The Price of a 'Pest House' in Pioneer Seattle
As drought and economic chaos gripped 1877 San Francisco, Seattle citizens found themselves debating the ethics of turning a local residential property into an isolation facility for the smallpox-stricken.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
It will be noticed that residents of the southern part of the city are not indifferent in view of the evident purpose of the city authorities of making a pest house out of the Pinnell residence. It is to be hoped that such an act will be reconsidered. If many cases of small-pox should occur, there would grow the peril to the large number of families living in close proximity to the site—if they only had the purpose of preventing the spread of the contagion. Better have a pest house in some location which is isolated than in the heart of our city.
“Better have a pest house in some location which is isolated than in the heart of our city.”
This 1877 debate over the 'pest house' echoes the contemporary tension in Seattle and other cities regarding the placement of public health and homeless service facilities in residential neighborhoods. The NIMBYism of the 19th century, driven by fear of contagion, shares a clear lineage with the civic resistance that continues to shape urban planning and public health interventions today.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.