Westacres Community Success Offers Historical Lesson

The economic landscape couldn't have been more frightening. The auto industry had been reeling for several years. Business and bank failures numbered in the tens of thousands. When you picture this scene, do you think of the present moment or of a time past?

Well, the story I share is from 1936, but I often wonder whether its lessons apply today.

This summer, we will celebrate the 75th anniversary of the start of the Westacres community. We expect a few hundred Westacres alumni will return for a week of celebrating the richness of a life lived in the community with humble beginnings. Mostly, we owe it to the vision of U.S. Sen. James Couzens, R-MI, and to the early pioneers who embraced that vision.

Even today, Oakland Housing Inc., which is still active in the low-income housing arena, likes to call Westacres its "crown jewel."  

More than 'mere handouts'

Through the vision and support of Couzens, Westacres came to be in 1936, a tract of 150 homes in northwest West Bloomfield Township at the north end of Middle Straits Lake. Couzens' principles were shared in both "liberal" and "conservative" camps. While he supported New Deal programs in general, Westacres became his alternative to federal housing programs that he viewed as "mere handouts."

Like other housing programs of the time, funds were obtained from the Federal Emergency Relief Commission ($300,000 in this case, to be exact). But unlike other programs, this one benefited from private capital supplied in the form of $550,000 from Couzens’ personal fortune, scheduled to be repaid over time.

As with homes funded by other programs, our Westacres homes were small and offered no frills. Unlike other programs, occupants would purchase their homes through a 20-year mortgage. Perhaps the most unique feature was the family garden. Westacres' residents would supplement their income by gardening a portion of their generous plots. So central was this purpose that Couzens desired to call his experiment "Westacres — A Farming Colony."

Foremost, ours was an experiment to enable factory workers a chance at home ownership. At the time, layoffs and seasonal plant shutdowns were common. By supplying each family with an acre of land and water, farming was expected. Applicants for the project had to describe their experience with farming and list, among other possessions, how many chickens and other fowl they owned.

A 1945 brochure created by Westacres' steward, Oakland Housing Inc., indicated that more than 94 percent of our 150 families were farming. Chicken coops dotted our landscape as many residents took advantage of Oakland Housing's design, complete with root cellar underneath the houses.

An asset to West Bloomfield

Within a matter of years, our pioneers, encouraged by an entrepreneurial spirit, formed a volunteer fire department, civic association, garden club, a commuter bus association, credit union, community library, women's association, child study clubs, weekly newspaper, several social groups and more. Westacres today maintains many of these groups as well as a neighborhood watch.

We are pleased to have evolved into a West Bloomfield asset as well, having offered area residents opportunities to enjoy our craft fairs and artist markets, dating back to 1968. And were it not for the collective efforts of our residents, it is likely that the of the West Bloomfield library system would not exist.  

Within a matter of decades, some of Westacres' "original children" moved back into Westacres to raise their families, a trend that has continued. And now, on the eve of our 75th anniversary, we are home to more than 30 second- and third-generation families. While our purpose to provide housing for low-income families is outlived, our interest in gardening and our development of communal life continue to flourish.

If a set of criteria was developed to describe a healthy community, let alone a successful low-income project, would a picture of ours be painted? Do we hold lessons that today's politicians might embrace, should they be bold enough to step out of the box of party-line dogma?

I wonder.