by Paul R. Spitzzeri
This second part of a post summarizing the interesting contents of the report of the Los Angeles City Auditor (since 1925, the City Controller) for the year ending 30 November 1904 focuses on reports of that officeholder, Lewis H. Schwaebe, and other city officials. Schwaebe (1875-1931) was appointed to his position on the death of Elijah E. Unger in October 1903, not quite halfway through a two-year term, and then won election in early December 1904.
Born in the southeastern Iowa hamlet of Crawfordsville, Schwaebe migrated to Los Angeles with his family in 1890, settling in Boyle Heights where he resided for over four decades, and became a city employee at a young age, including as a clerk for the street department and then deputy city auditor under Unger. He served as auditor for three years through December 1906 and became an automobile dealer and from 1922 to 1931, the federal customs collector by appointment of President Warren G. Harding and his successors Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover. At the end of February 1931, while heading home from work, Schwaeber brought his car to a stop at an intersection and slumped against the steering wheel dead from heart disease at age 55.
His brief statement, dated 15 December 1904, noted he was not able to provide much general information at that time and that a further reporting was to follow, while he claimed that the “continued expansion and growth of our city” and the resulting revenues and expenses incurred by the government “affects us more than any one office in the municipality.” The financial statement included the current and preceding two years for dozens of city accounts, with the largest being the city’s water works, at over $620,000 of expenditures and nearly $775,000 in income; streets at $479,000 in spending, but income of some $16,000; the franchise section with $317,000 and $162,000, respectively (this not being a disturbing reversal in direction in the red); the police department with $228,000 in disbursements but almost no income; the fire department at $208,000 in expenses and a similar lack of revenue; and the common school with $160,000 in outlays and not much in money brought in.
Other larger accounts included the dozen city parks with costs of $107,000 but income of $1,625; oiling and watering of streets and engineering, each with about $75,000 in expenses, though the latter brought in about $17,000 while the former nearly matched outlays with revenue of just north of $73,000. The public library had expenses of not far under $54,000, but receipts were a bit over $3,500. Expenses from tax collections totaled $1.623 million, a significant drop from the prior year’s nearly $2.5 million, but revenues also dropped by near half from almost $1.8 million to not quite $900,000. There were many bonds for sewers, bridges, water supply, schools, the police station, tunnels, parks, the fire department and more. In all, the report was that there was a balance of more than $2.2 million dollars, with receipts of over $6.3 million and demands of nearly $4.1 million.
City Attorney William B. Mathews (1865-1931) hailed from Kentucky and came to the Angel City in 1889 working as a lawyer until he secured election as city attorney eleven years later. He served in that position until early 1907 when he resigned to become counsel for what became the city’s Department of Water and Power until he became the general counsel of the newly established Metropolitan Water District not long before his death. From 1914 to 1926, he was also in private practice with former Superior Court Judge Walter Bordwell.
Mathews reported to the council that there were nearly 150 cases litigated by his office during the prior year, of which almost 60 were for condemnation of private property for the opening and widening of streets. Between 15 and 18 suits involved other property condemnation; injunctions, the quieting of title to land owned by the city, and the seeking of damages. Seven each involved matters involving the recovery of money regarding taxes and licenses, against and by the city.
On 58 condemnation cases regarding streets, 15 were successful and led to progress on projects, with one abandoned by the council’s direction and the remaining 42 still pending in the courts. There were eight suits filed for false imprisonment by police officers, with two “disposed of” and the others still in the system and fourteen involved the City’s water rights for the Los Angeles River, but only one was completed. There were fifteen actions concerning taxes and licenses and two were finished, but Mathews added that there were many filings against the City on quieting title because of “apparent clouds” on ownership. Also not included were aspects of the office’s work with contracts for public buildings and improvements and providing opinions on matters of law to city officials.
Also of note is a statement of assessed valuations and taxes levied in the city and organized by the “Old City,” meaning the original four square leagues or nearly 18,000 acres granted in the Spanish period as part of the “pueblo lands;” as well as annexations that took place in 1896 and 1899 with the “Southern Addition” and “Western Addition,” followed by northeastern sections at Highland Park and Garvanza and the smaller tract around the University of Southern California. In the aggregate, there was just north of $70 million in valuation, above $37 million in improvements, and $21 million in personal property “exclusive of money.” Total taxes were not too far below $1.75 million.
For historical perspective going back more than four decades, there is a table titled “Statement of Taxes and Levy,” which showed that in 1860-1861, the assessed property valuation in the town of around 5,000 was $1.425 million, though, within a decade and the early stages of the Angel City’s first boom, that total rose by nearly 50% to north of $2.1 million. In 1880-1881, even after a period of economic challenges following the panic five years earlier that included the failure of the Temple and Workman bank, the total was nearly $7.3 million, with a modest change the next year to almost $7.6 million.
As a sign of significant improvement, though, the figure climbed to nearly $9.3 million in 1882-1883 and then another $3 million the following year. Further growth was fairly modest, but the 1887-1888 period, when the great Boom of the Eighties erupted during the mayoral administration of William H. Workman, who was city treasurer when this report was generated, serving from 1901-1907, saw growth of another 50% to almost $28 million. The 1888-1889 figure, as the boom came to an end, included a 42% increase to just shy of $40 million. After a nearly 20% jump to 1890, there followed a period of moderate growth, but also declines, from 1891 to 1893, the latter year being when a national depression burst forth.
The Nineties also featured several years of local drought, so it is notable to see that the city’s valuation was still lower in 1896 than it was five years prior, but the end of the decade and century saw some significant improvement, so that, by 1900, a 17% increase was realized in the “Old City” section represented in those periods prior to 1896 and the annexations mentioned above. With the dawn of the 20th century, the years from 1901 to 1905 brought another boom and a leap in valuation from about $65 million to $126,000, a leap of some 94%.
These statistics can be mind-numbing, but they are also important to understand both the growing economic situation in the Angel City in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as well as the mounting complexity of the financial environment. This is also reflected in the bonded indebtedness of Los Angeles, of which there was not quite $5.5 million at the end of November 1904. From 1889, there were 19 issues for periods of from 20 to 40 years for schools, sewers, police and fire, bridge, park, tunnel, water works, storm drain and other projects, ranging from $10,000 to $2 million with interest rates varying from 3 3/4% (recent issues) to 5% for older ones, the latter involving a water works bond passed in 1901 with a $1 million issue approved by voters two years later.
It was recorded, though, that the city charter, as amended in 1903, had a section that limited the city’s bond debt to $5 million, though this was exclusive of water, sewer and storm drain issues. A breakdown of the total owed showed that about $950,000 was for schools, $667,000 for everything else beyond those exclusions, and that water bonds totaled $2.2 million and the sewer and storm drain issues comprised above $1.6 million. Bonds approved in 1904 for a reservoir and a detention hospital for those incarcerated by the city and comprising $150,000 and $50,000, respectively, had not yet been sold.
It is also useful to see specific projects on which bond funds were expended including for almost two dozen school sites, with amounts from $1,000 at an elementary school to nearly $60,000 for what was the second Los Angeles High School for new construction and from $800 to $12,000 for improvements to existing campuses. Similarly, sewer projects were listed and an 1895 central police station bond for a facility on 1st Street involved $40,000 or about half the cost of the structure, with the difference made up by general fund allotments and bond sales.
Also in 1895 was a bond issue for headworks construction along the Los Angeles River, including the city’s acquisition of some 315 acres on the Rancho Providencia and the Scott Tract, this latter once owned by William Workman, near Burbank and Glendale. Three years later, bonds were approved and issued for the construction of tunnels on Third Street through Bunker Hill and Broadway through Poundcake Hill, with the former to cost not quite $90,000 and the latter about $67,000. Another 1898 issue for the fire department involved sums from $500 to $15,000 for sixteen projects involving the acquisition of property and the construction of buildings and another $47,000 for a dozen engine houses as well as fire engines and ladders. More from that year included a $10,000 bond for a 20-acre park in the South Park area of the city and $23,000 for bridges, such as almost $7,000 for the 6th Street Bridge over Hollenbeck Park and almost $14,000 for the 9th Street, Los Feliz, and Avenue 26 spans over the Los Angeles River—the balance was for approaches to these.
That $2 million water works bond from 1901 was to complete the transfer of the city’s system from the private Los Angeles City Water Company to municipal ownership, while other more recent issues included $480,000 for public schools; $200,000 for the second high school, Los Angeles Polytechnic; $1 million for the outfall sewer to the Pacific where the Hyperion water treatment plant is now; $400,000 for storm drains; $100,000 for more bridges; $337,500 for the acquisition two west side water companies; and those aforementioned unsold bonds from 1904.
Another great report was from J.J. Backus, superintendent of buildings for the city, with his statement largely covering the last couple of years of the 1890s up through 1904 with tables reflecting the types of structures including residences, commercial edifices, churches and others, with the number and value represented. The vast majority of the projects involved one-story residences and, significantly, aggregations from 1899 to 1903, confusingly divided by grouping of months in quarters in 1904 with their correlates for those five years prior, show the dramatic growth in building over that period.
As illustrations, we find that for December 1903, there were 535 new structures, with half being those single-story dwellings, 95 comprising alterations, 65 sheds and stables, and 59 two-story buildings. The five year prior totals were, however, aggregated so that, in 1899, there were 100 total units, but 488 in 1903. For June 1904, there were 565 new buildings, 53% of the one-story variety and 99 alterations, 62 sheds and stables and 49 two-story edifices. In 1899, the total of units was 141, increasing to 464 to 1903. Lastly, for November 1904, there were 695 units, again 53% were single-level buildings with 91 sheds and stables, 83 alterations and 78 two-story structures. The analog in 1899 was 137 edifices and for 1903, 649.
With respect to permits and valuations by wards, we see that, in the preceding year, the bulk of the work was in the 6th Ward, embracing that southern portion of the city where those large annexations allowed for the expansive space for boom-period construction. For example, December 1903 included those 535 permits and a valuation of not far above $1 million, with nearly a third in that 6th Ward, whereas the 5th Ward where the Western and University additions were situated embraced about 18% of the total, followed by the 4th Ward comprising the southwestern part of the “Old City” near where interstates 10 and 110 meet and locales to the west involved 14%. Together, these rapidly growing areas accounted for about three-quarters of all permits.
For November 1904 (erroneously shown as 1903), there was not only an important level of growth of some 30% from a year before, but some change in the distribution by ward. Again, the 6th led the way at 28% of the total and 16% for the 5th. While the 4th Ward comprised 12% of the total, so did the 2nd Ward, which included areas in the northwest portion of the Old City and the 1st Ward, which included that northeast section like Highland Park and was another flash point of Angel City development and made up 11% of the total.
For useful historical context, Backus included a table with general information dating to the end of 1891 (shows as 1881) and reflecting more of that astounding growth in Los Angeles. For the 1891-1892 year, there were 878 permits issued with a value of not quite $1.9 million, and an increase of 50% the following year to more 1,300 permits, but a decrease in value to $1.67 million. The dollar figure did rebound for the 1893-1894 year to above $2.4 million with almost 1,800 permits and there was a peak the following year at 2,462 and $3.9 million, respectively.
From 1896 to 1899, there were declines of some 30% in permits and 44% in value, but in the ensuing five years, the next boom came upon the Angel City and the growth definitely reflects the upsurge. A nearly 50% leap in permits from 1899 to 1900 was followed by tallies of 70, 36 and 11 percent, with a total jump for the five years from 1898 to 1903 of more than four times in issued permits and about six times in valuation. Even with the modest valleys during rare lean years, the incredible peaks demonstrate just how torrid the pace of development was in Los Angeles, in those first years of the 20th century.
We’ll return for a third part looking a variety of charitable organizations, settlement houses, homes for young women, the humane society, and more of the like, as well as reports of the city clerk and the board of education. Please check back for that soon.