New-York tribune., 1915-03-13
WHERE MR.. DAVIS ERRED
So Many Tenements a Special Depart
ment Must Supervise Them.

To the Editor Of The Tribune.
Sir: A letter signed by Albert E. Davis,
president Of the Bronx Chamber Of Com
merce, appeared in your Sunday edition.
This letter is perhaps one Of the best argu-
monts for the retention OF the Tenement
House Department that has yet appeared in
your paper though it was not intended for
one.
Here is man who, through his business
relations, ought to know what he is talking
about, saying that because tenement house
il building there is no more need for a
tenement house department than there ia for
department for each Of the other classes OF
buildings private house, Office building, the-
atre or schoolhouse.
If as few tenements were erected as build
ingq of the other classes his argument might
lie a fair one, but such is not the case
Before the tenement house law was en-
acted the Building Department complained
constantly of its inability properly to super
wise and inspect tenement houses, and was
very much in favor OF the new department.
As to private houses. there are two kinds
one which contains only one family and one
which contains two families As to the first,
for the reason that it is occupied by either
the owner or lessee. it must be kept in good
condition and the house needs no outside su-
pervson. AS to the two-family house, be-
licve that in time will be classed with other
tenements.
Office buildings and theatre buildings are
so few in number. comparatively speaking,
that the Building Department and Fire Pre-
eepton Bureau have no difficulty in taking
care of them.
As for schoohouses, are they not taken
care Of very carefully by the Board Of Edu-
cations building bureaul
At any rate, in none OF the cases cited is
the number Of people affected anything like
the number who are protected By the tene-
ment house law, and for that reason alone,
and because there is no other way to take
care of the tenement dweller, the tenement
mouse law and department are necessary.
Now. as to the "unintelligent administra-
ton of benefcent law"
In the case cited | assume that the owner
had met all Of the requirements OF the tene-
ment house law except that Of Section 6l,
which, so far as running yard through the
centre Of the lot concerned, was prac-
tically impossible. What was left 70 be done?
The law is mandatory, and the Commissioner
COulO not hCCepk lHb NpuhlL4pu 40 ~ ckDNhs
The owner wanted fair return on his in
vestment. Therefore suggestion was made
to deed a strip at either end Of the lot to
the owners wife and in that way create q
legal yard between the rear wall of the build
ing and the rear lot line. Could anything be
fairer?
| doubt whether any intelligent architect
or builder would have made any better deci-
sion.
Mr. Davis's statement plainly shows that,
law or no law, committee such that pro-
posed by the Lockwood bill would make its
decision solely upon the interests involved.
The Lockwood bill may remove some con-
ditions that are not liked BY real estate own
ers, but it ought TO carry with It an amend
ment which will leave the Tenement House
Department intact, thus insuring continu-
ance of the clean, light and airy houses Of
the millions who must live in tenement
houses JOHN L. PLEINES.
Brooklyn, March s, 1915.