It was the worst of times in many ways in Palm Springs in the 1960s. The economic downturns at the beginning and ending of the decade bracketed the tough times between. The serious problem of the substandard conditions in the very center of town, on Section 14, was so difficult it had stymied cleanup efforts for the previous three decades.

Section 14 by the definition of the time was a slum. One contemporaneous inspection reported that houses built by non-Indians were “mostly in the nature of shacks.” Efforts at abatement had been made since the 1930s when the State of California and the County of Riverside demanded cleanup of the area to preserve the public welfare and general well-being was necessary. But the complicated situation of Indian ownership and federal government stewardship made doing anything impossible. The city had no jurisdiction over the area.

A 1948 inspection stated that about 50 Indians rented to about 6,000 non-Indians who had “uncertain tenure” because they occupied land by virtue of “leases” which “have no legal effect.”

Poor people of all ethnicities were caught in untenable and worsening conditions. The majority of people living on Section 14 were Hispanic and Caucasian as revealed in the census data. Black families had arrived after World War II, mostly from Texas, attracted by plentiful jobs available in construction and other trades. There were Filipino families, largely employed in the growing hospitality industry. And there were the few Native peoples, the Cahuilla Indians. All these groups were living on Section 14.

The State of California, the County of Riverside, and the tribe had waited for years for improvement in the situation. The members of the tribe, the ostensible owners of the land, were the poorest of all and sought to monetize their lands as Vyola Ortner, a tribal council member, recounted in her book entitled, “You Can’t Eat Dirt.”

Many people moved as soon as they were able, understanding that the reservation land wasn’t a permanent housing solution. The need to move was a hardship and some could not afford to go. In 1961, the city and Mayor Frank Bogert negotiated a six-month moratorium on evictions given the difficulty many poor people had in relocating.

The city frantically worked to become certified by the federal government so that FHA lending would be available. Bogert himself cajoled developers into building the first affordable apartments in town, Seminole Gardens, and worked to rezone land that would become known as the Crossley Tract, where people might relocate to permanent housing.

The area was mostly abandoned and in squalor by nearing the end of th 1960s. It was thought that the dire circumstances could not be tolerated any longer. The county, the state and the tribe implored the city to help. City Manager, Frank Aleshire, wrote a detailed procedure regarding the abatement requests by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, individual Indian owners and their conservators.

Aleshire reflected on the necessity of cleaning up the area. “We have a peculiar task in regard to nuisance abatement. The appearance of our community is of special importance because of the resort nature of Palm Springs.” Abatement was a fancy word. In the 1960s in California and elsewhere, it often meant burning. Disposing of debris by incineration was a common practice at the time for dealing with refuse, trash and rubbish of all sorts.

The memo, dated December 5, 1967, read, “the following steps should be taken:

• Investigate to determine that the structure is actually vacant.

• Post the property for abatement under Chapter 56.

• If no protests are received within the time allowed, proceed with controlled burn.

• If protests are received, review with City Attorney and City Manager for decision on further actions.

• For all abatements keep separate records on each structure.

• Take photos.

• Maintain affidavits of notice.

• Secure affidavits of at least three people that the structure was vacant of occupants or personal belongings.

As part of our procedure, check with the Assessor’s records to determine if anyone other than the Indian is paying taxes on the property, If so, be sure to notice that person.”

That the procedure was followed is in evidence in the trove of documents maintained by the fire department and recently posted to the city’s website. Those pages carefully document what occurred.

One example shows a building at 625 Beech Road, in the center of Section 14. The property was listed as vacant, with the former occupant being Edmond Prieto. It was owned by Anthony Gilbert Gillette and administered by Gloria Gillette and Title Insurance & Trust Co. on his behalf.

The inspection sheet detailed 19 different violations of the Uniform Housing Code including hazardous and unsanitary premises, hazardous wiring, inadequate foundations, lack of vertical wall supports, insufficient size of rafters, general dilapidation, lack of maintenance, lack of water closet and lavatory, lack of running hot water and debris and refuse littered. The building was considered a nuisance and was determined to be impractical to repair. The building was not suitable for habitation, and therefore “the building must be removed.”

In a formal letter to the city, the Bureau of Indian Affairs after review of the inspection sheets authorized the city “to proceed to abate this nuisance as per the procedure for clean-up on Section 14.”

The notice was posted, the owner was notified, as was the previous occupant, Mr. Prieto. The building was documented as “vacant and free of personal possessions, and anything of value” on July 18, 1968. And the affidavits attesting to that condition were filed with the letters from the owners and the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Planning Department. Multiple pictures were added to the file showing the squalor of the building and documenting its subsequent incineration.

Anyone interested in exploring the contemporaneously created documents regarding the abatements on Section 14 may find them on the Palm Springs City Clerk’s website. They illustrate how difficult the situation was.

Also online are the records of a lawsuit filed in 1967 by Joe and Virginia Leonard against the city claiming damages for the destruction of their residence and personal property.  The court agreed with the city’s conclusion, “We are confronted here by a relatively simple set of facts. The structure in question, if it may be called a structure, was destroyed. The City acting as agent for the property owner caused the abatement. According to the testimony of the plaintiffs on appraisal the cost of moving and relocating the structure would approximate the estimated value of Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000). This would be assuming that the structure was in good shape and habitable. The testimony of the City’s witnesses, however, clearly show that the building was in fact a nuisance and of no practical value.”

The court ruled against the plaintiffs finding that they had no legal possessory interest in the property and that the city acted pursuant to a permit obtained from the Indian property owner.

The same question is being raised again, now more than 50 years later, in a claim against the city. It has yet to be adjudicated.

Tracy Conrad is president of the Palm Springs Historical Society. The Thanks for the Memories column appears Sundays in The Desert Sun. Write to her at pshstracy@gmail.com.

This article originally appeared on Palm Springs Desert Sun: Palm Springs history: Difficult times in the center of town