ourselves we can also do a duty to society by giving back all that we take from it. Slum housing has not been eradicated because those in America with power have let it continue without adequate time and patience given to its situation and improvement.

I vividly agree with Sean on his second point about the fact that the government is not the solution to our problems but rather the problem.
I also understand meg's point about the government stepping in to acknowledge better living conditions for the people.
What I would like to say here is that both of you are right based on what we perceive the government to be. The government is supposed to work with the people to achieve. Hence if this co-existance is breached by the government, then the government becomes the problem of the people. On the other hand, if the government's efforts is neglected by the people then, the people become the problem of the government.

The legislation with teeth reminds me of the other problems of the same era such as working conditions in factories. This legislation accomplished for renters what unions did for workers. This was a way for the owners to have some accountability in the conditions they provided to their respective communities.
This legislation was necessary because by improving the tennants living conditions the tennants were able to gain better health, both mentally and physically, at which time they could then begin to help themselves more than before which would eventually give them the ability to leave the tennement. Kinda like leading a horse to water...

I definatly think that this legisation was necessary. I don't know how someone could live in a building with no light and no toilet. I think that these changes were necessary because it effect peoples health. These changes definatly improved many peoples' living conditions. I agree with Richie that the government needs to work with the people because that way both benefit from each other.

I agree. I think the government should help people that are living in those conditions, however, when would that government interference be justified? How far and involved would the government be required to intervene in people's lives? not at all except certain circumstances? How would you go about defining what those circumstances are? Just a thought.

Of course government, or any particular legislation is not the be all end all for improving living conditions or otherwise. But, as was noted, it is often necessary to acknowledge a problem and do everything it can to help the situation. That does not mean and all out intrusion into people's lives, but sometimes it is necessary to intervene. The legislation with teeth was an important STEP, just as government intervention was in the case of workers conditions around the same time. There is certainly the need for people living in such conditions to "help themselves," but what does that really mean? They cannot just go to their job (if they have one) and demand more money because the costs of living have gone up. In such a case, it is often necessary and appropriate for the government to not only demand and enforce stricter conditions for the "slums," but also do what they can to legislate and enforce cost of living increases for the populations that are affected (this includes, but it not limited to raising the minimum wage, etc.). True, legislation, even with teeth, is not the ultimate solution, but it can be an important start and can help set in motion greater steps to cure the ills of situations such as those in Tenment House type communities.

I think that a lot of the reforms of the "legislation with teeth" are driven by advances in technology changing our ideas about what is and is not an acceptable standard of living. Many people have mentioned plumbing and toilets, but I don't think they were a common feature when the first tenements were constructed. The "Old Law" requires that "privies by connected to sewers where these were available", which can only mean that the sewer system hadn't grown to include the whole city. As standards changed low income housing would be the last to change because landlords wanted to keep their expenses low. The government then changed the legal standards for housing to force the landlords to modernize.

Looking at the profiles of the immigrant families that moved into the tenement I get the impression that even though the conditions were bad, they were better than the conditions from which the families came. Material items are realtive to your time and surroundings. In the late 19th century and even into the early 20th century outdoor bathrooms were common. The immigrant families were undoubtably used to this level of hygiene.

On to the question, legislation doesn't serve to iradicate slum housing. Legislation serves to require minimim standards of living. These minimims are supposed to reduce health risks to the public and insure that basic standards of code/fire safety are met. Nothing more.

I think Johny makes a good point. The Government is sometimes used to show us there is a problem. The legislation with teeth was the one that FORCED the owners to deal wih a problem that would only get worse if it was not addressed. They allowed them flexibility in the design for correction. It was not a matter of whether the poor immigants were used to living this way, it was in fact the rationality that they SHOULDN'T live this way.
The description of the garbage out in the street was a good enough indication that something was terribly wrong. I provided a visual that one could have compared to Europe during the years of the Black Plague.

To me, forcing higher standards of housing in the "slums" would mean an increase in rent, which would likely force the tenents out of thier homes and on to the streets. This does not seem like a good solution to the problem. In a more idealized situation, government funding could fix this problem; while I do not know details about the government and its finances at that time, I assume that they cannot afford to fix the problems of the slums. I do realize that I do not have a solution to offer to help the poor housing conditions, but I do not think that mandating landlords to improve conditions vastly is one either.
This situation kind of reminds me of a law in Northern VA that there must be a separate bedroom for each person living in a home (unless they are married or something like that. This law reduces/eliminates overcrowding, but it is more targeted at the lower class and immigrants. This seems unfair in some ways, because the lower class always seem to be forced to suffer more than they already do.

Perhaps legislation with teeth did not get the right intervention from the government to eradicate slum housing. Capitalism without regulation, is a disaster. And it is the government's responsiblity to prevent this disaster by balancing the gap between the rich and the poor.

"The forces of the capitalistic society, if left unchecked, tends to make the rich richer and the poor poorer." Jawaharlal Nehru (1889 - 1964) first indian prime minister

The Legislation With Teeth, like any legislation is only as effective as it is enforced. The reason slum housing still exisits is that you cannot perfectly enforce any law. More important are the economic conditions that cause people to live in tenements. Tenement life is born out of necessity, not choice. So long as an underclass of poor immigrants exist in American society so too will tenements.

The legislation on teeth was enforced to improve the living conditions of the tenement buildings. There was very little ventilation in the bedrooms and there was virtually no plumbing. This led to unsanitary conditions, which caused disease and illness to spread. Looking at the photos on the web site, the rooms appear to be too small. There would be as many as 10 people living in the same quarters. The rooms were so cramped that some boarders slept on rugs or the couch. Without this law, the building’s owners would not have made much of an effort to improve these conditions. The owners seemed to be more concerned with personal profit instead of the well-being of the tenants. This law helped the inhabitants of the tenements live in a much safer and healthier environment.

I agree with Jordan in that the conditions were poor but most of the families probably came from worse conditions. I think the legislation was necessary especially during a time of rampant diseases. I don't know how people survived in these times. With the trash situation "...a disagreeable and foul one and the stench excessive" The statement "Two fireproof air shafts were cut, and because the toilets and shaft combined to make the bedrooms uninhabitable, the partion walls of the south-side apartments were shifted to form smaller three-bedroom apartments" -how? you look at the pictures and read about these families and I don't know how they lived in what they did (with so many people) Like the Confinos whose children had to sleep on crates while the others slept on rugs-they didn't even have any beds!

The teeth legislation ( Tenement House Act 1901) was aimed to assist the poor in those poor living conditions. It “required improved sanitary...and access to light” etc. The houses at #97 Orchid Street were ridiculous ..I live in DC so I agree with Mark when he says the problem is similar in DC...but the problems are more evident in section A apartments...its sad but sometimes you get what you pay for...the government should step in a little more.

I have found a great site for buying:

Generic Viagra
Generic Cialis and
Generic Lipitor .

I don't really think your thoughts are right. Maybe you need a loan?

Kontaktanzeigen are pretty cool, aren't they?

Buy Viagra cheap from online store and save money on:

Viagra prescription

Hire a car to feel higher!

Hire a car to feel higher!

Hire a car to feel higher!

What a cool blog!

There can be genuine consensual relationships involving abuse. by free online poker

poker tips - empire poker, poker games | internet poker - poker tips, paradise poker | texas holdem - poker tables, party poker | empirepoker - internet poker, free online poker | free online poker - partypoker, texas holdem poker | party poker - free online poker, online poker | empire poker - empirepoker, poker chips | internet poker - world series of poker, poker online | internet poker - texas holdem, wsop | online poker rooms - texas hold'em, free poker online | free poker online - pacific poker, poker online | free online poker - online poker rooms, poker tips | partypoker - poker tables, poker chips