Alazan-Apache Courts: A New Deal Response to Mexican American Housing Conditions in San Antonio Author(s): Donald L. Zelman Source: The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Vol. 87, No. 2 (Oct., 1983), pp. 123-150 Published by: Texas State Historical Association Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/30239788 Accessed: 10-12-2019 20:57 UTC JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms Texas State Historical Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Southwestern Historical Quarterly This content downloaded from 132.174.252.174 on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:57:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Alazan-Apache Courts: A New Deal Response to Mexican American Housing Conditions in San Antonio DONALD L. ZELMAN* HE ALAZAN-APACHE COURTS WERE A PUBLIC HOUSING PROJECT BUILT in San Antonio's predominantly Mexican West side during the late 193os. Financed primarily with New Deal funds, they were expected to help alleviate the deplorable housing situation that had long plagued San Antonio's Mexican community. Because the housing needs of the city's Mexican population were so extreme, the completed courts would not benefit all in need. Still, the housing project brought comfort to the fortunate ones allotted tenancy, and increased awareness of the needs of San Antonio's Mexican American population. A study of the Alazan-Apache Courts has implications beyond local history. It deals with an area in Mexican American history that has not been adequately discussed, and it covers social and political issues of state and national scope. Most studies of Mexicans in the 1930s deal with repatriation or with Mexican living and working conditions, and they have focused largely on the California scene. This has left a gap in the history of Mexicans and welfare-particularly the relationship between the Mexican community and the New Deal. It also has left the history of the Mexicans in depression-era Texas largely unexplored.' *Donald L. Zelman is associate professor of history at Tarleton State University. 1There are laudable histories of Mexicans in depression Texas; however, they deal with Mexicans and aspects of relief as secondary issues. Particularly noteworthy studies include Selden C. Menefee and Orin C. Cassmore, The Pecan Shellers of San Antonio: The Prob- lem of Underpaid and Unemployed Mexican Labor (Washington, D.C., 1940); Selden C. Menefee, Mexican Migratory Workers of South Texas (Washington, D.C., 1941); Johnnie C. McCain, "Mexican Labor in San Antonio, Texas, 1900-1940" (1971, in author's possession). Harold Arthur Shapiro, "The Workers of San Antonio, Texas, 19oo-194o" (Ph.D. diss., University of Texas, 1952) is a thorough discussion of the Mexican situation in San Antonio; however, here again, the nature of the topic detracts from a concentrated discussion of Mexicans on relief. Mark Reisler, By the Sweat of Their Brow: Mexican Immigrant This content downloaded from 132.174.252.174 on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:57:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 124 Southwestern Historical Quarterly The story of the Alazan-Apache Courts helps fill the void. It not only furthers the history of Texas's largest ethnic minority, but also uncovers an example of one of the little-recognized individuals whose unselfish devotion was the basis of much that was accomplished in the name of the New Deal. It was through the efforts of Father Carmelo Tranchese that the Alazan-Apache Courts were built. In 1930 San Antonio had the largest Mexican population of any city in Texas. The more than 82,000 people of Mexican descent living there represented over 35 percent of the city's population; by the end of the decade their numbers had increased by more than twenty thousand and the percentage had climbed to over forty. For some San Antonio Mexicans-those employed as businessmen, professionals, and highly skilled workers-the city offered lucrative economic opportunity. But these represented a distinct minority. By 1938 over one- quarter of San Antonio's residents were living at or below a "bare subsistence" level, and 85 percent of those at the bottom were Mexicans.2 The work reserved for Mexicans usually involved unskilled manual labor that brought little remuneration. Migratory work, which involved nearly 50 percent of San Antonio's Mexicans at one time or another, did not pay enough to sustain workers through the off season. The clothing industry in 1932 paid those Mexican women who were fortunate enough to have a factory job a median weekly wage of Labor in the United States, 1900oo-94o (Westport, Conn., 1976) and Abraham Hoffman, Unwanted Mexican Americans in the Great Depression: Repatriation Pressures, 1929-1939 (Tucson, 1974) cover the depression era well on a national basis but tend to concentrate on the California experience. One study that specifically deals with welfare programs in which Mexicans are included is Angela Marie Chappelle, "Local Welfare Work of Religious Organizations in San Antonio, Texas" (M.A. thesis, University of Texas, 1939), but the work is restricted to church programs. Because the Mexican community in San Antonio consisted of U.S. citizens and Mexican nationals, for purposes of simplification the term "Mexican," as used in this paper, will refer to all persons of Mexican descent, whether U.S. citizens or aliens. When citizenship status made a difference, it will be noted. 2Theodore N. Picnot, An Economic and Industrial Survey of San Antonio, Texas (San Antonio, 1942), 73-75, 76 (quotation), 77-82, 167, 176; T. Wilson Longmore and Homer L. Hitt, "A Demographic Analysis of First and Second Generation Mexican Population of the United States: 1930," Southwestern Social Science Quarterly (SSSQ), XXIV (Sept., 1943), 143; Herschel T. Manuel, "The Mexican Population of Texas," ibid., XV (Sept., 1934), 38-39; McCain, "Mexican Labor in San Antonio, Texas," 4, 11-15, 23-24, 33; U.S., Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Sixteenth Census of the United States, I940. Population. Volume I: Number of Inhabitants . . . (Washington, D.C., 1942), 1,039-1,040; William J. Knox, "The Economic Status of the Mexican Immigrant in San Antonio, Texas" (M.A. thesis, University of Texas, 1927), 261; Shapiro, "Workers of San Antonio," 234-237. This content downloaded from 132.174.252.174 on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:57:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Alazan-Apache Courts 125 $5.45 to $5.50 for sewing women's apparel or men's wo Mexican seamstresses who worked at home making chi fants' garments made from about one to twelve cen laundry industry, the same year, paid a median weekly These wages were significantly lower in most cases Anglo women, even when the tasks were the same. The wage situation existed in the pecan industry, the large Mexicans in the city; here the median weekly income w these wages, which were paid to both men and women that ranged between $.32 to $1.56 a week, and some tunate adults worked for no more than sixteen cents a poses of comparison, the average relief wage paid by t Administration in San Antonio in 1933-1934 was a $ io.oo a week. The problem of low hourly and weekly wages was co the fact that much employment open to Mexicans was s time. It is not surprising, then, that a 1939 study by Housing Authority (SAHA) of 14,000 Mexican famili go percent earning less than $950 a year, and over 11 nual incomes of under $250.3 Such adverse employment conditions provided a m dard of living that was reflected in the Mexicans' envi Mexicans lived scattered throughout San Antonio, m in one of three major districts, which contained some 3American Public Welfare Association, Public Welfare Survey of (Chicago, 1940), 22, 27-30; McCain, "Mexican Labor in San Antonio, cultural and Mechanical College, Department of Industrial Educati Survey of San Antonio, Texas (College Station, Tex., 1929), 22; Charl Social and Economic Effects of the Mexican Migration into Texas" (M of Colorado, 1929), 78-80; Mary Loretta Sullivan and Bertha Blair, dustries: Hours, Wages, Working Conditions, and Home Work, U Labor, Women's Bureau, Bulletin 126 (Washington, D.C., 1936), 4-8 tional Recovery Administration, Hearings on Code of Fair Practic presented by Laundry Industry, Nov. 20, 1933, p. 376, Transcripts o 1735/2, Records of the National Recovery Administration, Record G chives; Robert Garland Landolt, "The Mexican American Workers of San Antonio, Texas" (Ph.D. diss., University of Texas, 1965), 175-176, 225-227; Menefee and Cassmore, Pecan Shellers, xvii, 13; John A. Lucas, Preliminary Report on the Pecan Shelling Industry, National Recovery Administration, Research and Planning Division (n.p., Mar. 12, 1935), 22-25; San Antonio Express, May 4, 1935; Tad Eckam, "Public Housing Day Comes to San Antonio," America: A Catholic Review of the Week, LXIII (Aug., 1940), 570571; Lyndon G. Knippa, "San Antonio II: The Early New Deal," Robert C. Cotner (ed.), Texas Cities and the Great Depression (Austin, 1973), 78; San Antonio Housing Authority, A Pictorial Supplement to the 1939 Annual Report (San Antonio, 1940), 5 (copy found in the San Antonio Public Library). This content downloaded from 132.174.252.174 on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:57:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 126 Southwestern Historical Quarterly plorable neighborhoods in the city. The largest district was located just west of the business and industrial area of town and was referred to as the West Side. The second largest was the Rock Quarry district, named for the rock quarry it surrounded; this district was located in the northeast part of town near Brackenridge Park, which lay to its east. The smallest section of the three was the East Side, which lay between Concepcion Avenue and the Missouri, Kansas, and Texas Railroad. The inhabitants of these areas could rarely afford to pur chase homes. Whereas almost 50 percent of the whites in the city owned their own homes in i930, as did 40 percent of the blacks, only 30 percent of San Antonio's Mexicans were homeowners, and thei homes were less than one-third the value of Anglo homes. The rest of the Mexican population rented homes whose locations were restricted in part by prejudice, but also by family income.4 For Mexican families whose breadwinners had stable, industrial jobs and who had few mouths to feed, there were decent places to rent-well-built houses located in nice neighborhoods with paved, tree-lined streets. However, part-time laborers, migrants, pecan shellers and other unskilled workers, or those with large families, had to rent less desirable dwellings. They rented from Mexican nationals and Anglo Americans, but for the most part from Mexican Americans of some means. Frequently these landlords owned their own homes and realized substantial profits by converting back lots into rental property; there were also absentee owners who built tenements for rental purposes or simply rented land upon which tenants built their own shacks. Thus, throughout San Antonio's Mexican districts there sprang up huts, shacks, and two-room cell-like structures. The houses were built in courts called "corrals," named after horse stalls from which many of the dwellings were converted. Corrals existed in different forms. Sometimes they featured independent abodes built by the squatters themselves. These dwellings were perhaps no larger in size than ten feet by ten feet. Composed of one room or two, with possibly a lean-to kitchen in the back, each hovel usually housed one family, but there were occasions when three or four families, numbering anywhere from three to seven members each, shared the dwellings. The huts 4Shapiro, "Workers of San Antonio," 200-202; Thomas Guy Rogers, "The Housing Situation of the Mexicans in San Antonio, Texas" (M.A. thesis, University of Texas, 1927), 1-3. This content downloaded from 132.174.252.174 on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:57:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Alazan-Apache Courts 127 were scattered randomly in a yard or perhaps lined in courtyard. Landlords also put up such structures, but they preferred to create buildings that housed several families in separate units. Multifamily facilities usually consisted of two or four long, narrow structures that faced each other across a courtyard. The buildings, whether in sets of two or four, were divided into several individual apartments containing a front and back room. There was often a long porch running the length of each building, with bannisters marking the beginning and end of each "apartment." A West Side shack. The construction of the long apartmentlike dwellings and the independent shacks was quite similar. The roofs were sometimes made of tin, which tended to leak, or corrugated iron, which absorbed the summer heat. The floors were sometimes nothing more than black dirt or hard-packed pecan shells. The walls of the better structures were made of stucco or tile; the walls of the inferior buildings were often a collection of objects "depending on what the junk pile had to offer at the time the 'house' was being built." Such walls might contain no windows or, at the most, one per apartment.5 The interiors were dismal and sparsely furnished. There were few appliances, often nothing more than a wood-burning stove, which usually served double duty as a source of heat and a means of cooking. Some dwellings had electric lights, since electricity was cheap in San 5Rogers, "Housing Situation," 15, 21-22 (quotation), 41-52. This content downloaded from 132.174.252.174 on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:57:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 128 Southwestern Historical Quarterly Antonio, and landlords recognized that it was less likely to cause fire than was the use of fuels. Still, one 1927 study found that 75 percent of the homes it surveyed used gas or kerosene lamps. Indoor running water was practically nonexistent. The lack of indoor water made the courtyards, in many ways, as important as the buildings, for it was here that one found the com- munal water facilities. Usually water was available at a community water hydrant, which, in some cases, the landlord turned on for only a few hours a day. There were some corrals that lacked even the hydrant, but had instead a large communal water barrel that a water truck replenished occasionally. No running water meant no indoor toilet. The family, if among the more fortunate, had access to a communal toilet in the courtyard; the less fortunate had to rely upon a communal privy shared, on the average, with fifteen to twenty other families. A 1935 U.S. Public Health Service survey found that some 6,ooo homes, located mainly in the Mexican districts, had only pit privies, which were a source of much disease. Some corrals had communal bathing and laundry facilities; when such luxuries were lacking the tenants had to search elsewhere for their cleaning needs.6 The rents for such shelter were low in comparison with rents throughout the city but were expensive considering what they offered. The 1939 SAHS study found families paying fourteen dollars or more per month for dwellings that lacked utilities, while at the other extreme investigators found families paying rents of $3.50 and even as little as $2.00 per month. The median rent paid by Mexicans in 1930 was $1o.oi a month. This was less than that paid by blacks ($14.05) and two-thirds less than that paid by Anglos ($31.58).) The poor economic conditions of the Mexican districts contributed to a low tax-base, which meant limited access to city benefits and ser- vices. There were a few parks in some districts, but playgrounds were 6Louise McGuire to Boris Shishkin, Jan. 14, 1939, San Antonio Pecan Workers, 1939-41, File no. 641, WPA State Files, Texas, Records of the Work Projects Administration, RG 69, NA; McGuire to Francis J. Haas, Dec. 30, 1938, ibid.; "Report as of September 1ith upon Housing and Labor Conditions in the San Antonio Mexican Quarter" (1937), 2, 3 (quotation), Crystal City, Texas, File no. 641, Correspondence, Reports, Instructions, WPA Division of Social Research, RG 69, NA; Selden C. Menefee, "Report on Mexicans in San Antonio, 1939" (rough draft), 97, San Antonio, Background, Criticisms, File no. 641, Reports, Research Material, WPA Division of Social Research, RG 69, NA; Public Welfare Survey, 22; Rogers, "Housing Situation," 15, 21-22, 41-52; McCain, Mexican Labor in San Antonio," 29-32; Shapiro, "Workers of San Antonio," 204-207. 7Shapiro, "Workers of San Antonio," 201-203, 208-209; Audrey Granneberg, "Maury Maverick's San Antonio," Survey Graphic, XXVIII (July, 1939), 423. This content downloaded from 132.174.252.174 on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:57:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Alazan-Apache Courts 129 almost nonexistent. Since the houses and row apartmen almost at the property edge, sidewalks and front yard children were forced to seek their fun in fields, streets of the Mexican neighborhoods lacked paved or lighted the streets were often nothing more than narrow alle the districts was primitive. There were few drainage d heavy rains flushed the debris that collected in street the houses or into the corral areas, where it remained the water evaporated. The city rarely, if ever, extermi ing vermin or sought to control the disease-carrying cleanup crews seldom visited, and fire and police prote pletely inadequate.8 Poor health was a fact of life in such neighborhoo the 1930s, San Antonio was among the nation's leading caused by tuberculosis. The brunt was borne by th munity, which, while it represented less than 40 perc population, suffered approximately 69 percent of t related deaths in 1934 and over 70 percent in 1937 experienced a high incidence of venereal diseases, m fever, pneumonia, and whooping cough. Their young s proportionate number of deaths from such intestinal rhea and enteritis. Indeed, one 1926 study found that children under two years of age, there were 300 perce from intestinal inflammation than among the white p same age. Several factors, including diet and ignorance cal practices, contributed to the adverse health situati and a disease-ridden environment were clearly the fluences. Cleaning up the districts or providing ade assistance would go far toward eliminating the sources 8"Report as of September 1ith," 3; McCain, "Mexican Labor in S Menefee, "Report on Mexicans," 57. oK. E. Miller, A Survey of the Public Health Problems and Needs in U.S. Public Health Service (n.p., 1937), ig; Texas State Department letin, I (June, 1939), 11-14; Texas State Department of Health, D and Child Health, The Latin American Health Problem in Texas ( Pat Ireland Nixon, A Century of Medicine in San Antonio: The St Bexar County, Texas (San Antonio, 1936), 307-310; "San Antonio's Happiness (HH), V (May, 1938), 6-7 (this article, written "By a For City Board of Health," is apparently the work of Pat I. Nixon, si message closely resemble his book); McGuire to Haas, Mar. 9, 1939 Workers, 1939-41, file no. 641, WPA State Files, Texas, RG 69, N "The Psychology of a Mexican Community in San Antonio, Texas This content downloaded from 132.174.252.174 on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:57:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 130 Southwestern Historical Quarterly The city proved unable or unwilling to move in this direction. City ordinances required that all inhabited tenements have hydrants, sinks, water closets, sewer connections, doors, windows, and floors; and they were to be free of trash litter, flies, and mosquitos. There were also regulations regarding floor and air space. Yet the existence of so many dwellings that violated every single standard indicated how frequently the laws were ignored.10 The failure to enforce the housing codes paralleled the city's reluctance to go beyond the bare requirements in providing welfare to its downtrodden. San Antonio lagged behind other Texas cities, indeed behind most American cities, in relief efforts. A share of the blame was placed by a former member of the city health board on "the ineptitude and inefficiency . . . of our public officials, and, we are sorry to say, indifference on the part of the general public.""1 There was justification to the charge. San Antonio officials attributed their reluctance to dispense general relief to charter restrictions. That other Texas cities operated under similar restrictions, yet surpassed San Antonio in providing for their destitute, was an indication that San Antonio was less sympathetic than other communities were. Independent observers of the social scene noted this insensitivity in public officials and private citizens and attributed it to indifference and a general prejudicial attitude toward ethnic minorities.12 Yet the situation could not be blamed solely on human callousness. San Antonio's resources were limited, for compared with cities of about the same size, San Antonio historically ranked toward the bot- tom in per capita revenues. The depression placed additional limitations on welfare spending and upon the degree of attention that could be devoted to such problems as the environmental and economic versity of Texas, 1936), 41-42; Jet C. Winters, "A Report on the Health and Nutri- tion of Mexicans Living in Texas," University of Texas Bulletin no. 312 (July 15, 1931), 18-28, 31-36; Elizabeth Faulkner Marsh, "A Dietary Study of Two Thousand Families on Direct Relief in Texas" (M.S. thesis, University of Texas, 1935), 1, 35, 38-39, 47-48; Audrey Criswell Goree, "The Distribution of Food Money by Two Thousand Texas Families on Direct Relief" (M.S. thesis, University of Texas, 1935), 39, 41-48; Ralph Maitland, "San Antonio: The Shame of Texas," Forum and Century, CII (Aug., 1939), 54; Menefee, "Report on Mexicans," 94; McCain, "Mexican Labor in San Antonio," 37. 10Shapiro, "Workers of San Antonio," 213. 11"San Antonio's Health," 7. 12"San Antonio's Health," 7; Public Welfare Survey, 51-52; Shapiro, "Workers of San Antonio," 239-241; Menefee, "Report on Mexicans," 56--60; Lyndon Gayle Knippa, "San Antonio, Texas, During the Depression, 1933-1936 (M.A. thesis, University of Texas, 1971), 69-7 . This content downloaded from 132.174.252.174 on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:57:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Alazan-Apache Courts 131 situation of the Mexican community. Indeed, even w tions imposed by attitudes and economic circumstance still found ways to care for the needy. Citizens throughout the population contributed to pr that offered aid to impoverished Mexicans. The aid wa adequate, but few places in the nation could point to a charity programs. On the public level, San Antonio an offered city- and county-sponsored welfare and public The programs, supervised by the Municipal Unemp Committee and the Bexar County Board of Welfare an were not well funded and offered a minimum of relief manifestations of prejudice in the dispensing of wh As early as 1933, Mayor Charles McClellan Chambe relief officials made it clear that neither religion nor factor in hiring or in granting relief; however, at lea citizen documented areas where Bexar County allotted funding for food and other necessities to Mexicans an did to white families. There was also "a feeble attem to deny relief to aliens. Such instances of discrimin however. In most matters of welfare all groups were by the committee, and Mexican Americans and Mexica ceived direct relief and worked on the public work with other ethnic groups."1 After Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in 1933, New eventually accounted for nearly 95 percent of the wel Bexar County. The influx of federal funds was a boon community. The national relief programs were better vided by the private and local sectors, and since N prohibited discrimination based on race or creed, th munity enjoyed equal access to the federal programs. eligible for direct relief, though citizenship requirem off New Deal public works projects unless they took papers. The overall importance of the federal program was revealed by Works Progress Administration inves Menefee, who concluded that "at least half of San Ant 13Alonso S. Perales to Richard W. Kleberg, Dec. 19, 1933, File: ministrative Correspondence, CWA State Files, RG 69, NA; Publ 52-53; Shapiro, "Workers of San Antonio," 239-243; Mary Maverick tonio During the Depression, 1929-1933" (M.A. thesis, University of Knippa, "San Antonio, Texas," o109 (quotation). This content downloaded from 132.174.252.174 on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:57:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 132 Southwestern Historical Quarterly mately 20,000 Mexican families were dependent, wholly or in part, upon government aid for their subsistence at the end of 1938. Without that aid, mulnutrition and actual starvation would undoubtedly have taken a heavy toll in the Mexican community during the depression.'14 A side benefit of the federal government's relief role was that it made the local government more aware of the Mexicans' situation as a social problem that affected the entire community. Federal investigations and reports helped create that awareness, as did the obvious improvement in Mexican living conditions once federal programs were under way. In response, the city increased its efforts to help alleviate the problems that plagued the Mexican community. It did not loosen its own purse strings significantly, as it expected that major funding would come from sources other than local coffers. Still, the city and county officials actively appealed for grants, and cooperated in administering welfare programs. Such willingness was particularly evident in efforts to deal with the city's housing problem.15 San Antonians engaged sporadically in attempts at slum clearance and housing development throughout the thirties. The Junior Cham- ber of Commerce (Jaycees) and the Civil Works Administration played key roles in promoting some of the initial projects, which, however, accomplished little. In 1935 the city, prodded by the Jaycees and other civic bodies, created the Slums Clearance Committee, which was successful in acquiring a four million dollar allotment from the Public Works Administration (PWA) for slum clearance work. Unfortunately, the project had problems almost from the start. The committee was unable to complete negotiations for compensation with the 120 West Side property owners within the time limits set by the government, and the courts ruled against some local condemnation proceedings. Further, the PWA's plan to purchase land for public housing was ruled unconstitutional. The combination of difficulties kept the federal funds from reaching San Antonio. Still, the city continued its efforts at slum removal using local funds. It added a Slum Clearance Division to the City Health Department. 14Lawrence Westbrook to All Administrators and Chairmen, memorandum, Nov. 22, 1933, File: Texas Official, CWA State Files, RG 69, NA; Federal Civil Works Administration, Rules and Regulations No. io (Series I), memorandum, Dec. 18, 1933 (Archives Division, Texas State Library, Austin); "New WPA Rules Established," Texas Municipalities (TM), XXIII (July, 1936), 185; Menefee, "Report on Mexicans," 58-70, 74-75 (quotation); Menefee and Cassmore, Pecan Shellers, 37-39, 40-43; Knippa, "San Antonio, Texas," log; Public Welfare Survey, 42. 15Menefee, "Report on Mexicans," 58; Public Welfare Survey, 42. This content downloaded from 132.174.252.174 on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:57:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Alazan-Apache Courts 133 The Division razed, repaired, or vacated some two th affecting 2,642 families. Many of the displaced person repaired structures, but the rest were forced to reloca forts, heroic in conception, simply could not go far eno ber of substandard houses in San Antonio was so lar noted that "the extent of the work which has been done is not evi- dent to the casual observer." 1C A more effective slum clearance program required outside funding The possibility of appealing again for federal aid was greatly in creased when, on September 1, 1937, President Franklin Rooseve signed the Wagner-Steagall Act, creating the United States Housin Authority (USHA). The purpose of the USHA was to encourage loc housing agencies to build housing projects for low-income familie primarily through granting loans to eligible local agencies. The USHA loans were limited to 90 percent of a project's cost; the remaining io percent had to be furnished by local sources. Though the government encouraged localities to apply for project loans, acceptance was not automatic. A city seeking USHA fundin had to assure the agency that a loan was justified. An application had to be made, complete with a survey of housing needs. Sites for th projects had to be selected, and the property owners compensated at rate approved by the USHA. The city had to fund io percent of t project's cost. It had to agree to provide the tenants with fire, polic and health protection, and with water and sewer services. It also had to work toward preventing the reestablishment of slum conditions i the area. Finally, an agreement between Texas cities and the USH (an agreement also made by twenty-three other states) stipulated th as part of the cities' annual contribution to the project, all taxes project property would be waived.'7 The job of attending to most of the above provisions fell mainly t local housing authorities that were established to oversee the develop ment of dwellings for the destitute. Texas had anticipated the a proval of the Wagner-Steagall Act by passing, on June 8, 1937, t 10Herbert C. Henderson to Carmelo Tranchese, Mar. 1, 1935, Carmelo Tranchese Pape (Library, St. Mary's University, San Antonio); "Report as of September iith," 1, 2 (qu tation); Bernard A. Tonnar, "He Had a Date with a Dream," The Savior's Call, XXIV (Apr., 1946), ioi; Menefee and Cassmore, Pecan Sheliers, 44; SAHA, Annual Report 194o (San Antonio, 1941), 4. 17San Antonio Express, May 3, 4, July 21, 1938; Guiton Morgan, "Slum Clearance Texas," TM, XXV (May, 1938), 117-119- This content downloaded from 132.174.252.174 on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:57:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 134 Southwestern Historical Quarterly Carssow Slum Clearance bill, which, when amended, authorized Texas cities to establish such housing authorities. The authorities were granted broad powers, including the right to investigate living and housing conditions, to acquire real property by condemnation proceed- ings or by right of eminent domain, and to issue bonds, borrow money, or accept grants from the federal government.s8 San Antonio's Board of Commissioners created its Housing Authority on June 17, 1937. Among the five commissioners selected to serve on the authority was Father Carmelo Tranchese, the city's most active advocate of public housing. His career in San Antonio reflected a man of deep compassion and selfless dedication toward improving the lot of the less fortunate. Tranchese was born in Italy in 1882. He arrived in the United States as a Jesuit priest in 1912 and served in a number of western and southwestern states. In 1932 he assumed the post of Pastor of Our Lady of Guadalupe Church on San Antonio's heavily Mexican West Side. The priest proved an active guardian over his Mexican parishioners. Throughout the thirties he championed their strikes for better wages and working conditions; he established relief centers when they were laid off work; he was actively involved in efforts to improve their health; and, as his top priority, he pursued a campaign to bring public housing to his West Side area. Tranchese began his public-housing campaign in 1932, the year he arrived in San Antonio. A Washington official, reacting to San Antonio's abnormally high death rate, suggested to the priest that the West Side was a likely place for a housing project. Instantly attracted to the proposal, Tranchese, from that point until the Wagner-Steagall Act was passed in 1937, worked to develop widespread interest in public housing in San Antonio. In newspaper and magazine articles, in speeches to local civic groups, and in letters to public officials, including President Roosevelt, the priest depicted the deplorable conditions under which his parishioners lived and extolled the benefits of federally sponsored public housing as the solution. His arguments for government-sponsored housing stemmed from his belief that it is "the government's duty to see that the people live well, if they must be called upon to build the prosperity of the Nation, and to defend it in the hour of danger." He argued that it would be 18SAHA, Annual Report, 194o, pp. 3-4; E. A. Wood, "Digest of Texas Housing Laws TM, XXV (Feb., 1938), 31-32; San Antonio Express, June 9, 1937. This content downloaded from 132.174.252.174 on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:57:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Father Carmelo Tranchese ironic if the government did not intervene. After all, he asked, "The city and state regulate stables for horses and cows; why not regulate human habitations also?" If government can worry about the health of cattle and dogs, why not be more concerned about humans who suffer through no fault of their own?19 A federally financed housing project, the priest reasoned, would bring construction jobs in addition to the obvious benefits that would come with cleaned-up neighborhoods and modern housing. Once the projects were completed, Tranchese envisioned the establishment of small shops where the Mexicans "could make pottery, baskets and simple things which I am sure could be sold in many parts of the country." 20 19San Antonio Express, June 18, 1937; "Citizen of the Week," radio program on station KMAC, Mar. 14, 1948 (transcript), Tranchese Papers; Tranchese, "The Housing Problem in Relation to Labor" (typescript, n.d.), 2 (quotation), ibid.; Eduardo Marolla, "Father Carmelo Tranchese, S.J., Missionary to Texas," Sons of Italy Magazine, XX (July, 1947), 1-3. Juan Gilberto Quezada, "Father Carmelo Tranchese, S.J., a Pioneer Social Worker in San Antonio, Texas, 1932-1953" (M.A. thesis, St. Mary's University, 1972) provides a general summary of Tranchese's life, emphasizing his career in San Antonio. 20Tranchese to Eleanor Roosevelt, Apr. 22, 1939 (quotation), Tranchese Papers; Tranchese to Louise McGuire, Mar. 6, 1939, San Antonio Pecan Workers, 1939-41, File no. 641, WPA State Files, Texas, RG 69, NA. This content downloaded from 132.174.252.174 on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:57:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 136 Southwestern Historical Quarterly Through such arguments and ceaseless campaigning, Tranchese played a prominent role in developing enthusiasm in San Antonio for public housing and in convincing Washington officials that the need for public housing in the city existed. Yet the priest was not the only influential, local public-housing enthusiast. Support came from across political, ethnic, and economic lines. Religious and civic groups, particularly the Junior Chamber of Commerce, worked on behalf of slum clearance and housing development. Political figures, including Mayor Charles K. Quin and Congressman Fontaine Maury Maverick, provided their political clout and leadership. In the Mexican community the newly formed Liga de Leales Latinoamericanos (League of Loyal Latin Americans), composed of prominent Mexican American community leaders, expressed its support through resolutions and by writing Washington leaders voicing approval of the Wagner-Steagall bill.21 The San Antonio Express was also at the forefront in pressing for public housing. Through enthusiastic articles and editorials, it kept its readers well informed regarding project developments. Though a conservative publication, the paper recognized that the profit motive limited the ability of the private sector to participate in a low-rent housing project. The desperate need among the poor for low-rent housing, then, imposed upon the federal government the obligation to become involved. Beyond this humanitarian consideration, the paper foresaw the economic benefits that a federally financed housing project could bring to San Antonio at little community expense. Slum clearance, the paper intimated, would curb crime and disease, saving jail, hospital, and welfare costs. In addition, federal housing dollars spent in San Antonio for "building materials, fixtures, skilled and common labor" would benefit the capital-goods industry, provide jobs, and generally improve the city's economic health.22 The Express's interest in housing was not matched by San Antonio's other dailies, including the Light and the Evening News, which provided limited and generally indifferent coverage. Even the Spanish- language La Prensa wrote about the planned project with reserved objectivity. The paper supported federally subsidized housing, believing that the low-rent project would improve the quality of life for 21La Prensa (San Antonio), June 9, 17, Aug. 7, 17, Sept. 14, 17, 1937; San Antonio Express, Sept. 12, 14, 1937- 22San Antonio Express, July 6, Aug. 26, 27, 31, 1937, May 4 (quotation), June 2, 1938. This content downloaded from 132.174.252.174 on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:57:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Alazan-Apache Courts 137 West Side residents and that the accompanying emp tunities would improve the reputation of Mexican A were currently viewed as ne'er-do-wells. Yet, as the pr San Antonio's Spanish-speaking residents, the paper Express in quality and quantity of coverage.23 The enthusiasm of the Express and general indiffe newspapers reflected a split in San Antonio's general a the housing issue. There was recognition that slum cle housing were necessary and desirable, and the city did liminary application for a loan in 1937. Yet the USH September, 1937, to earmark nearly $3,600,000 for housing project still necessitated that the city agree to financial obligations as the receiving partner. This left that San Antonio would get its project, for a city that higher rate of tax delinquency than cities of comparab also lagged behind with welfare benefits dispensed was sacrifice tax dollars or the city's credit to back a housin On May 5, 1938, the city commissioners passed a reso to cooperate with the USHA. This decision to proce only with the knowledge that the federal government percent of the necessary funding, to be paid back o through generated rents (not local tax dollars). Even percent local contribution had to be raised through a b was true with the federal loan, the bonds would be rents and other sources, not with public funds.25 For its part the city agreed to furnish all municipal services for the housing-development tenants, just as residents; it also agreed not to levy taxes on the dev nificantly, a motion was added to the resolution, reaffi city would accept no responsibility for payment of in cipal on the bonds.26 Once the city commissioners passed their resoluti 23La Prensa (San Antonio), July 24, 1938; San Antonio Evening New San Antonio Light, July 21, 1938. 24San Antonio Express, Apr. 27, 1938; Knippa, "San Antonio, Te (San Antonio), June 9, 1937; Tonnar, "Date with a Dream," 101-1 Report, 194o, p. 4. 25La Prensa (San Antonio), July 24, 1938; San Antonio Express, 1938; San Antonio News, July 21, 1938; San Antonio Light, July 21, 193 26San Antonio Express, May 4, 6, 1938. This content downloaded from 132.174.252.174 on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:57:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 138 Southwestern Historical Quarterly made ready its plans and formal application, which it forwarded to Washington on May 3o. The application received presidential approval in mid-July. The city still had to submit "accurate surveys" detailing "race, rentals paid, annual income, size of family, and housing conditions of tenant families residing . . . in sub-standard dwellings." The survey was completed in early 1939 with the aid of city funds and workers.27 From the time the USHA agreed to fund San Antonio's housing program in September, 1937, the SAHA scheduled five projects for development, two each for Mexicans and blacks and one for whites. Such enforced segregation was new among San Antonio's poor. Their ethnic districts were never solid but instead were integrated, with small clusters of various groups. The decision to segregate was a local one, for the federal government neither mandated nor actively opposed segregation policies. What motivated the city is uncertain, for no official explanation was uncovered. I owever, social convention seems the most likely answer, for, as Jack E. Wood points out in his work on housing, the federal government's indifference regarding integration encouraged city planners to pursue their inclination toward homogeneous neighborhoods. The segregated housing developments in San Antonio were part of a national pattern.2s In establishing its projects, the SAHA decided to build in "slum areas where most effective slum clearance might be affected, thus automatically taking care of the worst situations of health, crime and juve- nile delinquency ... ." Other determinants included the proximity of schools, churches, places of employment, and recreational facilities Site selection was followed by an appraisal process to determine compensation for the owners.2' Close to five hundred landlords were involved, including eightyfour Mexican nationals. The land negotiations almost marked the end of the housing program, for the owners, profiting from their rentals, refused the initial compensation offered by the SAHA. They formed a "defense league" in late 1938 with the goal of either stopping the projects or holding out until higher prices were offered. Such recalcitrance bore results. The SAHA, anxious to get the projects 27Ibid., May 31, 1938; SAHA, Annual Report, 1940, p. 4 (quotations). 28Shapiro, "Workers of San Antonio," 219-221; Jack E. Wood, "Race and Housing," Gertrude S. Fish (ed.), The Story of Housing (New York, 1979), 371-372. 29SAHA, Annual Report, I94o, p. 6 (quotation); SAHA, Pictorial Supplement, 1. This content downloaded from 132.174.252.174 on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:57:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Alazan-Apache Courts 139 under way, made new and substantially higher appraisa most owners. With the landlords now willing to deal January, 1939, submitted a request for a higher land-p ment from the USHA.30 Nathan Straus, the USHA administrator, was not sympathetic to the reappraisals. Hie was concerned that the new offers would raise the total cost of the projects beyond the maximum allowed by the loan contract. He also believed that the owners' demands were excessive. So convinced, in early March, 1939, he ordered the housing proje stopped.U" Stunned by Straus's edict, Tranchese immediately wrote Elean Roosevelt. The First Lady had visited San Antonio in March an having investigated the slums, remarked "it doesn't surprise me tha your record in tuberculosis isn't so good." The priest, hoping to gain Mrs. Roosevelt's intervention with Straus, reminded her in his letter that the slums were "the root of all evil and disease." The tactic worked. Mrs. Roosevelt contacted Straus and helped persuade him t reverse his decision. On April 28, Straus telephoned San Antonio wi the news that Alazan Courts, the first of the five projects, was rei stated. This decision was made after an agreement was reached w the SAHA to reduce the size of the land area and the number of buildings originally scheduled. The remaining four projects were rein- stated beginning in November, after revisions were made in their costs.32 The Alazan Courts project was located in the west-central part of the city, north and west of Apache and Alazan creeks. This was in the midst of the city's largest Mexican district. The choice of a Mexican district to build the first project was a logical one, since Mexicans lived in the worst housing environment of any ethnic group in the city. In fact it was the condition of the Mexican neighborhoods that prompte Straus's agreement to go along with the reappraisals. It was not an easy decision, he later informed Mrs. Roosevelt. "I am always a little hesi- 3soMcGuire to Haas, Dec. 30, 1938, San Antonio Pecan Workers, 1939-41, File no. 641, WPA State Files, Texas, RG 69, NA; McGuire to Shishkin, Jan. 14, 1939, ibid.; San Antonio News, Jan. 1, 1939; San Antonio Express, Jan. 15, 1939; George Sessions Perry, "Rumpled Angel of the Slums," Saturday Evening Post, Aug. 21, 1948, p. 32 (quotation). 31Tranchese to McGuire, Mar. 6, 1939, Tranchese Papers; Nathan Straus to Eleanor Roosevelt, Apr. 11, 1939, ibid. 32San Antonio Evening News, Mar. 18, 1939 (1st quotation); Tranchese to Eleanor Roosevelt, Apr. 22, 1939 (2nd quotation), Tranchese Papers; Straus to Tranchese, May 4, 1939, ibid.; SAHA, Annual Report, 1940, pp. 6-8. This content downloaded from 132.174.252.174 on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:57:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 140 Southwestern Historical Quarterly tant about relaxing, even in the slightest, our efforts to keep our costs, especially land costs, down to the absolute minimum." But in this case, he said, given the deplorable state of the neighborhoods, there "seems to be considerable justification" for a lenient stand.33 The reappraisals Straus approved were agreeable to most area land- lords, who quickly sold. In the few cases where owners refused to settle, the SAHA resorted to condemnation proceedings. To offset the added land-costs Straus and the SAHA agreed to reduce the land area and the number of buildings. There was apparently little opposition to this decision, and work began in July, 1939. First, the 929 substandard structures that filled the site were demolished in accordance with a USHA mandate that substandard dwellings, both occupied and vacant, be destroyed or repaired in bers approximating new dwellings constructed. There were no r able structures on the Alazan site. When the site-clearance phas completed in late 1939, construction ensued. It must have Tranchese to watch this operation. His unemployed parishioners hired on the project-a major consideration from his point o and in a short time they would move into decent housing.34 Tranchese's joy was short-lived. Soon after construction began federal housing authorities insisted on the employment of union and organized workers soon forced the Guadalupe parishioners the construction process. Tranchese argued against the deci letters to Congress and to sympathetic supporters but to no av also wrote an essay, "The Housing Problem in Relation to Lab which he charged that hiring union labor not only deprived th of jobs but also, by causing higher rents, kept them out of cont for tenancy. Originally, rents were expected to start at four d month, but since union wages doubled the cost of building each the resultant rents rose to $8.75 per month for a three-room un rent was a "gold mine" for the union man, Tranchese concluded the pecan sheller, housemaid, or yardman who made only seven cents or a dollar a day could not afford such a sum.35 33Straus to Eleanor Roosevelt, May 5, 1939, Tranchese Papers. 34SAHA, Annual Report, 1940, pp. 6-8; Straus to Tranchese, May 4 1939. T Papers. 35Tranchese, "Housing Problem," 7-9, 10 (quotation), 11; Francis Talcot to Tranchese Mar. 13, 194o, Tranchese Papers; Paul J. Kilday to Tranchese, Mar. 27, 1940, ibid.; Robert E. McKee to Tranchese, Nov. 21, 1940, ibid.; Shapiro, "Workers of San Antonio," 220-221. This content downloaded from 132.174.252.174 on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:57:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Alazan-Apache Courts 141 There was merit to the priest's complaint. Partly rents would be paid, a requirement for acceptance as minimum annual income of between $350 and $850 a y on family size). The SAHA found that only 59 percent o it surveyed had earnings above the minimum figure over 40 percent of the most destitute of families were consideration. Still, less desperate families, who also kn standard environment, were now eligible for decent sh reason Tranchese continued to support the projects. On at a progress ceremony marking the near completion o units at Alazan Courts, he joined with other dignitarie crowd to express his joy and gratitude for the project.3 Alazan opened some of its units that August, and scheduled for completion by early 1941. The proje $3,989,380 to develop. In less than a year Apache Court second project built adjacent to Alazan Courts and al Mexicans-was scheduled for completion. Its develop put at $1,116,ooo. By the end of 1942, the 2,554 single all five projects were open for tenants. The total co projects was over ten million dollars. Part of the cost went toward the demolition of 1,824 the repair of 306. That most of the demolished buildin on the sites reserved for the five courts indicates the d tion of the housing on those locations.37 By the time the demolition and repair phase was com nearly ten thousand people were living in the five cou 4,994 in the Alazan-Apache projects. Mexicans were apply for Wheatley or Lincoln Heights Courts, which w for black families, or for Victoria Courts, which was reserved for whites. But they immediately filled the 1,18o single-family dwellings available at Alazan-Apache. Initially there was some concern reported among officials that Mexicans would hesitate to become tenants. The Mexicans of Austin had hesitated at first to enter their new courts, the Santa Rita project, when it opened in 1939. But in San Antonio the 36Eckam, "Public Housing," 570, 571; SAHA, Pictorial Supplement, 1o; Shapiro, "Work- ers of San Antonio," 221; San Antonio Express, Jan. 15, 1939; Menefee and Cassmore, Pecan Shellers, 45. 37Straus to John H. Carmody, Sept. 30, 1941, Tranchese Papers; San Antonio Housing Authority, Annual Report, 1944 (San Antonio, 1945), [1, 41 (copy found in San Antonio Public Library); SAHA, Annual Report, 1940, pp. 5-10, 13. This content downloaded from 132.174.252.174 on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:57:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms :0491,)motb(hcraMdnpyueFis Above:thisackudfmlyrw.BznC This content downloaded from 132.174.252.174 on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:57:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms a s This content downloaded from 132.174.252.174 on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:57:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms .stinumor-evfwhgdlb:B.stinumor-ewhgdlbpc:oT 3RO NSjil4dBATH3(UARTOSy5A This content downloaded from 132.174.252.174 on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:57:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Alazan-Apache Courts 145 concerns proved groundless. Indeed, before its opening had twice as many applicants as units.38 Those accepted had to meet certain requirements est USHA. The stipulations included membership in ethnic group, an employed family head (to help en would be paid), and a ceiling on earnings-the annu family with two children or fewer could be no more the amount it was charged annually for rent; a family more children could make up to six times its annual r zenship requirement, which the USHA left to the disc agencies, was imposed by the SAHA as one way of elim cants, who far outnumbered the units available.39 Because of the excessive number of applicants, meeti ments was no guarantee of acceptance. The only eligib some assurance of priority consideration for tenancy w homes were demolished on the project sites. The eli 1,031 Mexican families displaced by the Alazan-Apac were thus given priority for those particular projects 237 Mexican families displaced from the other three c eligible for residency because of their ethnic backg had to move.40 Little provision was made for the ineligible families who were displaced. A list of available rent houses was distributed to them, and a no-cost residential bureau was established to help them relocate. Otherwise the families were on their own. An SAHA study revealed that about 70 percent of the displaced moved into dwellings similar to those they had just left. About 15 percent improved their situation, and an equal percentage found less desirable structures.4' Those fortunate enough to be accepted into one of the courts were inevitably much better off than before. In contrast to their former dilapidated shacks, the new buildings were carefully constructed. Conforming to USHA guidelines, the structures featured "reinforced concrete floors, roofs and framework, hollow tile exterior walls plastered inside, wood doors and metal sash." Each building housed two, four, 38SAHA, Annual Report, I940, pp. 7-10, 12; Eckam, "Public Housing," 571; Austin Statesman, Mar. 14, Apr. 19, 1939; Austin Tribune, Mar. 18, 1940. 39Morgan, "Slum Clearance," 118-119; San Antonio Express, Jan. 15, 1939; SAHA, Annual Report, 1940, p. 12; Austin Statesman, Mar. 2, 1939. 40SAHA, Annual Report, 1940, pp. 7-10; SAHA, Annual Report, 1944, [1]. 41SAHA, Annual Report, 1940, p. io. This content downloaded from 132.174.252.174 on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:57:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 146 Southwestern Historical Quarterly five, six, or eight single-family dwellings, which ranged from three six-and-a-half rooms each. The various rooms were spacious, and sufficient dimension to meet USHA standards. All dwellings contain private bathrooms, kitchens, bedrooms, clothes closets, and stor space. They were equipped with such modern gas and electric pliances as water heaters, cooking ranges, and space heaters.42 The cooperation of private, local, and federal agencies made it pos sible to provide on-site services and programs at the courts, includi library facilities, health clinics, social and recreational programs, n sery schools, and adult education courses in various subjects such "Home sc Family Life Education programs." The cost of these servic was included in the tenants' rent.43 The projects had to be self-supporting; therefore, the principal factors determining rents were maintenance costs, utilities, operating expenses, and loan payments to the USHA. These costs did not amount to much. Solid construction with quality materials kept maintenance and operating expenses at a minimum. Utility costs were also minimized, for the projects bypassed the private utility companies by installing and maintaining their own water, gas, and electric distribution systems; they also installed their own sanitary sewer projects. The loan payments were eased significantly by an annual cash subsidy provided by the USHA. The subsidy, designed to help keep rents low, was the equivalent of the interest rate the government charged the SAHA for its development loan, plus one-half of 1 percent; the amount of the subsidy, therefore, ranged from 31/4 percent to 31/2 per- cent of the total development cost, depending on the project. The subsidy was provided for the duration of the payment schedule, which was spread over sixty years. Two other factors that kept costs at a mini- mum were a USHA prohibition against the projects being run at a profit and a provision of the 1937 Texas Housing Authorities law that granted tax-exempt status to the housing projects. The low costs helped keep rents at a minimum. In the Alazan Courts monthly rents extended from $8.75 to $14.oo. Rents in the other courts ran about the same. Overall, the average cost per room was only $2.50 a month "including gas, electricity, and water." This 42Ibid., 6 (quotation); Morgan, "Slum Clearance," 118-119; SAHA, Pictorial Supplement, 2; SAHA, Annual Report, 1944, [71]. 43SAHA, Pictorial Supplement, 2; SAHA, Annual Report, i944, [7] (quotation); Ray Mackey to John R. Mulroy, Mar. 13, 1940; Clinton R. Goodrich to J. C. Willging, Mar. 27, 1945, Tranchese Papers; Wood, "Digest of Texas Housing Laws," 31-32. This content downloaded from 132.174.252.174 on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:57:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Alazan-Apache Courts 147 was still an exorbitant rent for some Guadalupe pa were paying only $2.oo a month for their entire dwel afford no more. Still, for the family earning between year, this was, as Father Tranchese stated, "a gold mine with what they got for what they paid before.44 The benefits to be gained for the tenants of the new were immediately apparent, and before the five pr pleted in 1942 the demand for more arose. The need wa 2,554 new units provided shelter for only a fraction o living in substandard structures. Tranchese was again of the campaign with his basic solution unchange projects aided by the USHA.45 The priest witnessed no more projects. An extensi prohibitively expensive; the SAHA estimated that a cess of an additional forty million dollars was require those who met the USHA qualifications. Even a less ex was not possible at the time, for the proposed source USHA, was out of funds. The agency received its last 1939; differences between it and Congress, plus the in Europe and Asia, brought a congressional refusa prove an $8oo,ooo,ooo request that would have extende functions. Tranchese continued to appeal to the agenc hoping that leftover funds or monies rescinded by th other projects might be made available to San Anto Director Straus replied that no such monies were a noted that San Antonio received "$44 per capita f housing, whereas the average of all [comparably si USHA-aided programs . . . is $31." He made it clear outstanding earmarkings for San Antonio." 46 Tranchese, Mayor Quin, and other housing advocates tactic, turning to federal agencies responsible for dev 44Mackey to Mulroy, Mar. 13, 194o (quotation), Tranchese Papers; port, 1940, pp. 5-6, 12; Menefee and Cassmore, Pecan Shellers, 45. 45Kilday to Tranchese, May 8, 1940, Tranchese Papers; Joseph Lyn 25, 1941, ibid.; Frances P. Keyes to Eleanor Roosevelt, May 30, 194 , C. F. Palmer, June 19, 1941, ibid.; Carmody to Eleanor Roosevelt Tranchese, "Housing Problem," 11, ibid.; Winifred M. Murray, A of z8 Mexican Families Living in a Low-Rent Public Housing Pro Texas (New York, 1976), 9. 46SAHA, Annual Report, i94o, p. 13; Kilday to Tranchese, May 8, Tranchese Papers; Carmody to Joseph P. Lynch, Apr. 30, 1941, ibid to Lynch, May 1, 1941, ibid.; Straus to Carmody, Sept. 30, 1941 (qu This content downloaded from 132.174.252.174 on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:57:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 148 Southwestern Historical Quarterly housing. In a series of letters written in 1941 to the Defense Housing Coordinator and to other federal officials, the suggestion was made that a defense housing project should be constructed adjacent to Alazan-Apache Courts to relieve the housing shortage caused by the influx of military personnel and civilian defense workers. Upon the termination of hostilities, the argument ran, the project "could be used to rehouse families of low income now residing in unsafe and insanitary [sic] dwellings." This appeal made no more headway than did the approaches to the USHA, and public housing development in San Antonio ceased until the 195os.41 The failure to expand San Antonio's housing program did not diminish Father Tranchese's stature. He was widely regarded as the father of the city's housing projects and as such was lauded in resolutions, in the press, and on national radio; he even received a request from a motion-picture producer to consider the possibility of an autobiographical film. The priest accepted the praise with natural modesty and continued his efforts on behalf of his parishioners, including those who lived in the Alazan-Apache Courts. But age and overextension finally took their toll. In 1953 a serious nervous breakdown forced Tranchese's superior to remove him from San Antonio. He took up residence in Louisiana, where three years later, on July 13, 1956, he died of a heart attack at the age of seventy-six.48 Tranchese left behind a working monument to his efforts. The quality of life for the inhabitants of the housing projects improved dramatically in a short time. One of the most significant improvements came in the realm of health. As early as 1945, observers noted that the death rate in Alazan-Apache was consistently less than in any adjoining block. This was a major accomplishment, since the courts were in the midst of a district that was among the national leaders in diseaserelated deaths. In addition to improved health, a new sense of responsibility developed within the courts. The occupants of Alazan-Apache Courts formed a tenants' association to maintain their project, and 47John O'Grady to Tranchese, May 2, 1941, Tranchese Papers; C. K. Quin to C. F. Palmer, June 19, 1941, ibid.; Quin to Kilday, June 19, 1941 (quotation), ibid. 48Marolla, "Father Carmelo Tranchese"; Mutual Network Radio Broadcast, "The Coke Club," Jan. 27, 1947 (transcript), Tranchese Papers; KMAC radio broadcast, "Citizen of the Week," Mar. 14, 1948 (transcript), ibid.; Lewis C. Robbins to Tranchese, June 30o, 1945, ibid.; F. W. Brown to Tranchese, Feb. 20, 1948, ibid.; Thomas R. Conlon to Tranchese, Feb. 20, 1948 (telegram), ibid.; A. XV. Crandell to Tranchese, June 19, 1953, ibid.; Marie C. McGuire to Tranchese, July 11, 1953, ibid.; Quezada, "Father Carmelo Tranchese," 86. This content downloaded from 132.174.252.174 on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:57:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Alazan-Apache Courts 149 their courts were judged by some observers as "the housing project in the United States."40 The improvement noted in health and other areas parent in the economic realm. Incomes did rise during largely to employment created by defense needs. The earnings for tenant families rose over $400 between t were admitted and 1944, pushing incomes beyond t lished for tenancy. The situation created a dilemma fo administrators, who did not wish to force tenants to housing market was tight. Nor did they want to forc ment of defense jobs and appear unpatriotic during The solution was a compromise; rents were raised incomes had increased. Even the USHA benefitted by it was now able to lower its annual subsidy.50 The steady rise in earnings that prevailed in the cou war was not permanent. A 1952 study conducted am Apache Courts families found their average income to was approximately $280 less than the average for all te 1945 ($1,538). The 1952 tabulation, hindered by incons ment patterns, was developed through estimates based monthly earnings; therefore, it is not entirely reliable vides some insight into the income picture of the cou average monthly rent, which for the entire court wa and $23.70 in 1945. The rise of only $2.00 might in inhabitants' earning power (and therefore the rents th rose but slightly in six years.51 It is not difficult to account for the continued low economic status. Families whose incomes rose after the war, making them either unwilling or ineligible to remain as project tenants, left. They were re- placed by new families (489 in 1951 alone) whose low annual wages enabled them to assume residence in the courts, where they joined older residents whose incomes had not improved significantly, if at all. The 1952 study found that the occupations held by those it investigated involved largely unskilled or semiskilled labor. There was also evidence of job instability, with many workers changing jobs several times over the course of a year. These families had little education, 49Clinton R. Goodrich to J. C. Willging, Mar. 27, 1945, Tranchese Papers. 50SAHA, Annual Report, i944, [3, 5]. 51SAHA, Annual Report, r944, [5]; Murray, Socio-Cultural Study, 26-27. This content downloaded from 132.174.252.174 on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:57:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 150 Southwestern Historical Quarterly spent much time on the migratory trail, and, the study concluded, were not equipped with skills necessary for advancement in the Ameri- can economy. Not surprisingly, then, the average yearly income of $1,253 included the yearly earnings of families with two or more working adults and families who received at least a portion of their income from welfare. Twenty-five percent of the families were on wel- fare rolls.52 There was a definite parallel between the economic plight of these residents and their neighbors outside the courts. But the court occupants enjoyed significantly better living conditions. The surrounding areas were still characterized by "extreme poverty, over-crowding, ... lack of modern conveniences," and poor health. In Alazan-Apache Courts, however, observers noted that the residents were healthier and enjoyed a higher standard of living than those outside. The 1952 study found that almost 70 percent of the 118 families it investigated lived in well-furnished or "fairly well furnished" homes, and over 6o percent of the homes were described as clean. There were also signs of increased acceptance and use of such "American culture" items as radios and washing machines; 25 percent of the families even had televisions. This was no utopia. There were still the problems that accompany poverty, including reliance on welfare, prostitution, and marital instability. But, as the observers noted in discussing the changes in consuming patterns, health, and pride in environment, the people in the courts were coping better and changing faster than their outside neighbors. The atmosphere was definitely more positive.53 The Mexican community benefited from the Alazan-Apache project. Its role in the planning and development of the courts was negligible, reflecting its minimal economic and political clout at the time. The courts demonstrated, however, that the community was not with- out friends, nor did it live without hope. Even in a financially troubled city, local citizens and a national government agency, concerned for a deprived minority and willing to devote efforts on its behalf, succeeded in fashioning a working project. This perhaps can be criticized as "the Great White Father complex." But given the circumstances, the times, and the good accomplished, it was a significantly better attitude than laissez-faire. 52Murray, Socio-Cultural Study, io, 26--28, 98-117. 53Ibid., 8 (1st quotation), 9, 31 (2nd quotation), 32-33, 136; Goodrich to Willging, Mar. 27, 1945, Tranchese Papers. This content downloaded from 132.174.252.174 on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:57:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms .ytirohuAgnsHaSecpP0391kdW This content downloaded from 132.174.252.174 on Tue, 10 Dec 2019 20:57:34 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms