 |
Henry Disston's Deed Restrictions
By Louis M. Iatarola
Of all potential topics for profiles in Tacony history, none
could be more abstract , or more enduring, than Henry Disston's
deed restrictions which affect properties within the "Disston
Estate" portion of the community. Observed, enforced
and upheld through multiple generations and through waves
of construction, demolition and reconstruction, these restrictions
have helped preserve the family-oriented fabric of Tacony
as envisioned by Henry Disston over 130 years ago.
Having grown from a rented shop in 1840 to a national leader
in saw manufacturing after the Civil War, Henry Disston's
Keystone Saw Works occupied a sprawling factory at Front and
Laurel Streets. A dense neighborhood had sprung up around
his factory, and living conditions were cramped and unhealthy
for this working-class community. In addition, frequent bell-ringing
of nearby churches and volunteer fire companies served to
disrupt the company's production. AS the Disston Company continued
to prosper, becoming "Henry Disston & Son" upon
the end of Hamilton's seven-year apprenticeship in 1865, it
was apparent that the factory needed land for expansion. In
addition, the congested surroundings and lack of skilled and
stable workers was not only displeasing to Henry Disston but
virtually stifled the company's economic growth.
Upon his land purchase at Tacony in 1871, Henry Disston immediately
laid out his plan to develop the community. He thrust upon
his workers and community a paternalisitc approach which treated
employees as valuable human assets instead of profit-making
machines. A new factory with room for expansion would be built
on the westerly side with a buffer of trees and parkland between
the railroad and houses. He formed a building and loan association
for the company, built a school and a firehouse, favored religious
diversity and donated land for churches and public buildings.
Benefits packages were made available to workers in case of
injury or death and emplyees were treated to an annual outing
to Riverside Amusement Park. Homes could be purchased pr built
on lots by workers, even rented for $15.00 to $25.00 per month.
Surveyor George Smedley Webster planned the Disston Estate
by dividing it into lots which could be sold and developed
into housing. It was Henry Disston’s specific intent
in designing these lots that a variety of housing would be
available, and that ample light and air would be provided
with rear and/or side yards for every home. This design was
intended to contrast with the denser surroundings of Disston’s
original factory.
As a lasting measure to perpetuate his paternalistic influence
on the Tacony community, Henry Disston imposed deed restrictions
on all residential building lots west of the railroad which
not only inslulated the community against unwanted urban influence
but would keep the company prosperous. These restrictions,
intended to be enforcable perpetually with all land in the
Henry Disston Estate, read as follows and are referenced in
all deeds:
“No tavern or building for the sale ort manufacture
of beer or liquors of any kind or description and no courthouse,
carpentry, blacksmith, currier or machine shop, livery stables,
slaughter houses, soap or glue boiling establishment or factory
of any kind whatsoever where stean-power shall be used or
occupied on the said lots, tracts or piece of land or any
part thereof.”
Henry Disston’s ban on alcohol not only kept the community
more stable but helped ensure a sober workforce. The steam
engine ban not only curbed pollution, but limited competition
for workers, and the ban on stables not only curbed odors
but kept workers close to the factory, necessitating the sale
or rental of Disston-owned properties. Disston’s duplicity
of intent helped the Tacony community and the company grow
and thrive into the 20th century. Little did he know how the
careful wording of his deed restrictions would impact the
community over 100 years later.
As Tacony progressed from an industrial village to a “town
within a town,” at least three bars served alcohol legally
east of the railroad and outside Disston’s residential
, deed-restricted tract. These were the Harbot Hotel at State
Road and Longshore Avenue, the Merz Hotel near Knorr Street
and State Road , and Hund’s Saloon near Princeton Avenue
and State Road. In addition, the Tacony Club had been formed
in 1887, originally meeting in the Tacony Music Hall and building
its club at Marsden Street and Longshore Avenue in 1909. With
the implied consent of the community and Disston family, the
Tacony Club served alcoholic beverages to its members on a
regular basis.
The informal and passive acceptance of the Tacony Club operation
within the boundaries of the Disston Estate eventually led
to confusion about the enforceability of Disston’s ban
on alcohol, especially after the rise and fall of Prohibition.
Installed with the passage of the 18th Amendment to the Constitution
in 1919, Prohibition was the policy of legally forbidding
manufacture, transportation or sale of alcoholic beverages
except for medicinal or sacramental use. This highly unpopular
law was repealed with the 21st Amendment in 1933, and basically
served to create a seedy underworld of bootlegging and speakeasies,
and was met with vociferous citizen opposition which only
intensified as the Great Depression hit.
The repeal of Prohibition in 1933, and the country’s
slow emergence from the Great Depression, led to a sense of
new-found optimism. People wanted to socialize and be merry;
as a result a handful of bars and taprooms opened up within
the Disston Estate, in clear violation of Henry Disston’s
deed restrictions. These included Jack’s Café
at 4812 Longshore Avenue, The Grille at 4709 Longshore Avenue,
the Tacony S.S. Club at 4822 Longshore Avenue, and the Black
& White Club at 4719 Longshore Avenue. In addition, social
clubs began to dispense alcohol to members, including William
D. Oxley American Legion Post, Frank Dickel Republican Club,
Tacony Athletic Association, and the 41st Ward Jackson Democratic
Club. Of course, the Tacony Club had been dispensing alcohol
since its formation in 1887.
Despite a loosening of social mores in Tacony, the neighborhood
remained a tight-knit yet diverse community concerned about
its quality of life. The Tacony Fathers’ Association
was founded in 1917 and at its peak was comprised of over
400 members, many of whom were business and political leaders.
Besides constantly striving for improved living conditions
like more light, better police protection and drainage and
improved school facilities, this motivated group of concerned
men sent a clear message that maintaining a stable community
was paramount in Tacony. It also signaled a shift from a promarily
Republican factory town to a more pluralistic and democratic
town, affirmed when Frank Dorsey – a formerDisston employee
– was elected as a Democrat to Congress in 1932.
IN the mid-1930’s, the concerned residents of Tacony
decided to exercise its collective Democratic power by rallying
around henry Disston’s deed restrictions in an effort
to revers the negative social impact the widespread distribution
of alcoholic beverages was having on the community. The deed
restrictions were successfully enforced against the taverns
and taprooms at the municipal and lower state courts, and
were forced to close by a group of residents holding deeds
within the restricted area, led by Christina Benner and represented
by Hymen Rubin.
Rubin’s case against the five clubs dispensing alcohol
in the Disston Estate, including the Tacony Club, proved to
be much more complex. In proceedings which culminated in a
Pennslyvania Supreme Court hearing, on December 6, 1937 an
injunction was granted against four of the five clubs, with
only the Tacony Club exempted from the enforcement of the
deed restriction against alcohol.
At the heart of the case were several issues that needed
clarification. At question was the issue of whether or not
dispensing alcohol to a club member constituted a sale. The
court decided that indeed this constituted a sale since “the
club purchases liquor abd resells it just as any other vendor;
the only difference is that its customers are limited to its
membership. “ Moreover, Disston’s inclusion of
“tavern or building” meant that the restriction
could apply to non-commercial facilities. The clubs contended
that “changed conditions” in Tacony had so affected
the area that enforcing the deed restrictions would be “inequitable.”
The Supreme Court disagreed, deciding that, “the resrtiction,
to the residents of the neighborhood, has a desirability and
an object unaffected by the encroachments of business.”
With respect to the Tacony Club, the fact that its operation
began nearly fifty years prior to the filing of the lawsuit
was a significant factor in the Supreme Court’s refusal
to grant an injunction. Equally significant was the fact that
the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Act and Beverage License Laws
were not enacted until the repeal of Prohibition. Until their
passage, it had not been definitively declared that dispensing
alcohol to a club member constituted a sale. In essence, the
Tacony Club was a “grandfathered” use since it
had been in operation with community acceptance well before
Prohibition began.
And so it was that in 1938, court costs were paid by the
four clubs found in violation while the plaintiffs paid the
court costs for the Tacony Club. That same year, an injunction
was imposed at the locations of the Oxley Post – 6933
Ditman Street, Tacony Athlete Association – 6746 Ditman
Street and the Dickel Republican Club – 6839 Torresdale
Avenue. The Tacony Club continued to dispense alcohol to its
members. While Hymen Rubin and the community leaders surely
believed they had forever insulated the community against
future violators of the deed restriction, less than fifty
years would pass before it enforceability would be tested
again.
By the 1980’s, Tacony was showing glimpses of an aging,
century-old community. Signs of urban blight like graffiti
and the isolated abandoned property began to impact Tacony,
especially along Longshore Avenue, once a thriving commercial
center long displaced by Torresdale Avenue. Even along the
major artery of Torresdale Avenue, the advent of strip malls
helped cause a decline in pedestrian traffic and a shift from
retail to office and service-oriented uses.
|
|
|
