Baltimore's Slum Housing Clinic

Abstract

THE BLIGHT of slums that faces Baltimore is not unique; the same civic cancer troubles most of the large cities in the United States today. Some original techniques have been devised by Baltimoreans to combat slums, however, and several have been copied by similarly affected cities. Among these is the socalled Baltimore plan, an effort to bring about block-by-block rehabilitation, structurally and aesthetically, through the cooperation of property owners, occupants, police department, and the Baltimore Bureau of Urban Renewal and Housing Authority. Baltimore also pioneered in code enforcement with the creation in 1947 of the housing court of Baltimore City. The housing court is a special magistrate's court, originally created by executive order of the Governor of Maryland, with the cooperation of the city departments charged with the enforcement of building, zoning, and sanitary codes. At its most recent session, the Maryland Legislature gave the court statutory recognition and permanent status by making it part of the new municipal court system for Baltimore City. The importance of the court was emphasized by the legislature's action in providing that the judge of the housing court remain in that post for at least 1 year; judges in all other municipal courts may be rotated at any time by order of the chief judge. On May 1, 1959, I was appointed by Governor J. Millard Tawes as magistrate of the housing court. During my first year in this post, I acquired, deservedly or not, the reputation of being very tough because of a policy of levying heavy fines on slum landlords and property owners. The maximum fine the court can impose for any single violation is $100, but each day a violation is continued can be listed as a separate violation, and, therefore, the possible fine can be much larger. (Under city laws, landlords are responsible for structural defects.) However, some landlords still treat fines as a cost of doing business. Tenants who appear in housing court are charged with such offenses as lack of proper refuse containers and unclean or insector rodentinfested premises. When a health official or a police sanitarian discovers a violation, a notice of correction is issued, requiring compliance within a given period, normally 7 to 30 days. If reinspection reveals that the condition remains uncorrected, the tenant is summoned to housing court. But fines for landlords and tenants were not sufficient to stem the spread of blight. Some radical step seemed to be needed to bring about better compliance with the law on the part of occupants of substandard homes. Many persons violated the laws regarding sanitation, health, and fire hazards not through intent, but because they had never been properly advised as to how to live in an urban setting. Many were newcomers from rural areas who were able to function quite properly in that setting, but who had failed to adjust to metropolitan living. Also, many long-time residents, because of socioeconomic problems, had never had the opportunity to learn how to achieve cleanliness and order in a substandard environment. I felt that it would be far better for the community if these people were instructed in good living habits rather than punished with heavy Mr. Sweeney became an assistant attorney general for the State of Maryland on May 1, 1961. For 2 years previously he was magistrate of the housing court of Baltimore City.