1.2m suntan—7 'x. N- .H .mmuqt w. This is to certify that the thesis entitled LEISUREVILLE: A DEVELOPMENTAL STUDY OF BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATION WITHIN A RURAL U.S. COMMUNITY presented by Laura Barwicke DeLind has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. Anthropology degree in ' ’ I V sat—- Major professor \ my / Date /0 1 / 0-7639 Will/Ill!ll/lII/l/Ifl/lllllllII/l/ll/I ll/I/ll/II/l Ill/W ‘ 3 1293 10503 9782 I . it Ii}}i.l\.’]lt‘!¢v’.tii © 1978 ILAURA BARWICKE DELIND ALL RI GHTS RESERVED LEISUREVILLE: A DEVELOPMENTAL STUDY OF BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATION WITHIN A RURAL U.S. COMMUNITY By Laura Barwicke DeLind A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfiliment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Anthropoiogy 1978 ,R *u/thtjflckf A ABSTRACT LEISUREVILLE: A DEVELOPMENTAL STUDY OF BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATION WITHIN A RURAL U.S. COMMUNITY By Laura Barwicke DeLind A better rural-urban balance, in terms of human and economic resources, is recognized as a possible or partial solution to the nation's 'crisis of the cities.‘ To this end, development efforts, designed to improve the 'quality of life' in rural America, have focused heavily on the rural community. Such attention is under- written by the Redfieldian-based assumptions that community is a natural socio-cultural unit, a functional microcosm of the nation and that it has the inherent organizational capacity to continually direct and affect its own development. It becomes paradoxical then, that the rural community has not only been declining for the last 30-40 years, but that its general economic decline has been accompanied by organizational decline. The dissertation considers the problem of 'what factors or conditions cause the rural community to assume, or not assume, its organiza- tional and institutional responsibilities?‘ The research is designed within an historical or longitudinal framework. Organizational decline and resurgence are observed over time within the context of the single community, Leisureville,* Laura Barwicke DeLind Michigan. Leisureville's history is divided into five organiza- tionally and economically distinct Periods and the relative influence of two generalized, polar-type variables-~ideological and ecological-- are compared across these Periods. Four 'value themes'--a belief in the natural environment, a belief in achieved status, a belief in collective pragmatism, a belief in local autonomy--are identified as resident attitudes toward the 'good and proper' life. Despite organizational change, no corresponding change is apparent in these 'value themes.‘ This, it is argued, is because they belong to a Great Tradition or general U.S. ethos and are not unique to a particular community nor to rural communities generally. Change in Leisureville's specific economic base does not correspond to change in the community's organizational abilities. A loose 'fit,‘ however, does appear between the latter and change in community population size and diversity. This relationship is further demonstrated in structural/functional terms. Smallness, the relative lack of size and diversity, is recognized as an organiza- tional constraint describing a context within which internal social divisions are untenable. Within this context the management of an equal social distance to and from all others is seen to be of con- siderable adaptive advantage. It is a management which minimizes or precludes social selection, organizational specialization and overt discensus. This is found to provide a consistent explanation for behavioral organization within the five historic Periods, as Laura Barwicke DeLind well as within the context of three selected community institutions (i.e., volunteer fire department, township government, youth crisis center) over time. It is concluded that the small, rural community is not a microcosm of the nation and that it may assume its institutional and developmental responsibilities only when the constraints of smallness no longer apply. The implications of this for community development programs are discussed. It is suggested that sustained economic subsidization of the rural community and/or the use of larger popula- tion units may be possible means of changing demographic conditions and thus organizational constraints. * Pseudonym. Dedicated to D.L.D., R.W.B., R.R.B., et al. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to acknowleged the Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station for funding the field research upon which this dissertation is based. I would also like to acknowledge the support of my doctoral committee: Dr. Harry Schwartzweller, Professor of Sociology; Dr. Moreau S. Maxwell, Professor of Anthropology; and chairman Dr. Joseph Spielberg, Professor of Anthropology. Dr. Spielberg showed endless patience with a not so patient student and clear, high quality, professional judgment throughout my three years of dissertation writing. I thank him for his confidence and his guidance. I am also indebted to Doug DeLind who lovingly suffered the 'slings and arrows' of my outrageous scholarship. Thank you. Finally, I must mention, if not in name then in spirit, the many residents of Leisureville who were generous with their time, trusting with their information, and above all themselves throughout my prolonged fifteen month visit. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Chapter I. II. III. LEISUREVILLE: A DEVELOPMENTAL STUDY OF BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATION WITHIN A RURAL U.S. COMMUNITY . Introduction and Problem Definition Research Strategy and Thesis Organization Research Methods, Data Gathering and Special Problems. LEISUREVILLE: THE COMMUNITY . The Place: Some Physical Dimensions .Leisureville the Village . Leisureville the Vacationland . Leisureville the Township . The Organization of Leisureville . . The Image. Some Ideological Dimensions "Welcome to the North Woods" . . "You Can Make It Here If You Really Want To" . "We' re a Community of Joiners. ..." . "Ne' ll Do It Ourselves” . LEISUREVILLE: THE HISTORY--PERIOD I: LUMBERING 189l-l915 . . . . . . . . . . Economic Conditions . The Woods The Mills The Merchants The Speculators Demographic Factors Social Activity and Organization iv Page vii . viii Chapter IV. VI. VII. LEISUREVILLE: THE HISTORY--PERIOD II: FARMING 1916-1939 . . . . . . . . . . Economic Conditions . . Lumbering and the Village Farming . Land Owners and Tourism . Demographic Factors . Social Activity and Organization Farming Settlements The Village . LEISUREVILLE: THE HISTORY--PERIOD III: EARLY TOURISM 1940-1959 . . . . . . . . . . . . Economic Conditions . Tourism Industry. . Demographic Factors . Social Activity and Organization LEISUREVILLE: THE HISTORY--PERIOD IV: MIDDLE TOURISM 1960-1967 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Economic Conditions . Real Estate . . Local Service and Manufacturing Businesses Village and Merchants . . . Demographic Factors . Social Activity and Organization LEISUREVILLE: THE HISTORY--PERIOD V: LATE TOURISM 1968-1974 . . . . . . . . . . . Economic and Demographic Circumstance . Community Life Styles Business Owners Employees Unemployed . . Social Activity and Group Interaction . "Actives" and "Nonactives" . Concerned Citizens . . The Township Police Department . Summary: Behavioral and Organizational Changes in. Period V. . . . . . . . 'Page 110 110 110 113 119 124 127 130 136 141 141 146 163 165 175 190 190 191 198 202 211 225 225 235 235 243 249 256 256 265 276 286 Chapter VIII. IX. XI. IDEOLOGY: RESIDENT ATTITUDES CONCERNING THE GOOD LIFE AND PROPER BEHAVIOR AS A BASIS FOR LEISUREVILLE CHANGE Leisureville's Ideological Changes . Natural Environment . . . Achieved Status . Collective Achievement or Pragmatism Local or Community Autonomy Implications . . . The Extent and Possible Origins of Leisureville' s Ideology. . . . . . . . . . DEMOGRAPHIC CIRCUMSTANCE AS A BASIS FOR LEISUREVILLE CHANGE . . . . . . . . . . . . . Smallness and Its Consequences for Behavioral Organiza- tion and Social Structure . . . . . Social Selection and Differential Voluntary Relationships . . . . . . Organizational Specialization . Overt Discensus . . Implications INSTITUTIONAL CHANGES Leisureville Volunteer Fire Department: Change in Institutional Form . . . Township Government and a Political Democracy: Change in Institutional Function . . . . . New Horizons, Inc: The Development of a New Institution . . . . . . . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES vi Page 289 293 295 297 302 305 309 313 325 330 332 337 342 346 350 351 359 370 383 418 Timber Township: All Classes Timber Township: All Classes Timber Township: Population Timber Township: All Classes Timber Township: P0pulation Timber Township: All Classes Timber Township: Population Remote County: Rural-Nonfarm Remote County: Rural-Nonfarm Timber Township: All Classes Timber Township: Timber Township: LIST OF TABLES 1884. 1894. 1894. 1904. 1904. 1940. 1940. 1940. 1950. 1960. 1970. 1977. Age and Sex Distribution-- Age and Sex Distribution-- Native and Foreign-Born Age and Sex Distribution-- Native and Foreign-Born Age and Sex Distribution-- Native and Foreign-Born Age and Sex Distribution-- Sex and Age Distribution-- Age and Sex Distribution-- Age and Sex Distribution Age and Sex Distribution vii Page 99 100 101 102 103 128 129 172 173 174 229 230 Map 2.1 2.2 3.1 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Timber Township: Zoning Districts Leisureville Area: Zoning Districts . Leisureville, circa l909 . viii Page 45 50 85 CHAPTER I LEISUREVILLE: A DEVELOPMENTAL STUDY OF BEHAVIOR AND SOCIAL ORGANIZATION WITHIN A RURAL U.S. COMMUNITY Introduction and Problem Definition The decline of the small, rural community in the United States has proceeded with varying speed and varying national atten- tion since the turn of the century (Nelson 1969). It is a decline which can be observed in empty storefronts along countless Main Streets. It is documented in the disappearance of thousands of acres of farmland, of farm families and of a rural population (North- Central Regional Rural Sociology Committee 1958; President's National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty l967; Banks and Beale 1973). It is recorded in decreasing economic opportunities, incomes, services and in the general poor 'quality of life' of rural America (President's National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty 1967; President's Task Force on Rural Development 1970; U.S. Congress 1975; U.S. Congress 1976). What were once vital towns and villages with competitive Chambers of Commerce, with voluntary organizations, with cooperative programs for self-improvement, with sturdy self- images, have been reduced repeatedly to little more than place names--a gas station and/or a small grocery marking the extent of their activities and abilities. The small, rural communities of the nation, it is generally recognized, have lost out to the cities and 1 their sprawling suburbs. They are counted among the casualties of urbanization, industrialization, mechanization and bureaucratization (Vidich and Bensman 1958; Stein 1960; Nesius 1966; President's National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty 1967; Stadtfeld 1972). Contained within this general social and economic decline has been the loss of the community's ability to take considered action in the interest of its own welfare and development. Social scientists, applied practitioners and government officials have fre- quently noted the rural community's lack of collective discussion and/or 'rational' approaches to locally defined needs. Similarly, many have noted the community's inability or reluctance to make local level decisions, to coordinate available manpower and resources, to initiate internal problem-solving programs. Likewise, there has been an awareness of the community's inability to voluntarily or 1 effectively articulate with extra-community agencies, commissions, governing bodies, etc., to tap external sources for local improve- ments and to seek alternatives to local problems. Such behavior, or more accurately the lack of it, has left the rural community passive and impotent. In short, there has been a loss of the com- '; munity's organizational abilities and it has become increasingly ; unable to generate and maintain the social structures for effective I /" local leadership, self-government and directed change (National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty 1967; U.S. Secretary of Agri- culture 1976; The Center for Agriculture and Rural Development 1972). Despite national trends, however, exceptions do appear and a rural community which has not behaved according to the generally observed pattern--which has not deteriorated but taken an active interest in its own welfare, increased not decreased local services and facilities, assumed not withdrawn from local decision making and governing responsibilities--suggests an interesting problem for investigation. It is for this reason, that Leisureville, a rural community of 1400-1500 persons in the Northeast portion of Michigan's lower peninsula may be considered an exception worthy of study. Leisureville's early history was not unlike those of many rural communities. It began auspiciously in the late 18005 as a prosperous lumber company town which articulated with an outlying farming settlement. A village center sported a mill, a railroad station, a town hall, a multitude of shops, a post office, a bank, a school, a church, a movie house, a band stand, a fire department and dozens of neat wooden houses. A population of 1000 persons actively participated in the programs of numerous fraternal, civic, occupa- tional, recreational and political organizations and in promoting the community's social and economic security. With the disappearance of lumbering interests, however, Leisureville experienced a rapid and prolonged decline. Typical of the above mentioned trend, it languished well into the 19605, dependent first upon subsistance farming and later upon a highly seasonal tourist trade. During this time, decreased economic oppor- tunities were accompanied by a numerically reduced and aging popula- tion. The village witnessed a physical and functional collapse. Community institutions, likewise, either disappeared entirely or retained only their most minimal and indispensable functions. Those voluntary organizations which existed received only nominal member- ship and initiated few, if any, local programs. There was a con- spicuous absence of any major or lasting cooperative action on the part of local residents,and the community itself was almost exclu- sively governed by the policies and decisions of supraorganizational bodies. Contrary, however, to this familiar pattern of decline, Leisureville has over the last five or six years undergone a social and economic resurgence. During this time, the community has realized increased opportunities for local employment. It has almost doubled in population size and has begun to organize actively, w to consider and initiate local programs,'u)eliminate felt needs and to plan for future development. Among the community's accomplish- ments has been the establishment of an IDC and an industrial park to attract small industry. It has organized a nursery co-op to supple- ment the educational development of its pre-school aged children. It has applied for and received state funding for the operation of a crisis center to professionally manage the problems of local youth. Planning and zoning commissions have been established as have legal ordinances outlining the acceptable use of the community's land and natural resources. It has purchased a police car and set up its own police department, provided a medical clinic and otherwise upgraded its public services and facilities. Unlike rural communities generally, Leisureville has reasserted its decision making and self- governing functions and its residents once again actively participate in a steadily increasing number of local level, voluntary organizations which collectively support and promote community welfare. The fact of Leisureville's initial development, subsequent decline and present resurgence has important implications for modern day community development policy. Since the mid-19605 there has been renewed attention paid in the form of Presidential commissions, national legislation, governmental hearings, land grant institution research to ameliorating the felt needs and problems of the nation's rural areas and rural population (National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty 1967; President's Task Force on Rural Development 1970; Fuguitt 1971; U.S. Congress 1972; North Central Regional Center for Rural Development 1973; U.S. Congress 1975; U.S. Congress 1976; U.S. Secretary of Agriculture 1976). Somewhat ironically, such studied attention has been the consequence of a widespread distress over the massive deterioration of the nation's cities. As Jerry Waters writes in the second chapter of Rural Development: Research Priorities, "The original impetus of today's rural development came from a growing sense of concern and frustration over the crisis of the cities rather than from an aroused awareness of the plight of the rural areas" (1973:12). Bankruptcy, riots, strikes, crime, poverty, pollution, power failures, etc. were recognized as glaring symptoms of a nation- wide urban 'sickness,’ and the 'sickness' itself the result of a general laissez-faire policy toward the process of urbanization. The . unchecked centralization of industry, the rural to urban migrations since the 19305 (if not earlier), it was now realized, had left the cities "overpopulated and overburdened" and created devastating inequities in the national distribution of people and resources. Solution-~or at least partial solution-~was felt to lie in stemming and even reversing the processes of the last 30 to 40 years. Policies which would affect a rural-urban balance, which would reduce urban in-migration and even encourage out-migration would be a means of curbing further urban decay. The rural United States was thus 'rediscovered,’ unwittingly catapulted into the national limelight and rural development became a means to a larger end. Yet, whatever the historic background and however generalized the motives, rural development with its objective of equalizing social and economic opportunities through better housing, increased income, improved medical, educational services, etc., has placed a major emphasis upon the rural community (President's National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty 1967; President's Task Force on Rural Development 1970; U.S. Congress 1975; U.S. Secretary of Agriculture 1976). Modern rural development efforts, for instance, have concen- trated upon decentralization--upon dispersing rather than consoli- dating resources and resource management. The development perspective of the Nixon, Johnson and even Kennedy administrations have contrasted sharply with that underlying the New Deal strategies of the depression. Rather than people being taken to jobs (i.e., TVA, CCC), greater con- cern has been expressed in taking jobs to people and keeping both in rural areas. Rather than programs centrally designed, activated and administered by national government, emphasis has been placed on encouraging greater social, economic and political autonomy at the local level. The implementation of revenue sharing, the Department of Labor's CETA and CSTA programs, the Department of Agriculture's leadership development programs, Federal Assistance Programs Retrieval System (FAPRS), cooperative extension and research services are all illustrative of this pattern (see U.S. Secretary of Agriculture 1976). In their report to the President, the President's Task Force on Rural Development has stated, The purpose of rural development is to help areas correct their own weaknesses and to help rural people consolidate the strengths of rural living for themselves and others who might live there in the future. . . . The real strength of rural development is that it harnesses local energies and is run by local people who know better than anyone their own problems, their own capabilities and their own priorities . . . (1970:5-6). Similarly, Orville Bentley writes in his discussion of the national outlook and perspective on rural development, Growth if it is to occur in rural areas, must get healthy and vigorous support from the people living there now. External investment and leadership can help, but the resources, people and other ingredients for growth must be homegrown (1973:6). Rural development, then, is heavily dependent on rural community development which is dependent, in turn, on local level action and decision making. State and national efforts (legislative and research) have been geared to finding the means to help rural com- munities help themselves, the assumption being that if the community can effectively 'pull itself together' then growth, population growth especially, will follow as a direct result. The emphasis is placed on reversing "the erosion of the organizational and institutional basis of rural community life" (Wilcox and Klonglan 1972:17) and thereby enable the rural community to function in its own best interests. Leisureville, as described earlier, is a community that has undergone such 'homegrown' reorganization. It has been able to establish and activate local structures (i.e.: IDC, Planning and Zoning Commissions, Police Department) recognized as essential to its social and economic future. By serving as a case study, Leisureville can provide an opportunity for investigating those conditions which have significantly influenced its present organizational, self- activating abilities. By observing the community through its periods of decline and resurgence, it may be possible to examine the relation- ships of these enabling conditions to patterns of community behavior. Such a study, then, has the potential to provide insight not only into the process of rural community development, but into the effec- tiveness of present policy-making strategies. Nevertheless, Leisureville's utility for investigating those conditions which may have direct implications for community behavior and organization must not be overestimated. While its exceptional nature makes it a suitable subject for study, its singular life history will be found duplicated by no other community. It could be argued, for instance, that Leisureville's physical location, its agricultural marginality, its State forests, its relative isolation, its lack of major outside corporate investors, etc., are all factors contributing to its uniqueness. Not only will the particulars of Leisureville's development be virtually infinite, but a similar argu- ment might be constructed for any community. Leisureville's value as an exception, therefore, derives from the possibility of extracting those conditions or variables which have applicability beyond a specific community context. It is a matter of teasing out general relationships between behavioral patterns and enabling circumstances which, though they exist apart from the specific 'stuff' or content of daily life, are responsible for giving it shape, for imparting certain regularities or formal outlines. The problem remains what type-conditions or variables are to be considered. Since a study of this nature cannot hope to look at everything which might relate to community behavior and organization, attention will be directed toward those variables which figure prominently in the rural community literature. But, such variables themselves are not the product of spontaneous generation. They belong to and generate from an underlying model or conception of community. By considering the latter it may be possible to investigate and com- pare the nature and utility of the former. The most popular model of community and the one which under- lies development strategies is presented in the writings of anthro- pologist Robert Redfield. In his work, The Little Community, Redfield recognizes the community as being an "integral entity," as one of the few "prevailing and conspicuous forms" in which humanity comes packaged (1960:1). For Redfield, the community is a natural phenomenon which not only can be, but should be viewed and described as an internally consistent and persistent human whole. Redfield identifies four specific "qualities" which are common to all such natural entities--distinctiveness, smallness, homogeneity and self-sufficiency (196024). By distinctiveness, he refers to the fact that the boundaries which give definition to the community-- 10 keeping the inside in and the outside out--are apparent. Boundaries are not only territorial, but behavioral and conceptual. Very simply, they serve to distinguish the 'we' from the 'them.' Redfield's smallness is a consequence of population size. It refers to the fact that a single observer can view the whole of community life, if not directly then through a part "which is fully representa- tive of the whole'l (1960:4). Homogeneity refers to the fact that a basic similarity exists within and across generations of all persons in the community. Differences based on age and sex aside, common experiences and activities, shared expectations and understandings support one another and give the community its internal unity. Finally, self-sufficiency refers to the fact that the community itself can provide for most, if not all, of "the activities and needs of the people in it" (1960:4). These qualities, in turn, are indicative of "certain inherent social relational features" (Adams 1962:415). It is in the nature of the little community for persons to be intimately related in time and place. Long association, incessant face to face interaction, con- tinually reinforce the primary familial-type bonds which characterize community relations. These relationships insure the interpersonal cooperation, the communal utilization of resources which not only allow for individual welfare, but function to maintain the system. In other words, the little community has inherent within it the organizational capacity to affect collective action, to take charge of its own needs. This is a basic assumption of the Redfieldian model and it is the 'energy' (to use the Presidential Task Force 11 terminology) understood to be locked into the community's social relationships which development strategies seek to 'harness.' While the model may correlate a certain type of social relationship with a certain type of behavioral organization, the former is not the cause of the latter, but both are a function of something more basic. For Redfield, the community is also a way of life, a cultural tradition. As such, it is synonymous with a system of values, beliefs, understandings, expectations, and behavioral norms which has persisted through time, which gives substance and meaning to group life and which is equally internalized and shared by every community member. Community members behave or interact on the basis of common, traditional understandings. Community behavior not only reflects these underlying norm directives, but also rein- forces them. In the little community ideal and real behavior coin- cide. There is no considered or critical evaluation of personal action. Means are not distinguished from ends. They are at once the substance and symbol of an unshakable moral order in which all behavior is harmoniously and inextricably integrated in common pur- pose. Behavior, as a result, is underlaid by a sense of brotherhood, of mutual aid and cooperation, just as social interaction is forged upon sentiment and humanistic considerations. The little community's capacity for utilizing its interper- sonal relations to affect collective action, then, resides in the mind set of its residents. When the model is reduced to its barest internal logic, it is the ideological dimension which is set forth as the instrumental variable. By directing individual behavior 12 through values, norm directives, etc., it is responsible for the nature of social relationships and these, in turn, shape the com- munity's organizational forms and actions. There are scholars, notably George Foster and Oscar Lewis, whose positions would appear to be diametrically opposed to Redfieldian notions concerning the inherent nature of little community or folk relationships. Neverthe- less, it is the interpretation or the meaning assigned to behavior which differs and not its point of origin. Whether it is jealousy and suspicion or brotherhood and cooperation which properly describe social interaction, the latter still remains a function of a particu- lar mind set or mental orientation. Before proceeding further, however, it must be recognized that Redfield's little community is a theoretical abstraction, an extreme socio-cultural form which is most nearly approximated by the primitive or simple societies studied by anthropologists. It should be immediately clear, no matter how romantic the notion, that no con- temporary U.S. community can be realistically described as "a little world off by itself"(Redfield 1947:298). Neither can it be described as timeless and therefore virtually without change. Redfield himself would hardly have argued the point. Despite his insistence on study- ing societies and cultures as natural systems or wholes, he repeatedly remarks that the little community is a prototype to which existing socio-cultural forms conform to greater or lesser degree. As such, it constitutes a polar opposite to those characteristics which epitomize cities and/or an urban way of life. The little community and the city, the folk tradition and the modern urban 13 design are held to be mutually exclusive and idealized ends of a con- tinuum. Existent communities and/or social groupings can be placed along this folk/urban continuum on the basis of those social and cultural traits which the Redfieldian model has established as being naturally related. It becomes readily apparent that the frequent use of the typological or dichotomizing tradition within community literature parallels this conceptual approach. Neither is it difficult to reconcile a basic Redfieldian perspective with the general agreement among community scholars that "the concept of community is to be found within the broader concept of social interaction“ (Hillery 1955:119). Communities or functionally defined social systems (Loomis and Beegle 1975) are typically considered and compared, in whole or in part, according to paired and contrasting traits. They may be typed as being folk-like or urban-like (Redfield 1947; Foster 1953), rural or urban (Wirth 1938; Nesius 1966), traditional or modern (Gallaher 1961; Pearsall 1959; Foster 1962). Social actions and interpersonal relationships may be typed as being nonrational or rational (Weber 1965), expressive or instrumental (Parsons 1962), gemeinschaft-like or gesellschaft-like (Toennies 1965; Loomis and Beegle 1975). Organization may be typed as being centripetal or centrifugal (Gallaher 1967), exhibiting mechanical or organic solid- arity (Durkheim 1965). Though the contrasts may be extended and redefined endlessly (Dewey 1960), the distinctions ultimately reduce to 'meaningful' or qualitative differences felt to be inherent in the dyads. It is a cultural tradition, a unity of wills, a feeling of 14 "weness" which sets the first term apart from the second and which provides a basis for describing as well as explaining social behavior and its organization. By virtue of such a conceptual strategy, the rural community and/or the functionally defined rural system is cast as a qualitatively distinct 'animal' from its urban counterpart. The problem remains, however, why should the well documented rural community decline be accompanied by organizational decline. It would certainly appear reasonable (given the above reasoning) that as community needs increase they would provide an impetus for cooperative action. Community action implies that a problem itself be recognized and that an agreement be reached among community members. Such an agreement not only concerns the ends or goals of this action, but also the means by which individuals must behave or interact to achieve these goals. The rural community with its theoretical 'fund of good- will' stemming from a conceptual homogeneity would appear to be able to make democratic decisions and organize to affect harmonious solu- tions. This, of course, is what community developers, as noted by the earlier quotes, feel ought to happen. When it doesn't, the reason is attributed to some unsuitability of the internalized values, behavioral norms, etc., for generating the necessary relationships and organizational structures which the solution to any particular problem demands. In short, the community is recognized as not func- tioning properly. An excellent illustration in support of this reasoning can be found in "A Comparative Study of the Role of Values in Social Action in Two Southwestern Communities" in which Vogt and O'Dea (1953) argue 15 (a la Parsons) the centrality of "value orientations” on community relationships and behavior. As the authors describe them, the two communities of Homestead and Rimrock appear antithetical to one another. Homestead, comprised of geographically dispersed, indi- vidually owned farmsteads, is typical of an atomized community. Nuclear families remain physically and socially isolated and residents interact on a short-term, well defined, business-like basis. Despite obvious need, little collective action takes place and the few com- munity projects attempted collapse as a result of disagreement and/ or the lack of participation. By contrast, the Mormon settlement of Rimrock is a well integrated, highly unified community. The central- ity of the Church and primary ties of kinship and brotherhood are the basis for incessant interpersonal interaction. Community needs (virtually identical to those of Homestead) are successfully met through the collective use of resources and community programs receive the concerned and continuous support of all residents. These differences in both the quality of interpersonal rela- tions (i.e., peaceful vs tension-ridden) and the organization of com- munity behavior stem, according to Vogt and O'Dea, from differences in certain deeply held values. In the case of Homestead, a "frontier- type of self reliance and individualism . . . has resulted in a social system in which interpersonal relations are strongly colored by a kind of factionalism and in which persons and groups become related to one another in a competitive, feuding relationship" (1953:651). In the case of Rimrock, the values embedded in the laws of the Mormon religion have caused "cooperation [to] become second nature" and so 16 "part of the institutionalized structure of expectations" (1953:650). It is the difference in "value framework" which Vogt and O'Dea recognize as having influenced the decisions and "development of two quite different community types" (1953:654). From an applied development standpoint, such a conclusion can be rephrased as follows: if the presence of a certain conceptual make-up, in this case a "weness," by definition, allows for a certain type of meaningful behavior (i.e., self-action), then the absence of the latter implies some sort of inadequacy of the former. Stated a bit more crudely, people's behavior, their social relationships and social organizations are a consequence of the way they've learned to think. If they don't behave properly, then it stands to reason that they don't think properly. This latter is felt to result from the tenacity of traditional or rural value orientations, behavioral norms, status-role expectations, etc., which because of their inherent con- servatism are generally resistant to, nonadapted to, or frustrated by the technology and social forms of the modern world or nation. This incompatibility, in turn, is frequently understood to produce a state of normlessness, disillusionment, hopelessness which perpetuates behavioral debility and furthers social and economic isolation (President's National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty 1967). The problem, very simply, is felt to be caused by the con- flict between two qualitatively different systems. As Hicks writes in his book, Small Town, 17 There is nothing startling, for instance, in saying that many--perhaps most--of the pe0ple in a town like Roxborough live according to standards and concepts that were appro- priate to an age of self-sufficiency, but have little relevance in a mass society (1946:271). The same position, with minor variations, is further echoed in the works of Vidich and Bensman (1958), West (1945), Gallaher (1961), Rubel (1966), Pearsall (1959), Loomis and Beegle (1975), Foster (1962), in the general body of literature on Appalachia and the 'culture of poverty,’ as well as in the Presidential reports, The. People Left Behind (1967), and A New Life for the Country (1970). Applied efforts, then, are focused on restoring the "weness" inherent in rural community life by overcoming what are felt to be the conceptual resistances to community self-action. In some cases this is attempted by supplying 'unhealthy' communities with inspira- tional success stories in an effort to stimulate similar action (Ogdon 1946; Kreitlow, Aiton and Torrence 1965; Runyon and Nelson 1971; Malotky and Runyon 1971; Cavender and Schmitt, Jr. 1971; Loomis and Beegle 1975). These 'how to do it' stories are not only intended to counter the rural "fear" (Hicks 1946), "surrender" (Vidich and Bensman 1958), "confusion and lack of direction" (Nesius 1966) which comes of being unprepared to deal with the problems of the mass society, but they also detail the organizational steps which, if followed, will enable the community to resolve its functional diffi- culties. Closely related to this are programs which concentrate on leadership training, on introducing the modern skills and information to revitalize old and establish new community institutions. Often too, problem-focused demonstration projects are begun, local 18 committees set up, 'seed' monies or other resources made available and the community guided through the first formal steps toward self- action (U.S. Congress 1975; U.S. Secretary of Agriculture 1976; U.S. President 1976). Such strategies all support the notion that once a sense of "weness" or collective purpose has been activated (through sympa- thetic vibration, education and/or first hand experience) and tradi- tional blinders have been removed, the community will continue to think and work together on the solutions to common problems. In the final analysis, it is a matter of changing minds and thus behavior, of replacing traditional concepts with more suitable urban ones for the purpose of realizing the rural community's organizational poten- tial. As Nesius writes, "The real challenge for the future is to find new and significant social structures in which folkways and mores are urban and which can be fitted into rural situations easily" (1966243). With respect then, to the specific case of Leisureville, it might well be expected that the changes which occurred in the community's organizational abilities were a consequence of and thus correlate with changes in an underlying system of values, of tradi- tional or 'rural' predispositions to action. There is, however, another type-variable which contrasts sig- nificantly with the one just presented and which is also felt to have considerable influence on social organization. This second variable is quantitative,runzqualitative in nature. It is not a condition to be found internalized by a population of individuals, but rather is a condition of individual populations. It is a variable which is held 19 to be instrumentally related to regularities (across time and place) in social form, not meaning. This second variable is one of demo- graphic circumstance, specifically population size and diversity. As an independent variable affecting organization, population size has appeared repeatedly within anthropological and sociological literature. Spencer (1965), for instance, was convinced that the augmentation of mass (i.e., increased numbers) into larger and more organizationally complex systems (both in terms of the number of internal parts and in the differentiation between them) was a principal and invariant law of the universe. The nOtion of socio- cultural evolution builds upon this general premise. From a cross- cultural perspective, Naroll (1956) has demonstrated the relation- ship of size of settlement to the appearance of nonlineage associa- tions. Carniero (1967 similarly has established a relationship between population size and the number of "organizational traits” within single community societies. From a less macro or evolutionary perspective, Simmel (1950) contended that "mere numbers" determined the internal organization and form of social aggregates. Lipset and associates (1956) have noted the instrumental nature of size upon the internal social organization and political activity of International Typographical Union sh0ps. Within the context of a specific formal institution, Anderson and Warkov (1961) have investigated the relationship between changes in size and complexity (heterogeneity) and particular changes in internal structure. Similar concerns can be found in the work of Blau (1970) and Kasarda (1974). 20 It must be pointed out here, of course, that the ideological or normative approach already presented is not unaware of demographic factors. Smallness and homogeneity are essential features of the rural community definition and the redistribution of population is an ultimate goal of rural development efforts. Nevertheless, it should also be clear that demographic circumstance itself is not conceptualized as instrumental in affecting change. Rather, it is treated as part and parcel of a whole, distinctive way of life or as the descriptive consequence of any particular social change (i.e., the economic decline of rural areas can be illustrated by population decline, just as the success of rural development efforts may be illustrated by population growth). This dismissal of demographic influences is beautifully presented by Hoigberg in his book, Exploring the Small Community. He writes, Even where population loss occurs it does not necessarily mean a community is waning. Fortunately, there is no inherent relation between the quality of community living and the size of the population. Sound physical growth is a fine thing for a community, but it is erroneous to assume that numerical increase inevitably implies the development of richer human relationships. . . . Enrichment of community living can occur even where population shows a downward trend. It must be remembered that changes in rural institutions, such as church, school and place of business, however disconcerting they may be, often create new opportunities for better living when approached in a positive frame of mind (1955:6-7; emphasis m1ne . By contrast, a general relationship between demographic con- dition and community organization has received considerable attention from social or 'human' ecologists, particularly Hawley, Duncan and Schnore, the conceptual fathers of the 'new' ecology (Hawley 1950; 21 Duncan and Schnore 1959; Duncan 1959; Murdock and Sutton 1974). Hawley, for instance, contends that population is conceived of as one of the principal permissive or limiting causes of social phenomenon. Hence problems such as the implications of size, of biological structure, of rates of population change for the organization of relationships occupy a position of major importance in ecological work (1950:79). Duncan, likewise, has defined population (its size and composition in particular) as one of four essential elements, along with environ- ment, technology and organization, comprising the "eco-complex" and thus as a variable to which organized life must adapt. For the ecologist, organization, particularly the organization of activity, provides the fundamental interest of and focus for ecological inquiry. It is understood to be "the property of a popu- lation," "indispensible to the maintenance of collective life" (Duncan 1959:682) and adapted or adapting (at any point in time) to the quantitative and constraining conditions of a social and physical environment. From such a perspective, community itself may be under- stood to be both the consequence of a population's adjustment to restrictions within the environment or general ecosystem, as well as the "adaptive mechanism" (Hawley 1944) by which a population makes such an adjustment. It can be expected, then, that demographic factors will have a decided influence on community, community organi- zation, variation and change (see in particular Duncan 1959). With respect, for instance, to community variation (within the U.S.) Keyes has concluded on the basis of a correlation of "social phenomenon" along the single dimension of community size 22 that "the rural-urban 'break' comes at or around the 25,000 popula- tion point, that at the 100,000 population point the well-defined city makes its emergence and at the 500,000 size gives birth to the metropolitan center" (1958:313). Duncan and Reiss (1956) have utilized population size as one of four independent demographic variables (which in turn affect other dependent demographic variables) for systematically characterizing rural and urban-type communities. On a somewhat more limited scale, Allen (1968) has found that the variety of 'cultural' activities and institutions within a community is related to population size. He also found, contrary to the tradi- tional use of the rural/urban dichotomy, no correlation between the extent of 'cultural' interest within a community and population size. From a planning standpoint, changes in population size and composition have recently been dubbed "key factors" for effectively anticipating changed needs and capabilities within nonmetropolitan communities (Brown 1975). This recognition of the demographic influence upon community organization and development has, in turn, sparked ecological interest in those conditions which may affect demographic variation itself (Beale 1975; Poston and Frisbie 1976; Fuguitt and Beale 1976). For the problem at hand, however, this latter line of inquiry is not the immediate concern. Since the loss of population is by definition a characteristic of the general economic decline experi- enced by rural communities, then it is quite legitimate to suggest (without going into the 'cause' of demographic variation or change) that demographic circumstance may be instrumentally related to the 23 accompanying organizational decline. What is being suggested is a second possible solution to or means of reconciling the seeming paradox presented earlier (i.e., why economic decline is accompanied by organizational decline within the rural community). When applied specifically to Leisureville, it may be possible to expect that a change in the community's organizational abilities will correlate with and be influenced by a change in population size and diversity. Research Strategy and Thesis Organization It should be clear on the basis of the above discussion that there are two general approaches (a normative or ideological and an ecological) which both afford a means to explain changes in community behavior and organizations, decline and development. At the same time, they differ markedly with respect to the variables they hold to be instrumental. In the first case, a change in values or the internalized norms governing what is proper behavior is understood to affect, either by stifling or permitting, the sense of "weness" which underlies and is responsible for all community self-action. In the second case, a change in the more quantifiable conditions of popula- tion size and diversity is recognized as altering, either by increas- ing or lessening the behavioral constraints within which a community or community population must actively adapt. Both approaches appear to have the potential for interpreting the change which has occurred over Leisureville's history and both will be considered. In so doing, it will be possible to evaluate which one more effectively serves to explain the behavioral, 24 organizational and developmental changes undergone by this particular community. Stated somewhat differently, the utility of these two approaches will be compared within the framework of a single case study. Such a strategy, however, cannot proceed without a consistent and workable method for considering what has only been loosely referred to as a change in community ability. Community development (ability) and the lack thereof (inability) though suitable terms for a general description of rural community trends have little analytical utility when it comes to making specific behavioral and/or organiza- tional comparisons. The presence or absence of material props or facilities (i.e., well-paved streets, local industry, etc.) may in a general sense be indicative of a community's developmental status. Nevertheless, such 'items' cannot be realistically compared, nor do they have, in and of themselves, any particular correlation with community behavior or organization. Similarly, the presence or absence of formal leadership, formal decision making, extra-community relations are rather meaningless apart from the behavioral or activity context in which they operate. In fact, development, particularly in its applied sense, is based on the notion of activity or self-action requiring a certain organization for the attainment of a certain end result. Activity, then, provides the context within which a com- munity's ability may be observed. At the same time, community activity cannot be profitably approached as a continuous, undifferentiated stream of action, but must be broken down into logical and comparable units. These units 25 are cultural institutions which, to paraphrase Nadel, can be defined as 'idealized patterns of co-activity carried out by a specified and structured group for the achievement of specified goals and requiring the allocation of resources for their achievement' (1951:186). Institutions are human inventions or activity models, both the product of history and creativity, whose meaning or function is established by the particular population in question. Since they are the 'blue- prints' for purposive action, they not only define suitable units for observation, but provide the framework within which behavioral and organizational changes may be recognized and compared. They will serve as the conceptual tools for marking and measuring the social changes experienced by Leisureville and against which the two type- variables can be considered. It should be noted here, that particu- lar attention will be paid to formal institutions. This will be done not only because these figure most prominently in applied concerns, but also because written charters, constitutions, etc., provide a more explicit basis for determining the institutional design. Having established both the independent variables to be investigated and the analytical units within which their consequences may be observed, a logical means must be provided for delimiting time frames so that changes can be recognized and their circumstances compared. This will be done by dividing Leisureville's 85 year history into five distinct eras or Periods which closely correspond to the community's organizational or self-activating abilities and disabilities. These Periods also closely coincide with changes in the community's economic base and are identified as follows: 26 Period I--Lumbering (1891-1915); Period II--Farming (1916-1939); Period III—-Ear1y Tourism (1940-1959); Period IV--Middle Tourism (1960-1967); Period V--Late Tourism (1968-1974). It should be noted here that Period V overlaps the time of the author's field research and terminates with her leaving the field. Its duration, therefore, is entirely arbitrary. It neither represents the logical culmination of Leisureville's development nor denies the possibility of any further social or economic change. Nevertheless, what has transpired after 1974, unless specifically indicated, is not within the realm of this study. Each of these designated Periods will be considered with respect to the community's (1) economic circumstance, (2) demographic characteristics, specifically population size and diversity, (3) activities, interpersonal relationships and organization, and (4) overriding values or what are held to be the individual and social qualities which properly represent and insure the good life. It will be on the basis of the observed changes which have taken place across these Periods and within these sub-categories that the strength of the two contrasting approaches will be tested. Correlations will be sought between changes in community activity and organization and changes in the suggested instrumental variables. Once correlations have been found, the nature of the relationship will be developed and demonstrated across the five time Periods and, more specifically, with respect to the formal and functional changes observed within three selected community institu- tions: the Leisureville Volunteer Fire Department, township 27 government and New Horizons, Inc., a youth crisis center. The con- clusions reached on the basis of such an investigation will not only lend insight into the process of community change, but may also prove useful for generating more effective community development strategies. Research Methods, Data Gathering and Special PrOblems The field research upon which this study is based was con- ducted over a 15 month period from June 1973 to September 1974 during which time the author purchased a house and lived permanently in Leisureville. The author's research intentions were never disguised, but were informally presented to Leisureville residents as an interest in the community's history and in those factors which had contributed to its recent growth and development. With few exceptions, community residents were readily cooperative, recounting the circumstances of Leisureville's past, discussing its present constitution, organiza- tion and problems, providing access to personal and public records and directing the author to local persons who had specialized or extensive knowledge of community life and its changes. Data collection relied heavily on the anthropological technique of participant observation. As a member of the community (with obvious qualifications), the author frequented local businesses, visited casually in the homes of a large cross-section of the popula- tion, went to church services, attended Township Board meetings and those of almost every community club and/or service organization, and participated in the activities of all major community functions. As she grew more familiar, the author was invited to parties and dinners 28 (formal and informal), was expressly included in formal group pro- jects, and was permitted to sit in on planning and decision making sessions (again both formal and informal) of local leaders and official governing bodies. As a result of these daily interactions and observations, the author was able to inventory the community's physical and/or material characteristics and record the behavioral patterns which comprised community life. Economic, social, spacial, temporal and interest variations were observed within the population and the regularities in individual and group interaction were noted. The prevailing com- munity issues were documented. Public and personal attitudes and opinions were solicited and recorded, as was the natural history of locally initiated action. In addition to the information obtained through these informal means, formal interviews were conducted with outside professionals and/or professional concerns which serviced the community. Among those who were contacted were: the County Sheriff, the County Nurse, the County Social Services Director, the County Road Commission Engineer, the School Superintendent, Enterprise Wire, United Wood Products, the Presque Isle Electric Cooperative, the regional Employ- ment Security Commission, a regional business accounting firm, and the Northeast Michigan Planning and Development Commission. In each case these professionals discussed Leisureville and its changes from the vantage point of their own specialized interest. Whenever possible, they provided the author with as much tabulated data as was readily available or could be compiled for past decades. 29 Finally, numerous types of statistical materials and written records were utilized to document, as well as support informant observations and recollections of Leisureville's economic, demo- graphic, organizational and ideological characteristics throughout its history. Data was compiled from the U.S. Population Censuses for the years 1884 to 1970 and from the U.S. and Michigan Agricultural and Business Censuses for the years 1884 to 1940 and 1958 to 1967, respectively. Local censuses, township voter registration rolls, school enrollment records, postal records, employment records, public bank statements, club minutes and membership lists, township plat maps, tax and land ownership records, County and Township Board budgets and minutes, local newspapers, private business and Chamber of Commerce promotionals, together with the unpublished text, photo- graphs and material artifacts amassed by the community 'historian,‘ were all pieced together to provide a solid sense of the community's condition over time. The content of and conclusions drawn from these materials will be systematically presented in the chapters which follow. Never- theless, mention must be made of several circumstances which have affected the availability and reliability of local data. Absolute statistical data, particularly demographic data, is often unavailable for unincorporated civil divisions of less than 2500 persons, and when available, categorical breakdowns are fre- quently quixotic from census year to census year. For mid-census years, the difficulties are even greater and one must rely on the type of materials listed above to gain an acceptable demographic 30 picture. For Leisureville, the situation is further complicated (as it seems to be in many small communities) by an unfortunate history of fires. Many of the township records burned in the fires of 1914 and 1916 and both the county newspaper office and county courthouse burned in the fire of 1942 or 1943. Early records are not plentiful, but they do exist. There are several residents still living who can recall the lumbering days and considerably more who lived through the farming era. In addition, a sizeable collection of newspapers, land promotionals, maps, and family mementos pulled from attics and from under kitchen linoleum combined with available U.S. census materials leave no Period unrepre- sented. In a more positive vein, the availability of materials docu- menting the Leisureville population during the early 19605 has been greatly enhanced by an earlier sociological study undertaken by Dr. William Faunce, chairman of Sociology at Michigan State University. The demographic, economic, social and ideological characteristics contained on some 130 short (two-page) and 123 long (ZO-page) questionnaires administered to Leisureville residents have been reviewed and utilized in the discussion of the community during that Period. All this is merely a way of indicating the fact that the data on which this study is based cannot, for obvious reasons, be con- sistent in type or in volume from year to year or Period to Period. The data presented is not, and does not pretend to be, absolute. It is, however, sufficient and reliable enough to generally reflect economic patterns, population size and compositional outlines, 31 community activities and organizational trends and prevailing moral attitudes at any point in time. No matter how 'clumsy' this handling of data may appear to a professional demographer, economist, social psychologist, etc., it is entirely suitable for the purposes of this study. The author does not claim to have the technical training to handle each piece of data as would its respective specialist. At the same time, the inability to infinitely dissect and analyze type-data is replaced with an awareness of their interdependencies and the ability to synthesize them into a broad conceptual framework. This, of course, is the point of the study. It is intended to be suggestive of the interrelationships which exist between type-data or conditions of the social environment. It is interested in examining their relative influence on community behavior, organization and change. It is hoped that it will set an integrative stage for what may be the more productive use of 'sophisticated' methods and for the further refinement of variables and cause-effect relationships. This is a challenge, however, which can only be met by future comparative studies. One final point must be made before proceeding further. Leisureville is a pseudonym for the community actually studied as are the names given to neighboring communities, townships, counties, physical landmarks, etc. Similarly, the names of all individuals mentioned in this thesis have been invented by the author. This has been done in accordance with the author's personal and professional obligation to respect the privacy and confidences of those persons 32 who now live, work and vacation in Leisureville and the surrounding area. The names that have been chosen are similar in character to those they replace. They have also been used with the same internal consistency as was found to exist in actual fact. As a result, they have not altered the conditions or relationships herein reported and upon which this study is based. Also, much of the data which has been used throughout this thesis comes from source materials which would identify the community if fully cited. Newspaper articles, club minutes, local publications, township and county censuses and records are illustrative of this problem. Wherever applicable, the appropriate pseudonym has been bracketed [ ] and inserted in the title, text or formal reference in place of an identifying word or words. Where references to published work would jeopardize the community's anonymity they have not been given. In the event that a specific reference or actual data source is essential to future research, a written request may be made to the author in care of the Department of Anthropology, Michigan State University. The author will decide on the basis of the particular information requested and the purpose for which it is intended whether to comply with the request. CHAPTER II LEISUREVILLE: THE COMMUNITY The Place: Some Physical Dimensions Interstate 75 is Michigan's major north-south artery. Since its completion less than a decade ago it has been held responsible for making little known places more accessible and familiar places less distant. At an exit some 200 miles north of Lansing, a black- topped two lane road, County Road 208, runs casually off to the north and east from I75. In summer the air is dry and dusty. The ground, where it shows beneath stiff stands of pine trees (planted as windbreaks in the 19305 by the Civilian Conservation Corps) and scraggly road-side weeds, is light brown, loose and sandy. Acres of State forest, mostly all secondary growth of pine, popular and birch, chaperone the road for miles. From time to time a small 40 acre clearing interrupts the woodland, but there is little evidence of farming. The growing season is short--about 70 to 90 days from frost to frost (June 1 to August 31)--and the climatic and soil conditions not suitable for much beyond potatoes, berries and dairy herds ([Timber] Township Planning, Zoning and Sanitation Commission 1975). Most open fields merely mark the location of earlier farming attempts. Occasional hunting cabins relax in their overgrown and heavily shaded surroundings. Some are made of log, some of permalog, 33 34 some of wood and tar paper. Almost all are in disrepair though their estate names (hand lettered and rustically nailed to a tree)--Byrd's Nest, Kelly's Kosy Kamp--seem oblivious to the condition. In the summer the pines, mosses, forest ferns and briars, highlighted by defiant wild flowers, create a sense of powerful space and satisfying isolation. In the winter the drifting blankets of heavy snow and below zero degree temperatures just as powerfully convey a sense of natural starkness and hardship. For 25 miles such scenery competes with intermittent warnings of 15 mph curves, no hunting or trespassing signs, and beer cans discarded by the side of the road. From this point, however, the signs of civilization become increasingly clear. Pied cabins, some obviously for year-round use, begin to huddle together. From time to time a glimpse of an inland lake or a piece of a fisherman's river can be seen. Road sides are less thickly overgrown, and cars, car parts, snowmobiles, motorcycles, boats, jeeps, school buses, campers, tractors and rusty equipment of less obvious origin replace the underbrush. Billboards eagerly advertise local businesses and welcome visitors north. Open fields become as frequent as wooded stands and old farm houses sit stoically without shade from a single tree. Along the roadside grey mailboxes fall in line. Individual yards are more neatly defined by painted rocks, wagon wheels, plastic flowers, bird feeders, and other lawn ornaments. Small one story businesses appear. Side roads are cut through. A trailer park. A church. Modular homes. Green lawns. Aluminum siding. A bar. 35 A bowling alley. A grocery. A post office, and a blinking red light. This is the corner of 208 and Center Street, the heart of Leisureville, a small, rural community in Michigan's northwoods. It is a place which seems to provide an oasis of perpetual calm and simplicity and which seems to promise a more individual and honest way of life. Leisureville is a community which welcomes vacationers. And, as far as most residents can remember, it is a community which has always welcomed them, though not always in the same manner or with exactly the same enthusiasm. It is, however, hardly the classic tourist resort. There are no flashing neon lights, 'nite' clubs, yacht clubs, tennis clubs, posh hotels, swimming pools, theaters, casinos, boardwalks, etc. Shops close at 6:00 pm. On weekends local bars feature local talent. Depending on the season, motor boats, motorcycles or snowmobiles speed noisily on land and water. There is one tennis court, two hotels, one motel, a bowling alley, bingo on Tuesday and Thursday evenings, a small village park, a public beach, a nearby ski hill, a nearby golf course and miles of state owned forest. But despite I75, vacationers don't just happen along. Nor are they drawn by the glitter of high powered advertising. They come because they are already familiar with the area. They come mainly from urban Detroit, Warren, Dearborn, Livonia, Birmingham, Highland Park, Saint Clair Shores, Flint and Pontiac. And they come because their friends and relatives are already there. Vacationers drive up to Leisureville whenever possible--some make the 200 mile trek every weekend. They come every trout season, 36 summer, deer season, and winter. Some have been coming for over 30 years. They buy their own lots, build their own winterized cabins, and seriously plan to retire to the'peaceful'life up north. "Leisure- ville," the Chamber of Commerce boasts, "is not a place you drive through. It's a place you drive to" ([Lake] City Times, May 5, 1974). People, they feel, decide to come to Leisureville. They want to be here. The growing population can scarcely contradict them. The unincorporated village of Leisureville sits in the south- west corner of Timber Township. The township itself forms the south- west corner of Remote County, and the county belongs to one of Michigan's poorest and least densely populated regions. The region, in turn, forms the northeast portion of Michigan's Lower Peninsula and is noted for its large private hunting clubs, State and National forests, inland lakes, poor farming land and lack of large industry. It is not surprising that the Michigan Employment Security Commission recognizes "the entire region . . . (with the exception of one county) . . . as redevelopment area because of the very high and persistent unemployment and underemployment" (1974:l). Except for six population centers, none of which lie within Remote County, the region is rural. Of the 15 major manufacturing industries none fall within Remote County. By contrast The vast forests, high rolling hills, broad valleys, and many lakes and streams . . . , in addition to the seasonal climate with warm pleasant summers and cold snowy winters, combine to make many parts of the area an ideal vacation land for people from the metropolitan areas of Southern Michigan (1974:2). 37 Tourism, however, encourages a seasonal and capricious economy. This can be found within Remote County. The county is cemposed of eight townships and within it Leisureville, with its 1400 to 1500 residents, competes as a popula- tion center with Amen, the county seat, and Hearth, an incorporated farming village. All three communities lie in separate townships and despite a central county administration, all three jealously guard their autonomy. Independent histories, economic variations and professed individual 'temperaments' provide the justification for remaining uninvolved and resisting increasing external control. Past resentments and perceived inequities are remembered and ultimately serve to discourage inter-community programs and cooperative efforts. It is an atomization in keeping with the limited population and the economic strictures of the area. Attempts at regional and county planning have, until very recently (1972), found few local advocates. Each community works out its own solutions (or nonsolutions, as the case may be) rather than surrender its identity and independence to one of its neighbors. This independence, coupled with Leisureville's physical loca- tion in the southwest corner of the county, has resulted in a com- munity which frequently overlaps both township and county boundaries. Leisureville's dimensions are neither static nor easily described by existing political or geographical units. Leisureville changes with activity as well as through time, causing the community's shape to be more accurately defined within such a context than by any legal demarcation. Nevertheless, these official, though often superimposed, 38 dimensions will serve as an initial standard for developing a sense of the community's present physical as well as behavioral extent. Leisureville the Village Leisureville began abruptly. It was not natural. It was not fortuitous. It was the deliberately planned and economically moti- vated creation of the Free Enterprise Lumbering Company (FELC). The area supported dense forests of virgin cork and white pine and the Sister Lakes (the village sits on the north shore of East Sister) were perfectly suited for milling operations. Leisureville became a legal entity at 11:30 am, December 3, 1891. It was born a village fully surveyed, platted, complete with houses, stores, a church, a school, an industry and streets named after the friends and relations of its 'founding fathers' though, as will be discussed later, its 'founding fathers' never lived in Leisureville. It remained the home of FELC operations for 20 years. Merchants and company personnel lived along its streets. Logs were dumped into its lakes and planing and sawing mills provided both employment and profit. To this day the village extent is precisely as it was December 3, 189l--about one square mile of 60' x 120' lots neatly organized into 54 blocks by 100' wide streets which run either north and south or east and west. But legal units and behavioral units do not necessarily coincide. As lumbering interests waned the population, its activity and that of the surrounding area, changed quantitatively and quali- tatively. Leisureville, the community, extends beyond its village dimensions. 39 Leisureville the Vacationland Certainly part of the community condition is provided by the area's resources and land use patterns. Leisureville has been an agricultural disappointment throughout its history. Unlike Amen or Hearth to the north and northeast, there are no farms presently in operation. One life-long resident still keeps beef cattle (lO—15 head), but he also continues to work full-time for the County Road Commission. The soils are the poorest in the county-~sandy, rocky and badly leached. The [Remote] County Soil Conservation District describes the land as either "Moraines, hilly and undulating. Includes small outwash areas. Primarily deep sands with areas of loamy sands and sandy loams," or "Outwash and glacial lacustrine deposits usually flat to undulating. Soils mainly deep and dry with some dry pits and pot hole bogs" (1973220). As one resident reinter- prets, "All it will grow is septic tanks." Limited agricultural possibilities have underscored and may have substantially contributed to the formation of other resources. The County Road Engineer hypothesizes that one of the reasons Leisureville has "been out of the dust for years" is that the sand and terrain make road construction easier and "just lend themselves to development." Leisureville, he feels, as do most of its residents, is the county's "urban center." Even more conspicuously, over 22,293 acres or about one half of the 72 square mile township is State forest ([Remote] County Soil Conservation District 1973). This land reverted back to the State for taxes during a time (about 1920-1940) when potato and dairy farming was the primary economic activity. 40 In addition to these forest lands, the area capitalizes on its inland lakes. There are dozens of them in the Leisureville area, and they range in size from about 10 to over 1300 acres. The largest are the Sister Lakes, East and West Sister, which originally attracted the lumbering magnates and which now attract vacationers from 'down state.‘ Tourist appeal has replaced agricultural marginality. Within this woodland setting, Leisureville corresponds to a 1200 square mile 'vacationland' that straddles four counties. It is a community extent which inventories its charms as follows: 40 lakes, 11 trout streams, 5 rivers, thousands of acres of State and National forest, pike, bass, perch, bluegill, brook trout, brown trout and other panfish, deer, bear, rabbits, coon, fox, squirrel, wildcats, partridge, grouse, woodcock, camp grounds, hiking trails, winter recreation and year-round accommodations ([Leisureville] Boosters c. 1953, [Leisureville] Chamber of Commerce 1974a). The economic zeal of local businesses--real estate, land speculation, building, insurance, and general vacation spending--have promoted settlement and activities which have little coincidence with the legal boundaries of the village and often the county. Understandably the Leisureville Chamber of Commerce is a community organization which has stressed and depended on this more 'natural' extent. The Leisureville Post Office (or Postal Address) follows these same general outlines. Like the 'vacationland,‘ the postal route includes all residences--seasonal and year-round--which can be best serviced from the central village. The physical area, like the 'vacationland' is huge. over 15 miles at its widest east-west 41 extent and over 21 miles at its greatest north-south limits. The population, however, in much of this area is sparce. A single cabin with a Leisureville address may be isolated by acres of State land. Its inhabitants, too, may be home only several months of every year. The great concentration of persons lives within a three to four mile radius of the village. This, not incidentally, is the area which sports the largest lakes and the greatest extent of privately owned land. Within this clustering the township claims the largest number of persons and the greatest amount of development. Leisureville the Township Ten years ago, the 'vacationland' seemed to most successfully delimit Leisureville. Data from earlier field research (Spielberg 1963) provide excellent testimony. . . . I asked 'how far does one have to go (in all directions) before the people tell you they are not from [Leisureville]?' To this [J.O.] answer (sic), quite definitely, about 10 miles in all four directions. Beyond that distance, he feels, people would tend to say they were from one of the other, more closer communities. 'How far in all directions would you have to go before people would begin telling you they lived in another com- munity (community other than [Leisureville]) of the general area?’ According to her, the Southern limits to such an area are approximately 10 miles; the eastern limits, 7 or 8 miles; the northern limits, 5 miles; the western limits, 6 miles. According to him the real limits of [Leisureville] (or rather the distribution of [Leisurevillites]) is about 5 or 6 miles from center to the east and west, and about 8 or 9 miles in a north to south axis. The above matches pretty closely with what other informants have reported. 42 This author's field notes, ten years later, allow for inter- esting comparison. Paul Piispanen, life long resident, provides not only contrastive dimensions, but illustrates the relationship, if not the precise interchangeability of Leisureville and Timber Town- ship. I asked [Paul] what he felt the size of [Leisureville] was. He said about 1000 for [Leisureville] and about 5000 for the county. Since 1000 is the figure given for [Timber] Township, I was a bit puzzled . . . . I asked whether there was any other concentration of people (in [Timber] Township) and [Paul] said 'no' . . . I asked what, in his opinion was the geographical extent of [Leisureville] and he said 'the township.’ I asked whether there were any distinctions between persons living close to town and those persons living farther out . . . he said 'no' . . . . I then asked if someone said that they were from [Timber] Township would that imply they were also from [Leisureville]. [Paul] said that 'no one says they are from [Timber] Township. They always say they are from [Leisureville].' Another illustration which confirms Paul's statement and demonstrates these changing dimensions involves Tod Mills, a life long resident, successful business owner, township trustee, and an active participant in all community affairs. Last fall Tod moved his family to a large farm house north of town and just outside township boundaries. The move amounted to a distance of five miles. Tod remained active in all his usual social organizations and activi- ties, with the obvious exception of the Township Board, and inter- acted daily with all the same people. It was generally understood, however, that Tod no longer lived in Leisureville. He had moved to "the old [McAdams] Farm out in [Sage] Township." Township boundaries have become significant, if not sole, community dimensions. 43 This geographical 'pulling in' or increasing coincidence between Leisureville and township demonstrates the community's flexi- bility over time. Leisureville is no more or less a village, a 'vaca- tionland' than it is a township. It has no natural or fixed geo- graphical or political extent. A danger of this static point of view is nicely presented in the author's field notes when, after talking with Paul, she concluded, "Leisureville then, as far as I can piece together, has no geographical extent of its own, but takes its limits from the political township boundaries." Beside disregarding almost 100 years of earlier, and theoretically more traditional or natural, community history, it casts community as a collection of well described and thoroughly prescribed conditions. This, in spite of the fact that data from ten years ago, as well as historical materials, leave it unsupported; Leisureville is social activity in a continuous state of organization and now, increasingly coincidental with what have been designated as township dimensions and township responsibilities. Why this activity is able to take new organiza- tional forms is a question that must wait until later. A description of its present form will hopefully provide a basis for developing a sense of this change. The Organization of Leisureville The [Timber] Township Zoning Ordinance of July 1971, is a piece of local legislation aimed at community develOpment. It formally outlines the land use and economic interests which exist in Leisureville. It was promoted and written by local businessmen, 44 wealthy retirees and other 'Active' residents who were becoming dis- turbed by the disorderly settlement of the area. The 'charms' of the community, its attractiveness for future residents, vacationers, merchants, industrialists, etc., were suffering, they felt, from a lack of planning and regulation. At the time of the ordinance, junk cars decorated the woods. Abandoned buildings stood as fire hazards and eye sores. Trailers of all descriptions sat idiosyncratically on empty lots. Businesses were creeping into residential areas. Lake frontage grew dangerously overcrowded. Sanitary and building codes were negligible as was formal standardization of any kind. (The in-migration of urbanites, particularly after the 1967 Detroit Riots, accelerated these management problems. The increased popula- tion also made the usual, informal, social controls less effec- tive.) The ordinance was undertaken for the 'good of the community' and to prevent, as far as possible, the continuation of this unprofitable disorder. It was among the first piece of legislative action taken by the township and it established the following land use districts. The recreational district (R-l) (see Map 2.1) most nearly coincides with the State owned land and privately owned forest areas. It is located in the northwest corner and most of the eastern half of the township claiming 40 of the township's 72 sections. It is pri- marily the home of a few remaining hunt clubs and the community's scenic routes and snowmobile trails. Only one-eighth of the district, about 3500 acres, is privately owned. The largest private owner is 45 .pnmp .mucmcwuco mcwcoN awcmczoh memnewhu soc» cmxeh .muowgpmma mcmcoN "awgmczop Loas_huu.F.m am: :4... I. it: n I ..|__I....l_.l. EImZ>>Oh mme; Ta 43-33051. . puibaa ~D_>01I>Iu| u .i-Zé 11.50:. 1 41.9.2.qu .1 >19 1...... £2.35: .a.vx.Ilcv, a 1v .a-luus i>l§n .l . II pvi. '5 dS-Ibgbtl - 438:1.5‘ | .- 353351 I 1 47 Mr. Asch, a highly successful Detroit businessman, now retired in Leisureville. He owns over 500 acres of recreational land. The agricultural district (A) (Map 2.1) is located north and east of town, covering 13 of the township's sections. Both areas are empty reminders of the farming which once took place there. The district is characterized by large tracts of privately owned land, the vast majority of which remains in 40 to 200 acre parcels. Leisureville 'old-timers' hold title to much of this area and many are reluctant to sell or subdivide. The district is without lake frontage and though it is surrounded in many cases by state forest, seems to have remained the least developed, least populated and least valuable as real estate. The residential district (R-Z) (Map 2.1) lies in the south- west quarter of the township surrounding the Silver Lakes (these and 1100 adjoining acres are also owned by Mr. Asch), the Sister Lakes and the Village of Leisureville. It is an area designated for single family dwellings, and is coincidental with the major township resorts and 42 of its 55+ subdivisions. The district which covers 14 town- ship sections (though at least four of these are under lake water) is the most densely populated and draws the greatest property and real estate values within the township. The district also supports the greatest internal variation. Depending primarily on its loca- tion on or off the lake, the assessed value of an undeveloped lot ranges from $300 to $2300. Lots along West Sister sell at $500 and up per foot of lake frontage. 48 Nevertheless, it is here too that overcrowding along the lake shores, particularly along the north side of East Sister, has become a serious environmental and health problem. Much of the construction has occurred at or below lake level. There are no sewers and septic systems are nonfunctional since the ground will not 'perk.' As a result, the lake has become polluted by fecal matter. The increasing nitrogen content encourages plant life which chokes both the water- ways and the fish, and the houses, many residents complain,"float on a layer of muck." As of 1973 an injunction against building has been issued in Deer Wood Beach, one of Leisureville's earliest subdivisions (1926). Property values have dropped, personal investments have been lost, and tourist attractiveness has suffered. Aside from the injunction, however, no other corrective action has yet been taken. Leisureville's three churches (Congregational, Lutheran, Catholic) and elementary school are also located within the resi- dential district. The residential district (R-3) (Map 2.1) is located north and east of the village and is designated for single and double family dwellings. No multiple housing has yet appeared in Leisure- ville. Due to its distance from the Sister Lakes the district exhibits certain marginal characteristics. It claims both the least prestigious and the newest and least developed subdivisions in the township. The former have no lake frontage. Structures are typically one to four room cabins for vacation use, or these same cabins slightly 'improved' to serve as year-round retirement homes. The latter are the result of continued real estate speculation and 49 sales. The Wildflower subdivisions northeast of the village will serve as good illustrations. Their development in 1970, 1972 and 1973 created over a hundred 100' x 300' lots which are now being sold by Higgins Real Estate. Over one half of these have already been purchased, though little building has begun. The majority of these as yet 'invisible' residents anticipate retiring and moving permanently to the area within the next two to five years. The mobile home district (not indicated on Map 2.1) was not zoned in the original ordinance, but since that time two mobile home subdivisions have been developed. One is north of the village, the other two miles west on County Road 208. Both are being pro- moted by Higgins Real Estate (who, not surprisingly, also sells mobile homes). Like the Wildflower subdivision, lots (about a hundred 100' x 150') are being purchased by persons from 'down state' who expect to retire 'up North.‘ The commercial district extends for about a mile east and west of the blinking light along both sides of County Road 208 and for a two square block area south of the light straddling Center Street. The ordinance makes a finer differentiation calling the stretch along 208 "commercial vehicular" (CV) (Map 2.2), and the two square block area "commercial pedestrian” (CP) (Map 2.2). This latter constitutes the 'hub' of the commercial district and contains some of the most successful as well as some of the oldest businesses in the community. Leisureville businesses reflect the change characteristic of the community over the last ten years. About twenty new 'store 50 Map 2.2.--Leisureville Area: Zoning Districts. Taken from [Timber] Township Zoning Ordinance, 1971. I W 1 ,—_. I ———— C1D W. k (fr—Tl—J—f' ..2 _—L:’/ \\\\ ,Ai// 1 ‘ ; a, l ' 1 £131 3131mm 2 ‘ L—Jl—J 52 front' businesses have established themselves, though an equal number have met with misfortune. Of those remaining, only three have not changed ownership and only one has neither expanded nor relocated. Local businesses are being purchased by 'down staters,' ex- vacationers, who "always wanted to live in Leisureville," but were uncertain how they would make a living. In many cases they have taken over 20 to 30 year old family businesses. The former owners are now of retirement age, or have grown "tired of dealing with the public." Their children have mostly left the area. Some have married out. Some have gone to college or into the service. Almost all have found employment elsewhere. Little family, or 'old timer' continuity has remained. The only obvious exception to this pattern is Stalker Hard- ware, a source of nostalgic pride for 'old timers' and a rustic curiosity for newer residents. The hardware, still in its original building though greatly expanded, was begun in the early 19005 by Gerald Stalker, blacksmith for the lumbering community and the surrounding farm areas. Early financial success and the diversity of merchandise enabled the business to continue after lumbering left the area and throughout the depression. During this period Gerald and his son, Able, acquired, by purchase and as payment, large tracts of land which promised to be prime resort property a decade or two later. Able took over the family business and expanded it. (There is now a Stalker hardware in each of two neighboring com- munities.) From the 19405 to the 19605 he was chairman of the bank's board of directors and a powerful force in the development of the area . 53 With the increase in population, retail shops and services and the availability of finance through outside banks, the Stalker influence of earlier years is less compelling. Nevertheless, the hardware remains the largest retail business, employing about 15 persons. Now retired, Able remains Senior Vice-President of the bank, and contrary to the general community trend, his son, Gerald II has taken over the management of the store. Despite variations in their success and duration, Leisure- ville businesses are still small and family centered. Few employ over ten nonfamily persons and many of these hold part-time positions. Unexpected fluctuations in the tourist trade strain even the most stable commercial enterprises and local spending alone is not sufficient to sustain business. Highly specialized shops and services and/or large payrolls can be given little practical encouragement from within the community. By contrast, "to be your own boss" is a strong community sentiment. Front yard billboards, posters in "downtown" windows advertise the self-employed elec- trician, plumber, painter, etc. These home operated businesses far outnumber the commercial fstorefronts,‘ but must often be supple- mented by other part-time or seasonal employment. Some, however, like Luke Dugan, a grading and excavating contractor, can make a living by utilizing multiple variations on a single service theme. The sign outside his home lists these employment possibilities: "lakes and ponds dug, portable welding, end loading, weed mowing, drag line service, bulldozing, trucking, septic tanks, snow removal, snow plowing." Many of these businesses, particularly those which 54 lie in the R-2 district and which require heavy equipment and/or raw materials violate the zoning ordinance. Their expansion, construction, or major maintenance is now illegal. The industrial district (1) (Map 2.1) is a disjointed 550+ acre area north and east of town. Its major occupant, Leisureville Unlimited, is a small, nonunion branch plant of a Detroit firm. The plant manufactures automobile trim which, like all Leisureville products, must be trucked 'down state.‘ It employs 100-120 people of whom all but about twenty managers, foremen and truckers, are women. "The shop," as it is called by employees, was the first member of the Leisureville Industrial Park Complex, an 80 acre tract of land north of town originally owned by Mr. Davis, the brother- in-law of Able Stalker and a Florida resident for the past twenty years. Inducement to locate in Leisureville was provided by a cheap labor supply and deliberate courting by the Leisureville Bank and the Leisureville Industrial Development Corporation (IDC). The IDC formed in 1968 in response to this specific need, the major leader- ship coming from Mr. James (the insurance agent), Mr. Higgins, Mr. Helinski (real estate broker), Mr. Stalker, and Mr. Asch. Financial pledges were made by local businesses and residents. The community donated the necessary land and the bank graciously financed the plant's construction. Although the plant has introduced year-round and nontourist dependent employment to the community, its opening in November 1969 has been accompanied by quiet displeasure on the part of many 55 residents, particularly the 'old-timers.' These persons feel that the plant has attracted an unwholesome element to the area. Working women, divorcees, ADC and welfare recipients, they feel, are attracted or even created by the available employment. In retro- spect, they believe, the community would be better off with small shops employing five to ten local men. In early 1974 such a small, locally-owned, small plastic parts manufacturing plant began operations. The owner is a recent 'trans- plant' from 'down state' and Mr. Asch has been respondible for under- writing and stabilizing the concern. Since the author's departure in September 1974, Keith Reilly, a local builder, has added his ware- house to the complex. These three structures presently comprise Leisureville's Industrial Park. Also within the district, though not specifically within the complex, is an individually owned and operated saw mill, the Leisureville Medical Clinic, a privately owned (but township main- tained) 220 acre airport, the township dump (a "sanitary landfill” as of July 1973), a wood pallet mill which employs about ten men, the remains of an asphalt laying concern which came into and went out of business in less than a year, and finally east of town on County Road 208, Tod Mill's Trucking and Transit Mix Concrete, one of the largest service businesses in Leisureville. The extractive district (E) (Map 2.1) is represented by a 50 acre gravel pit two miles east of town. It is owned by a concrete business which is a competitor of Tod Mills. Though not indicated by the zoning ordinance map, other extractive operations exist in 56 Leisureville. These relate to the wood industry. Independent pulp cutters contract to clear land, often for future development, and sell the felled timber to wood processing companies. A more recent variation on the traditional Leisureville theme of "working in the woods" is provided by a locally run tree harvesting operation. The machinery necessary to 'chew up' whole trees and 'spit them out' as wood chips has been financed by United Wood Products, a major manu- facturer of particle board. With this machinery, the independent Leisureville operator and his crew of lO-12 men are contracted by United Wood Products. Tod Mills, in turn, is subcontracted to haul the chips out of the area. The Image: Some Ideological Dimensions While geographical extents and land use districts provide an outline of Leisureville's physical form and are suggestive of com- munity activity, there is another, possibly more stable dimension, which provides community definition. Leisureville is a small town with a well manicured and unshakable self-image. Residents share a sense of themselves which, though less physically concrete, is no less significant for describing the community design. Leisureville is almost gygrfconscious of itself. Few opportunities for promoting community virtues, of praising local activities and selfless indi- viduals or of publicizing 'rural truths' are neglected. "Welcome to the North Woods" Possibly one of the most immediately obvious elements of Leisureville's self concept is the community's closeness to nature. 57 The tourist business relies heavily on this theme, and local publicity is rich with woodsy descriptions which provide picturesque backdrops for the quality of life in the 'natural' setting. A local newspaper columnist explains: One of the attractions of an area like [Leisureville] is the pace and quality of life among lakes and streams, woods and rolling hills, away from the pressures of metropolitan areas. There is a sense of community, of mutual responsibility, which [newer] residents find most appealing in contrast to towns they have left behind ([Mayville] County Herald Times, November 3, 1972). While Leisureville does not claim to be the proverbial Garden of Eden, its residents do feel it offers a "healthier atmosphere," "fewer taxes," a "good place to raise children,‘' "a less complicated way of life." There is vigorous support for all the established rural/urban dichotomies. Cities become the 'standard' against which the virtues of Leisureville are measured. Cities are considered to be the breeding ground for crime, addiction, race riots, crowds, anonymity, filth, speed and impotence. They have few, if any, redeeming qualities for Leisurevillites, and they are certainly not places one would ghggsg_to live. Mention is occasionally made, and then only by women, of the finer cultural or artistic opportunities within the city. It is always added, however, that with sufficient individual initiative such programs could be created or found 'up North.‘ There may not be as many, but what is lacked in quantity is made up for in sincerity. A pity mixed with contempt is expressed for the city dweller and the tourist; people who somehow couldn't or wouldn't leave their sullied environment. It is realized, of course, that if everyone 58 were to leave, the problems of the cities would crop-up elsewhere-- in Leisureville perhaps. But everyone doesn't leave, and that very fact is sufficient to establish the uniqueness and superiority of Leisureville residents. As Joan Able explains in her weekly column "The [Leisureville] Round-Up," [Leisureville] is a charming town nestled among lakes and wooded hills to delight the nature lover. We glow with civic pride as visitors admire our village and we admit to a feeling of smug satisfaction every Sunday evening when down-staters start their long trek home. We don't have to 1eave--we ARE home, and glad to be here ([Mayville] County Herald Tribune, July 19, 1973). This exclusiveness based on rural/urban divisions establishes boundaries as decidedly as any barbed wire fence, and care is taken that 'bad' elements don't move in or undermine the community. So securely entrenched is the dichotomy that local problems of any magnitude (i.e., drugs, crime, welfare, pollution) are immediately perceived as being "city imports." Often, as in the case of drugs and crime, it is felt that faceless outsiders are deriving personal gain by corrupting a simpler, more honest way of life. In a public statement the county commissioners warn, "The pushers are waiting outside for [your children] . . . They will use every trick in the book to see that your child is hooked" ([Remote] County Tribune, May 23, 1974). The county sheriff similarly explains the rash of breaking and enterings. "Corrupt adults downstate are using these local kids to do their dirty work . . . the kids often not realizing the consequences of their acts" ([Remote] County Tribune, March 13, 1975). 59 By contrast, Leisureville is felt to be free of the pollu- tion, the over-mechanization, the insane and dehumanizing pace that haunts the city. It is seen as a place that can put human beings back together; an oasis of health in a "sick society." For Leisurevillites, the rural environment transcends material concerns or perhaps more accurately, cannot be reduced to a dollar and cent equivalent. Many persons like Joan Able, a resident for only the past two years, have voluntarily taken cuts in income and life style to live permanently 'up North.‘ Wally Gamble, a recent retiree from Detroit and Leisureville's building inspector and zoning administrator, confided: I don't want to blow my own horn, but shortly after we got here my old boss phoned me up to ask me to come back to work at two and a half times my regular pay. Things just weren't running right without me. Me and the wife drove down to Detroit to talk it over. We never even got to the place. As soon as we hit the city, I looked at her, and she looked at me. We never even said a word. I turned the car around and we headed back to [Leisureville]. Tod Shaker, a long time resident, similarly argues that he has turned down every offer he has had to move his family to an urban area. Despite attractive salary offers, he insists, "I don't need that kind of aggrevation." Like Emerson and Thoreau before her, Joan Able writes: And for some things we don't need cash. We still have our lakes and wooded hills. Our air is clean and envigorating. Our snow is dusted not with the soot and grime of cities but the fresh white powder of a new snowfall. The night sky is clear and sprinkled with starlight. Even if the electricity goes off as it did last Saturday night, the warm glow of candlelight, the crackle of a blazing fire in the hearth, and the scent of wood smoke comfort us ([Mayville] County Herald Tribune, February 21, 1974). 60 But nature's considerable extent and beauty, while an essential part of the Leisureville portrait, is also felt to underlie other vital characteristics. The quasi-wilderness, it is felt, selects for, if it does not produce, a type-individual and a type- community. Hardly a week goes by without one of the two local news- paper columns reporting the glowing, though slightly envious, praise bestowed upon the community by nonresidents. We hear many compliments about how friendly [Leisure- ville] pe0ple are and much wistful talk about 'I wish WE could live here' ([Mayville] County Herald Tribune, November 15, 1973). Who says chivalry is dead? We know two ladies who are singing the praises of our community in general and one young man in particular. Stranded after dark with a flat tire on a lonely stretch of [road], one of the pair was frightened and sure no help would come; the other assured her some one would come along. 'It's different up here,‘ she comforted her companion. 'People take care of each other.‘ Sure enough, a knight errant . . . ([Mayville] County Herald Tribune, December 6, 1973). In the [Twin Trails] Grocery last week a tourist came in and asked for the local Newspaper. [Jane] said she had just sold the last one to this man who was still standing and talking [a local resident]. He promptly said 'Have mine, I can get another.’ So--he gave the paper to the stranger. See--we do have GOOD WILL in our town ([Remote] County Tribune, July 3, 1975). Distances are great, manpower limited, emergencies common. Residents, it is firmly believed, pull together in time of need, volunteer and serve in the interests of the community, and both physically subdue and utilize the elements of nature. To live in Leisureville, residents feel, demands a 'fitness,‘ a self-reliance, a sturdiness of spirit. It selects for the ruggedness, self- determination, resourcefulness, equality and democracy which built 61 a nation and which stand guardian over 'the land of the free and the home of the brave.‘ While Leisurevillites are not faced with precisely the same conditions as their forefathers, as people, they feel, they are made from the same mold. Joan Able once again explains: . . . we can work together to help outselves over the tough times and prepare for better things ahead . . . . This is a necessary first in returning to the public spirited community action which characterized the American people in the past and which we have never lost here. We need some more good old fashioned pioneer spirit (IMayville] County Herald Tribune, February 28, 1974, emphasis mineT. Interestingly, it is not Leisureville forefathers specifically whose virtues are valued and enumerated. There are few left who can remember the lumbering era, and except for the attentions of their immediate families, these 'old-timers' remain inconspicuous and unsung. Rather, residents have a generalized belief in the 'right- ness' or worth of the individual and the social equality and political democracy popularly associated with the country's pioneer- ing past. They believe that despite the nation's increasing popula- tion, corporate interests and government control, Leisureville, in a manner reminiscent of the American frontier, provides the Oppor- tunity or 'safety valve' by which a man can still avoid enslavement by his own social and mechanical creations. The reasons for moving to Leisureville amply demonstrate this, for people explain their presence by describing the problems they have 1eft--racial tensions, busing legislation, unrestricted housing, taxes, the 8 to 5 routine, marital problems, physical assault, etc. "As much as I hate to admit it," one resident and ex-vacationer volunteered, "everyone 62 here ran away from something." Leisureville, it is felt, in its relatively undeveloped natural surroundings, is a land of promise where the basics of the American way of life may still be made to work. Its residents, it is further felt, possess the internal make- up equal to the challenge. "You Can Make It Here If You Reale want To" Leisurevillites place great emphasis on the integrity of the individual. He is praised and respected not for his clothes, his family name or fortune, but for his personal qualities of resource- fulness, determination and autonomy. The ability 'to do for one- self' establishes an individual's worth. (Of course, as will be discussed later, clothes, family and fortune are quite often material indicators of this ability.) He relies, it is felt, upon common sense, a natural quickness to size up situations and take the initiative. When opportunity knocks, he is expected to be ready. Leisurevillites enjoy relating stories in which one individual outwitted or out— maneuvered another. A recent example involved Paul Piispanen who was hired by Roy Hale to clear forty acres of timber. After being paid for clearing it, Paul hauled it away, corded it and several months later sold the same wood back to Roy for ten dollars a cord. Formal training, it is often argued, can ruin an individual's natural ability. Many Leisureville residents, ex-vacationers as well as 'old-timers' pride themselves on the fact that they never finished high school or were never officially licensed. "I hgg_to go out and work and it didn't hurt me one bit." "I learned more than 63 you'll ever find in a book just through experience." "By the time you've finished college you can't think for yourself any more." These are all familiar Leisureville sentiments. Even Dr. Rappa is praised not for his professional expertise, but for his "horse sense.‘I Tod Shaker, ex-farmer, ex-horse trader, ex-plant manager, ex-odd jobber, ex-stable owner and present insurance agent care- fully explained what he felt was the way things should be: It used to be a man would say he was a carpenter but he'd do other things as well . . . . Often he didn't even know how to build but he said he was a carpenter any way. He would never get the job if he said he wasn't a carpenter. Your house might be the first he ever built but he would be getting the experience to build a better one next time. This was the way everyone got started--just by doing. This same pride in personal initiative is expressed toward the Leisureville youth who perform in the annual Chamber of Commerce Water Ski Show. We are often compared with the Cypress Gardens Florida Show. That one is performed by paid professionals, and we are often told by those who have seen both ours and theirs that you will see techniques and acts in [Leisureville] that nobody in Florida does. Maybe that's because our kids don't know that it 'can't be done' ([Leisurevillel Chamber of’Commerce T974b, emphasis mine). The individual, it is felt, is free to make his own decisions, to attain whatever degree of success he desires. The outcome of necessity is entirely the result of his own efforts. But, results are attained through hard work. Work and a ready willingness to do it underlie achievement and are the measure of a man. The worth of any individual can be reduced to this working dimension. This is nicely illustrated in an early discussion the author had with Paula Japlan, a young divorcee who was "working three jobs" to support her children. 64 After initial introductions, Paula asked, "What do you do?" and the author explained the nature of her research. Paula then asked, "How do you make a living?" and the author explained she had received a fifteen month grant” After'a few further questions--"How do you like the com- munity?" "Where do you spend your time?"--Paula asked in undisguised disbelief, "Don'tyou want to work?" Her more discrete attempts to size up the author had been unsuccessful, she had now come directly to the point. Residents, it is felt, don't just hang idly around, and this is one of the first criteria used to distinguish them from vaca- tioners. The irony, of course, in the name Leisureville, lies in the fact that it is not what residents do, but what vacationers do. Joan Able somewhat self-righteously notes a more visible means by which Leisurevillites and resorters can be distinguished. "It's easy to identify the natives in July--we're the ones without sun tan5" ([Mayville] County Herald Times, July 19, 1973). Both the work ethic and the rural/urban dichotomy are nicely described. Similarly, to publicly squander money or material goods (no matter how they were acquired) or to accept something for nothing is suspect and subject to social criticism. It indicates a nonpracticality--someone who does not value work or who has put none into the goods thus misused. Local gossip, for instance, will center on a family whose children get free school lunch, who have difficulty meeting house payments yet who have been seen 'eating out' at considerable expense. Criticism is also directed toward a wife who "throws more out the back door with a teaspoon than her husband can shovel in at the front." 65 Those who do not tflgggg_to help themselves, failing to either provide an 'honest day's work for an honest day's pay' or 'pull themselves up by the bootstraps' are considered undesirable. Only a morally weak individual would 'give up' and allow others to assume the responsibility for himself and his family. Such attitudes freely expressed in Leisureville. In response to an application by a local resident for the position of township police officer, Chuck Bates, township trustee and an unofficial community opinion leader, said "He's been unemployed for six months and hasn't made any effort to find a job. I don't think he has what it takes." The man was never considered further. Similarly, rehashing a 'lively' debate at a Township Board meeting, Wally Gamble was quick to discredit the group "doing all the complaining" by simply stating "They're all on welfare." He justified his opposition to their demands by adding "They drink their monthly checks leaving their children without proper care." Such behavior was so despicable to him that he questioned their right to public opinion. "Someone should have shut them up. They have no idea what's been going on. They don't even know what they're yapping about." Leisurevillites are very interested in what others do to make a living. Once this is resolved the next question is "Do you [does your husband] own your own business?" With these two questions, residents are able to categorize and rank themselves against others. The importance they place on 'being your own man' cannot be over-emphasized. Whenever possible men will work for 66 themselves. When store fronts cannot be managed, homes serve as offices. All that really seems necessary is a business card and a sign. Almost every jeep, van and pick-up in the area is a rolling advertisement. It is with just such notions of 'being my own boss' that many residents originally left the cities. Some resented the fact that they could take no pride in their work. Others resented "taking orders from kids who only knew what was written in books." Some grew angry at being used to make a profit for company manage- ment. One resident somewhat more symbolically remarked, "My husband received a notice which said he would be eligible for retirement in 1984. We figured it was about time we got out and 'did our own thing.'" For Leisureville the self-made man is champion among men, and the differences which exist between him and others are achieved through hard work. No one would deny that "you can make it here if you really want to," and there exists the deep seated conviction that with sufficient determination and hard work anyone can become President. Ben Miller, for example, a recent resident, business owner, and community "Active" was visibly shaken when he realized, amid Watergate, fuel shortage (1974), and inflation/depression, that he couldn't work any harder. He was daily slipping further into debt and frantic for the security of his family. All his Horacio Alger premises were collapsing, and he was left impotent and angry. At about this time an interest in the John Birch Society began to emerge. Those who found Birch tenents most attractive were new, 67 though advancing, businessmen like Ben who had 'played the game by the rules' (i.e., worked hard, gone without extras, invested capital and anticipated returns for their efforts), but had been foiled by government regulations, rising prices, interest rates, etc. The explanation which they found most tenable recognized the problem as resulting not from the American form of government or the Constitu- tion as they were first established, but from their current sabotage by the Communists. This reasserted the 'rags to riches' potential of the Republic and placed the fault not with persons like Ben Miller, but with morally weak men and external enemies. While the respected, hard working individual need not be rich, the presence of the latter (i.e., financial and social success) is the anticipated return for the former. This was the assumption made by Ben Miller--work was the legitimate vehicle for self- improvement. And this is the assumption made by Leisurevillites generally. Opportunities are always being sought to expand business, to invest in property, to develop a subdivision, to sell at a profit and build again. Such attitude is reflected in the acres of land marked off with stakes and veined with black top waiting to be purchased by 'down staters.‘ It is reflected in Bud Thorsen's plan to sell the house he has almost completed for himself and his wife, and start two new ones with the capital. It is reflected in the overcrowded lake frontage and the polluted Sister Lakes. It is a belief in self-promotion, in work as a social equalizer and success as an individual achievement. 68 "We're a Community of Joiners. People Are Always Organizing fer Something“ Leisureville is not antagonistic toward progress. Rather, it takes deliberate pride in publicizing individual and collective accomplishments. Just as the volunteer water skiiers demonstrated the superior nature of local talent, Leisureville, it is felt, is a community made up of people with special ability. With considerable regularity newspaper headlines announce such things as "[Leisure- ville] Vigilant Guard of Northern Beauty" ([Lake] City Times, May 5, 1974); "[Timber] Township Residents 'Buy' Police Protection" ([Mayville] County Herald Tribune, February 21, 1974); "[Timber] Township Plans for the Future--Sma11est Township in Northern Michigan with Planning and Zoning Commissions" ([Mayville] County Herald Tribune, November 31, 1972). Despite its size, Leisureville promotes itself as "Fun Country U.S.A." It is a community with con- siderable self confidence. This confidence was clearly expressed by Burt James, a com- munity "Active," business owner and Chamber of Commerce president. Faced with the 1973-1974 gas shortage and general economic 'crunch' he called a Chamber meeting to formulate a community strategy; a cooperative means of dealing with the problem. A uniform policy for saving energy, and encouraging tourism, it was agreed, was better than numerous private tangents, but spirits still sagged. Undaunted, Burt emphatically chided, "Think positively! We're not going to die. We're going to move by Christ! I really believe that." 69 The key to Leisureville's success and continual development lies, it is felt, in the willingness of its residents to act in the interests of the community. "Just about everyone works together around here to keep this a great place to live--and we want to keep it just that way" ([Lake] City Times, May 5, 1974). It is believed that residents care about one another, and about vacationers while they're present, in a way reminiscent of simpler times. Tourist promotionals and private reflections stress the "friendliness," the "neighborliness," the "warmth," the "small town appeal" that is felt to characterize the community. People are important to Leisure- villites. According to Joan Able, A continuing ray of sunshine can be found, no matter how horrible the weather, in conversations with [Leisure- ville] people. Life-long residents, those who moved here thirty years ago, and the latest newcomers all seem to share an affection for each other which is seldom marred by feuding and fussing ([Mayville] County Herald Tribune, January 24, 1974). At the end of her weekly chatter column the "[Leisureville] Newsletter," Dolly Green announces, usually in advance, the birth- days and anniversaries of community residents. She also faithfully reports local accidents, illnesses, hospital addresses and visiting hours making her column sound, from time to time, more like a battle- front directory than the news of a community. Nevertheless, resi- dents are genuinely moved by the aid they receive in times of diffi- culty. One woman after a three month long illness said, "I had to turn casseroles away at the door. There was never a day when I was without food, transportation or visitors." Others, years after a personal tragedy (i.e., death, accident, fire, etc.), voluntarily 7O recall the support they received from people they only casually knew. Sunshine committees are standard equipment for most local organiza- tions and 'thank-yous' are typically published in the newspapers-- meant for the whole "town family" to read. Both a sense of belonging and security exist in the expressed pledge of a Leisurevillite-- "You won't go hungry here as long as someone has something to eat. We take care of our own." A fairly literal example of this sharing took place recently during the 1973-1974 business slump--caused in large part by the gas shortage, the threat of depression and aggravated by the traditionally slower winter months. Despite 'austerity budgets,’ Ben Miller organized a group of thirty-odd people to eat out at a local restaur- ant. The owner--a supporter of community affairs--was experiencing severe financial difficulty and Ben argued that this would be a way to "help him out." Joan Able provides further illustration: People are still talking . . . about the dedicated volunteer effort put forth by about three hundred concerned citizens in search for a lost boy a couple of weeks ago. That story . . . had a happy ending, a well deserved reward for weary searchers who tramped together through some of the roughest country around. The searchers literally worked hand-in-hand. Searchers for solutions to the economic crunch which threatens our town are working symbolically hand-in-hand ([Mayville] County Herald Tribune, December 6, 1973). Cooperation for the community good is believed to be a characteristic of Leisureville. Local activities are always explained in these terms and opposition criticized for just this failing. Individuals volunteer their time endlessly. Every winter, for 71 instance, Tod Mills uses his snow equipment to plow out the three church parking lots. This he does, not only without charge, but without ever having been asked. He donates his "sugar bush" and maple sugar refining outfit to the Leisureville Lions Club. They, in turn, sponsor an annual Pancake Breakfast using the proceeds for charitable purposes. He donated both his equipment and his time to serve as ski instructor at the local ski hill and as coach for the high school ski team. He served as township trustee and sends his employees and machinery out to do odd jobs around town (i.e., dumping fill, digging a trench, welding a basketball hoop, flooding the ice rink, moving a shed). He is a member of the Chamber of Commerce, has been a volunteer fireman, and belongs to almost every 'ad hoc' committee that forms. Similarly, the new Lutheran church was recently completed in what is felt to be typical Leisureville fashion. It was built by volunteer labor, with donated materials and money obtained through bake sales, rummage sales, and barbecues. The large tourist week- ends; the Water Ski Show and the Winter Carnival, are also regarded as total community affairs. The firemen hold barbecues and raffles. The Farm and Garden organize craft displays. High school classes sponsor luncheons. Sportsmen set up rifle ranges. The Snow Kings mark snowmobile trails. Cheerleaders sell programs. Church groups sit at bake sales. The Boy Scouts clean up park areas. Donated time and materials are organized into parades, floats and ski shows. As Flossie Miner, the township clerk summarized, "We're a community of joiners. People are always organizing for something." As a 72 result, there is no need for anyone to be lonely or bored. To be either, it is felt, is "one's own fault," for there is just too much to do and anyone is welcome who is willing to 'roll up his sleeves' and contribute. The 1974 Winter Carnival was especially symbolic of this Leisureville attitude. Its theme was an "Old Fashioned Winter Week- end" and the emphasis was placed on things people could do without-- large machines and bulging bank accounts. It was announced that vacationers would "find here the fun of 'people-powered'sports" (sleigh rides, snow shoeing, ice fishing, ice skating, snow sculpture). This is the sense Leisurevillites have of their community. It runs on a reservoir of pooled human resources, or as Joan Able emphatically writes, "Best of all, we rejoice in the cheerful companionship of those who work together to help our community and in warm friend- ships, old and new, which make life in [Leisureville] worth the effort" ([Mayville] County Herald Times, February 21, 1974). "We'll Do It Ourselves" A belief in local level self-government is a counterpart to the pervasive belief in the individual and individual autonomy. It is also an extension of the community's belief in its collective self. While it is generally agreed that the best government is the least government, some government is needed to protect individual rights, and this is regarded as a local responsibility. Leisureville, it is felt, is a community which makes its own decisions and possesses both the ability and the right to define 73 local needs and eliminate them. It is pointed out, for instance, that in an effort to curb the increasing number of breaking and enterings and civil disturbances, the community purchased its own police car. It further established its own police screening com- mittee, Police Administration Board and hired its own policeman. Similarly, it is boasted that the township researched and drew up its own zoning ordinance. A self-satisfaction mixed with contempt is expressed by residents when they discuss neighboring townships who have taken Leisureville's lead and "copied ggt ordinance word for word." Even the introduction of industry is explained in a news- paper article as the result of local direction and self-management. A bunch of us were sitting [at] the bar, when a guy named [Will Murray] walked in. He heard us talking about a small downstate plant that made trim for the Big Three auto makers and that was interested in moving. He said, 'get that plant to move up here!‘ That same Saturday we met with [Bob] [manager of Leisureville Unlimited]. The first thing he asked was 'Do you have an IDC?‘ . . . We said sure we do. Then we went right home and formed one, with [Walter Macy] of the bank as first president. In two weeks we were off and rolling ([Lake] City Times, May 5, 1974). Leisureville and self-government are felt to be synonymous. The Township Board, for instance, holds monthly public meetings and while they are often long and monotonous, they are defended as a lesson in grass roots democracy, in direct representation and participation. Each resident, it is felt, can be involved in local decision-making and each "can make a difference." In a manner variously likened to the New England town meeting or the 'pioneering 74 initiative,‘ Leisurevillites feel that they are practicing--as they should be practiced--the individual freedoms and responsibilities which built the nation and which are guaranteed to every American citizen. Board members regularly insist, "We want to help ourselves first. Later, we can go to others for help. We want to do it ourselves." Similarly, during the gas shortage it was publically written that "The towns that wait for the government to act will have a long cold winter, but if we work together we can help ourselves" ([Mayville] County Herald Tribune, December 6, 1973). A sense of community insularity prevails and is accompanied by an avoidance and often overt hatred of external influences and control. 'Old timers' come to resent the interference of newcomers. Things are going to change, but they're not going to change all at once. And some people coming up recently think they are going to change everything and show us the light. They come up here because they say they like it and then they say 'you're doing this all wrong. That's not the way it's done in Detroit or Flint.' If they liked it the way it was in Detroit why didn't they stay there? We've got maps. If we wanted things to be like Detroit we'd move there. A general anxiety against 'outsiders' also seems to be found in the form of racial prejudice. There are no Blacks living in Leisureville, and only one Black family was seen in the community during the author's entire fifteen month stay. A frequent threat delivered equally in jest and in earnest, particularly by residents who feel thwarted by local ordinances, amounts to, 'If you keep making it hard for me, you'd better watch out. I'll sell my house to a 'nigger'.' 75 Politicians and public officials, even on the county level, are also regarded with suspicion. The superordinate powers of persons like the county road commission engineer, the school superintendent, the county coordinator, are the basis for bitter controversy and the not uncommon accusations of "dictator." And while elected officials are expected to personally and directly represent the people--"We elected the man, and by God, that's who he's gonna serve or he won't be elected again"--political self-interest just serves to corroborate the danger and corruption felt to be implicit in nonlocal control. Similarly, a general wariness exists toward any State or Federal intervention. The village park residents volunteer, "was built without one cent of Federal funding." The school board, its members boast, has always demonstrated a pay-as-you-go philosophy. It operates in the black and last year was even able to show monies unspent. At a public hearing for a proposed regional vocational center, Dr. Rappa expressed a common Leisureville concern. You are talking about something near to my heart. When you talk about state aid, you are also talking about State control. It's nice to say that the State will pay 55% . . . but then they will also have 55% of the control . . . . There will be a lack of democratic process over what is taught . . . . The "[Leisureville] Newsletter," local editorials and letters to the editor all stress a return to the type government felt possible at the local level. Government (big G), by contrast, is felt to be a monolithic, suffocating structure against which the self-determination of Leisureville is pitted. The following 'letter to the editor,‘ which speaks to the entire county rather than just 76 Leisureville, beautifully states the local sense of Government and its acts of individual suppression. It's our country's birthday but it won't be a happy one. It's ironic that . . . we face the same Oppression of funda- mental rights and high taxes that the colonists fought against long ago. When the State Tax Commissioner sent their (sic) assessors beating the tax drums . . . they came with all the arrogance and bash that would well have matched the posting of tax proclamations two hundred years ago . . PEOPLE ARE FED UP WE KNOW IT AND IT IS TIME THAT THEY KNEW IT! One can easily imagine the relief and inner excitement they must have felt, as that first shot rang out around the world against high taxes and oppression . . . . With good cause and love of freedom they could not be put down. If you wait for serious action by legislators we will indeed do that (WAIT), so what can we do? The people of the country must stand together on this issue! We don't have any tea cargoes to sink, but we can sink their tax boat ([Remote] County Tribune, March l3, l975). This 'us' against 'them' theme is carried to even greater levels of abstraction and watchfulness. Creeping Socialism and Communism are external enemies of the highest order. In another 'letter to the editor,‘ Dolly Green has reprinted an Editorial from a nonlocal paper which she found particularly meaningful. It reads: In l919 the Allied forces obtained and read Communist Rules for Revolution. Now, forty years later (I think) it is happening here at home. Corrupt the young. Get them away from religion, interest them in sex, make them superficial. Get people's minds off their government by focusing attention on athletics, sexy books and trivialities. Divide the people in hostile groups. Destroy people's faith in leaders by holding them up to contempt, ridicule and disgrace. Always preach democracy but seize power as fast and ruthlessly as possible. Encouraging government extravaganza, destroy credit, produce fear of inflation, rising prices and general discontent. Incite and encourage unnecessary strikes. By argument cause the breakdown of moral virtues, honesty, sobriety, self-restraint, faith in the pledged word and ruggedness. 77 Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext or another to (sic) confiscating them and leaving the popula- tion helpless. Dolly herself adds: Well it's quite a list. Is it happening? Maybe instead of going across the oceans, we should spend some of those millions here at home to fight Communism. Quite an Editorial, I'd say ([Remote] County Tribune, March 20, 1975). Leisureville, it is felt, is a stronghold of those character- istics essential to democracy and an American way of life. Leisure- ville residents, in a manner similar to that of the nation's founders, can and must protect their liberties against outside intrusions. In many senses the community features itself a David, strong in the spirit of freedom and 'right,‘ battling a Goliath many times its size. Chapter II has served as an introduction to Leisureville and its residents. It has also provided a general sense of the com- munity's physical shape and ideological outlines. Nevertheless, neither dimension, singly or in combination, can fully describe Leisureville the community. As is true of any social system, Leisureville is neither hollow of social activity, unresponsive to an external environment nor unaffected by the passage of time. Indeed, Leisureville's 85 year history has had a decided influence on the present community design. It is a dimension which can not be ignored. The community, its material circumstances, its activities and organization will now be described within this historical context. CHAPTER III LEISUREVILLE: THE HISTORY PERIOD 1: LUMBERING l89l-19l5 Leisureville, as mentioned in Chapter II, was created by and for outside interests. The Free Enterprise Lumbering Company [FELC] was one of many lumbering operations in northeast Michigan about the turn of the century. It appears from plat maps, newspapers, and other historical materials that about half a dozen lumber speculators were responsible for the majority of lumbering operations in the northeast quarter of the state. The names of these men are combined and recombined into what appear to be dozens of independent companies (i.e, Smith and Brown; Brown and Jones; Smith, Brown and Jones; Jones and Sons,etc.) Their separateness on paper was probably con- siderably less so in fact. The Free Enterprise Lumbering Company was one of these partnership permutations. In l89l, according to a special edition of The [Leisureville] Journal, the Company purchased "a large tract of timber" south of Timber Township, and a base of operations was needed for organizing, milling and shipping lumber (April 28, l898). Land was cleared on the northeast shore of East Sister Lake and the Sister Lakes branch of the North Central Rail Road was built. This artery was economically crucial to lumbering concerns and to the incipient town. It served to connect Milltown, an earlier lumbering site some 35 78 79 miles away and the permanent home of the Free Enterprise lumbering magnates, with their supply of raw material. Leisureville was an 'in the field' Company headquarters. It housed from the start Company managers and skilled Company employees. The owners them- selves remained in abstentia. The money they made and the life style they could support never appeared in Leisureville, but concentrated in Milltown. Nevertheless the railroad, the employment and lesser speculative possibilities both in lumber and servicing the lumber oriented population were the supports of Leisureville's almost spon- taneous existence. Economic Conditions The Woods At the most basic level of the lumbering operation were the men who "worked in the woods." According to Mrs. Helm, Leisureville's self—appointed historian, there were "70 lumber camps . . . at the turn of the century supplying logs to the [Leisurevelle] mills"(1974). These were located within a 15 mile radius of town and were, in most cases, serviced by the Leisureville and Southeastern Rail Road--a narrow gauge logging railroad whose branches veined the surrounding area. The camps themselves were much like others of lumbering's romantic history--dirty, cramped and obviously temporary (Reimann 1952; The [Milltown] Area Centennial Committee 1972). They were also predominantly male. There existed a high degree of work regimentation to coordinate men and activities for Company profit. 80 "Walking bosses," "camp bosses," "straw bosses," "clerks,” "chore boys," "cookies," "flunkies," "barn bosses," "sawyers," "choppers," "road monkies," and "filers" were some of the affectionate names given to specialized personnel. The pay was low, the Company advertising that it paid between $24 and $28 a month. And, Mrs. Helm notes, Company policy held that "the cost per meal per man was not to exceed nine or ten cents.“ The lumbermen appear to have come from Milltown or surround- ing logging areas to the north and southwest where the timber had already played out. Turnover appears to have been high, but their numbers remained large. In l898, the {Leisureville} Journal esti- mated that there were l50 men employed "in the woods" (April 28, l898). Of these, many were immigrants--Poles, Finns, Swedes and French Canadians, in particular. As a group, the lumbermen were without social or material ties. They were a mobile, unorganized labor force and when the timber was depleted, they moved on following the larger lumbering interests. As a result, they had limited contact with the village and its activities. However, pay was to be spent and the town was both available and ready. Saturday nights, according to Mrs. Helm, were frequently wild, drunken affairs. As the lumbermen came into town "the more respectable families gathered up their children and bolted the doors" (l974). The saloons were the biggest attraction. Buzz Wilson recalls that one lumberman in particular would make his necessary purchases and give them to his father for safe keeping. He would then go and drink up what was left of his wages. Buzz's 81 father was trusted to see that both the man and his packages arrived back at camp. In addition to the saloons, "Black Bess" had a house of prostitution north of town. This particular accommodation seems to have left with the lumbermen. Although occasional friendships undoubtedly occurred, social- izing with those who "worked in the woods" was infrequent. Distances, employment demands, economics and a general transient life style kept the lumbermen as a group apart. While Saturday nights hosted sporadic chaos, Leisureville had a reputation as a busy and respect- able community. Ellen Stairs, the daughter of an early Leisureville lawyer and County Prosecuting Attorney, remembers that her father decided to settle in Leisureville and travel to Amen when court was in session. Amen was a dangerous and lawless place. Leisureville, by comparison, offered the environment for raising a family. The Mills The lumber mills were a dominant feature of the village. They and their two story piles of sawdust were visible throughout Leisureville. The sawing mill, completed in April l892, was located on the northeastern shore of East Sister and the lake served as a hot pond for the felled timber. Unfortunately, after a week of operation the mill burned to the ground. But, the [Leisureville] Journal reports, it was "with characteristic energy and courage [that] they at once began the construction of a new mill which was completed in August of the same year" (April 28, 1898). This new mill was run day and night, cutting lOD,OOO board feet in 24 hours. In l893, a planing mill was built inside the southern village limits and close 82 to the railroad's main line. This mill had a capacity of 700,000 board feet daily. Like the lumber camps, the mill operations were tightly organized. Each mill had a supervisor, a foreman, a head sawyer at day, a head sawyer at night, a head engineer, "sawyers," "graders," "scalers" and general "mill hands" (i.e., "players," "pilers" and "edgers"). Wages, responsibility and status also followed in this order. The Company again advertised that it paid anywhere from $l.50 to $4.25 a day in wages to mill workers. More consistent reports, however, state that general "mill hands" received $l.00 to $1.25 a day from which they also had to manage room and board. Among this less skilled group surpluses were undoubtedly small, if not nonexistent. (The Company proudly announced that it paid $70,000 annually in wages for the total lumbering operation. While Company profits were never mentioned, an indication exists in the fact that it cost $80,000 in freight to market the thirty million board feet of lumber produced annually.) Unlike those who "worked in the woods," the "mill people" lived in town. Some had families and either rented or owned homes in the village. A few came in from farms north and east of town, particularly during the winter months. Most of those who were not married --the specific number is unknown but a reasonable estimate would seem to be at least half of the total 150 mill workers—-lived in the Donner House, one of the four hotels in the village. Ralph Learner, the son of an early Leisureville merchant, recalls, "This was a very large, two story, rooming or boarding house and well 83 patronized by the mill hands. My recollection of it is its bareness-- no porches along its front side and plenty of washings hanging on the lines in the back . . .“ (1973). Some of the least skilled mill workers were Finnish. These people, Learner remembers, kept to themselves. “They didn't mix. They lived Finnish and spoke Finnish [and] didn't mix." While this situation was more pronounced among the nonnative population, it was also generally true of all the "mill hands." Both Learner and Stairs have remarked that the "mill hands" were a transient group of people much like the lumbermen. Public relations were friendly and undoubtedly more frequent than with those "working in the woods," but only "the supervision mixed in village affairs. The rest didn't." Brief biographical sketches in the [Leisureville] Journal of Company employees in managerial positions supports this observation. One such profile, that of Horst Mauss, will serve as general illustration: Perserverence and hard work always win, and these have won for Mr. [Mauss] his present position, and built his pleasant home. He was born in Germany in 1847, and moved to Milwaukee with his parents in 1856. He worked on a farm until twenty years of age, when he 'struck out' for himself, coming to Michigan and beginning work in the woods . . . . He spent several years working for . . . , where he learne thoroughly the lumber business. For six years he was in partnership with [a co-partner of the FELC], cutting pine or 'jobbing it,‘ the firm being known as [Mauss & Co.]. This firm was dissolved and one formed with his brother . . . with whom he was associated for four years. In all his lumbering operations, Mr. [Mauss] was very successful. It was these Operations and the money earned from them that made him a member of the [FELC] upon its organization. Mr. [Mauss] was one of the pioneers to [Leisureville], being one of the first to move his family here. He has been supervisor of [Timber] township for two terms, and president of the [Leisureville] board of education for two terms. His business ability enabled him to fill these 84 offices with success. Mr. [Mauss] is at present general manager of the [Leisureville and Southeastern Rail Road], owned by the [FELC] and general manager of the woods department of the same firm (April 28, 1898). The economics, life styles and activities of skilled Company men and those of the "mill hands" and lumbermen were clearly dis- parate. The differences were important to the way of life of early Leisureville. The Merchants The village and its business concerns suggested a population distinct from the mobile labor force which underwrote it. At the height of lumber production (1898-1910) Leisureville streets were lined with stores, professional offices, community buildings and the homes of a more stable population. Wooden sidewalks escorted every street. Electricity supplied by the mill generators and a system of fire plugs (water pumped from the lake) added further comfort and safety. The original village plat has been described earlier in Chapter II. The village, however, has only recently shown the variety which characterized it in its earliest days. Map 3.1 shows the village as Mr. Learner remembers it about 1909. The business area concentrated along Center Street and Henderson Avenue. One of the largest businesses was The Pioneer Store or 'Company Store.’ "This," Mr. Learner recalls, was a large general store which was owned by [FELC] and run by about six employees. It had the greatest window space running along [Center] Street of any stores in town. Inside, the north portion was taken up by groceries [purchased from the surrounding farms and shipped in from Milltown], the south side by dry goods and notions, and hardware, grain, etc. in the back . . . . The cashier's office and bookkeeping 85 Map 3.l.--Leisureville, circa 1909. As remembered by Mr. Learner, 1973. 86 CUT-CVER LANDS FIELD CUT-OVER LANDS TOWN HALL VACANT X COHPAMY STORE OEI.STOIE X HILACKSIITH STORE SALOON X MOTEL CUT-OVER LANDS LUMBER YARDS LEISUREV I LLE, CIRCA 1909 (as mum IN 1111. LEARNER) LEGEND: X = Occupied houses 87 department was in a small enclosure in the center of the store and had a wire wicket running around it . . . (1973). While the store did not operate on script, Company employees could purchase supplies against future wages. This apparently was a common occurrence as was "always being about two weeks behind" (1973). On the side of the store were the Company sheds which Mr. Learner describes as "the 'parking space' for that era" and on the other, the Company office which had a hand operated water pump outside "with the customary tin cup attached to it for those who wanted a nice cool drink of water" (1973). Besides the Company store, the village supported two other general merchandising businesses--one of which was owned and operated by Mr. Learner's father. There were also two blacksmith shops, a livery, a bakery-restaurant. a meat market, a dry goods store, a barbershop, a farm implement store (Stalker's), a movie theater and photographic gallery, two drug stores (one of which also sold jewelry, the other furniture), four hotels (one predominantly boarded "mill hands," the others catered to a 'classier' clientele), two saloons, an ice house, a law office, three doctor's offices, the Michigan Home Settlement Company office (to be discussed later), a post office with a newspaper office in the rear ([Leisureville] Journal), and a bank. With the exception of the Company Store and the post office, all these businesses were independently owned and owner operated. Most, however, employed clerks, waitresses, cooks, handimen, delivery- men, etc., in addition to the services of their families. 88 Most of these merchants and village professionals came from Milltown or denser population centers in and around Detroit. 0n the whole, they were well educated having completed college or special correspondence courses. They came with the capital and skills to invest and speculate in the fortunes of a growing community. Profits were used to expand their business interests and develop additional money making enterprises. This generated 'in village' employment as well as multiple commitments to the area and its continued develop- ment. Mr. Learner's father, for instance, expanded his business three times, owned several houses which he rented out, and a farm of 120 acres east of town which he operated with hired help. Similarly, the accountant and clerk at the Company Store were co-proprietors of the livery. The mill superintendent owned and operated the movie theater. Within the business and professional community daily inter- action, friendships and socializing were extremely common. Mr. Learner explains that he was named after his mother's best friend. He also remembers visiting and dining with "very close family friends” who "kept in touch until their deaths." This same group of persons was also active in promoting business and village improvements while the "mill people were down there working." As a group, they assumed a disproportionate share of the village and township leadership. Surrounding the business area were the white, wood frame houses in which the families of this business population lived. (Skilled mill workers and 'in village' employees were also part of this residential community.) Most of the homes were simple two-story 89 boxes, but economic differences were fairly evident. Wealthier merchants and professionals had homes covered with 'gingerbread' and built at considerable expense. The Company manager, for instance, built a home for $1800 at a time when those within the village were selling for $300. Mr. Learner's father owned the first automobile. Also many of the 'better' homes were set on double lots, one lot being fenced in and used for a "table garden." Mr. Learner remembers that a few families even kept chickens and dairy cows and sold the farm products. The village, during this Period, appeared peaceful and prosperous, well manicured, dotted with flower gardens and alive with familiar persons and the daily routines of business and family. The larger rhythms were set by the mill whistles and the daily train from Milltown. The Speculators A description of Leisureville's economic design would not be complete without considering other speculative currents affecting the community. The area was densely covered with pine, but once cut over, it was of no further use to the lumbering companies. Rather than let it revert back to the State, land speculators purchased these tracts at ridiculously low prices (.25¢ to $1.00 an acre) and began promotion campaigns for their resale. In most cases these enterprising individuals were bankers or professionals with con- siderable financial backing. Many were from other states entirely. 90 The Michigan Home Settlement Company, with offices in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, was precisely this sort of land scheme. It began operations in Leisureville at the turn of the century, its stockholders drawn from successful Wisconsin businesses, and later, banking interests in Iowa. Cyrus Butler, company president and major public relations liaison, came to live in Leisureville about 1905 or 1906. He was "a promoter type" recalls Ellen Stairs. "He had a buggy with yellow wheels and a young bride. They were very fashionable people." Butler lived in the largest house in the area, five miles north of the village. He was also a "gentleman farmer" with two stock farms maintained entirely by hired hands. He was, needless to say, a prominent community figure with a company office on Center Street and an elaborate promotional campaign. Prior to the operations of the Michigan Home Settlement Company a dozen small, fairly successful farms existed several miles outside the village on land that had been independently purchased or homesteaded. A testimonial by one of the more successful of these farmers (written for a Michigan Home Settlement Company publication) reads as follows: . In 1887 I bought 80 acres of wild land and soon began clearing it for a farm. I now have 58 acres of it improved, good house and barn, 25 head of cattle, 5 horses, 93 sheep, 5 hogs, implements and machinery of all kinds. Last year [l907] I raised 20 tons of hay, 165 bushels of wheat, 400 bushels peas, 700 bushels potatoes, 400 bushels turnips and sugar beets, besides a good garden. Have sold $40 worth of cabbage alone. Have always had good crops. I have raised two tons of hay per acre, 30 bushels of wheat or peas, 55 bushels rutabagas. We have a young orchard just beginning to bear. Am out of debt, and well pleased with our home (c. 1910:20). 91 The Michigan Home Settlement Company, however, was interested in immediately turning the discarded country into a farming paradise and, not secondarily, making a tidy profit at five and ten dollars an acre on the resale of land. Its ambitions were gigantic and its claims of equal proportion. Among the few early documents that remain is a 27 page booklet prepared by the Michigan Home Settlement Company and succinctly titled: A Full Description of the Country, its Soils, Climate, Waterways and Transportation Routes, with Maps and Photographic Illustrations of the Agricultural, Horticultural and Stock Farms, Taken in and Around [Leisureville], in the Tract of the [Michigan Home Settlement Company's] Land (c. 1910). A similar publication was later found written in Finnish. In either language, it describes an idyllic rural setting where crops of all sorts almost grow themselves and ill health and hardships are almost unknown. It suggests that the man who remains "in the cities and other congested centers" unlike tomorrow's farmer has failed "to read 'the hand- writing on the wall'" (p. 3). This is a new country, and a new country js interesting to the home seeker when it offers possibilities for his advancement. Furthermore, every man should be willing to make a change as soon as he becomes convinced in his own mind that by such a change his condition and that of his family will be improved. It is also to be remembered that the man who succeeds in this world does so by taking advantage of opportunities. The man who sits around and waits for something to turn up usually has a long wait (p. 4). Ultimately, the adventure was unsuccessful. Fewer than twenty families were lured to the area in as many years. Prominent among these were failing Iowa farmers and a Finnish population which 92 concentrated east of town. Of some 75,000 acres, the Michigan Home Settlement Company probably sold less than ten percent, and eventually Cyrus Butler left (early l9ZOs)--as rumor has it, to California where he became a shoe salesman--a ruined man. The land, however, was kept out of the public domain and in the hands of a few former stockholders. Less ill fated were the activities of the Knight Baker Company which began about 1905 or 1906. The company was a partnership of three top FELC employees--the salesman, the foreman of the saw mill and the general manager. It was a speculative enterprise begun by skilled professionals with considerable financial backing and the existing lumbering facilities. FELC operations concentrated exclusively on the white and cork pine. The hardwoods--maple, birch, beach, and oak--were by- passed. The Knight Baker Company complemented the existing operations by cutting hardwoods, milling them in Leisureville and shipping them to Lake City (a large commercial and manufacturing center on the east side of Michigan) by rail via Milltown. The hardwoods were used for flooring, woodwork, furniture and during World War I, in chemical processing plants. This secondary lumbering interest became particu- larly important to Leisureville once the pine had been depleted and FELC turned its attentions elsewhere. Demographic Factors An outline of Leisureville's early growth and changing social conditions can be obtained from available demographic data. These more absolute profiles further support the economic picture just presented. 93 In 1884 the Michigan Department of State Census (Table 3.1) records 80 persons living within Timber Township. This was a rela- tively young population, with no persons over 60 years old. The median age for males was 17.1 years, for females 20.5. There were 34 persons under 15 years of age. The Census again reports 19 families and 19 dwellings with 16 married males and 17 married females. Also reported were 16 owner operated farms with a total of 120 acres of improved land. These statistics, combined with Mrs. Helm's comments and the early land registry, indicate the presence of small, family operated feed farms, the land acquired through home- steading and war or agricultural college land grants. By 1890 the population had grown to 142 (U.S. Bureau of Census). There is no available age/sex breakdown. It seems likely, however, that the increase was largely the result of single males arriving in advance of the lumbering operations which would establish themselves a year later. Natural increase and the settling in of additional farming families must also be considered. By 1894, according to the Michigan Department of State Census, the township population had grown to 735. Within four years it had increased about 500%, or over 800% in ten years. This expanded population had also grown considerably older, persons now being recorded in the 60-90 age categories. The median age for males was 27.2 years, that for females 21.5 years.(Table 3.2). The greatest shift within this pOpulation, however, appears in the sex ratios. The total male population was 447, the total female population 288. This ratio (1.55) was even greater (1.98) 94 within the age range 20—60. Here, the Census reports 303 males and 153 females. Above and below this range the ratios are quite normal: 1.06 for the age range under 1 year-20 years (139 males/130 females), 1.25 for the age range 60 years and over (5 males/4 females). The difference reflects the introduction of a male labor force necessi- tated by the lumber business. Further support is provided by the civil condition of this expanded 1894 population, there being 152 married males/143 married females and 273 single males/138 single females. Of this single population, 157 males and 43 females were 15 years and older. Again, there is indication of an unattached, mobile population. By 1894 the number of dwellings had increased to 137, and the number of reported families to 148. Since the number of farms had decreased to l3--there were now 270 acres of improved land-- it can be safely assumed that the vast majority of these dwellings and families were to be found in a nucleated, nonfarming settlement. In addition, it can be tentatively suggested that these nonfarming families were small, with an average of 1.4 children (under 1-15) per family. Of further interest is the foreign-born population which com- prised 35% of the township figures (about 40% of the male population and 27% of the female population). The actual figures are perhaps more telling. There were 177 foreign-born males and only 78 females (Tab 1e 3.3). While such data is indeed incomplete, it does suggest a total population which was heterogeneous in its social characteristics, dominantly male in composition, and largely unsettled family-wise. 95 In 1900, the U.S. Census reported a population of 827, but provided no breakdown at the township level. In 1901, the Michigan State Gazeteer reported, according to Mrs. Helm, a population of 800 for the village of Leisureville, exclusive of the lumber camps. The 1904 Michigan Department of State Census (Table 3.4) recorded the township population as 946, a growth of 211 persons in ten years. Again, the breakdown is limited, but the general age and sex dis- tributions suggest decided demographic changes. An overall comparison with the 1894 data immediately suggests two new conditions. First, there is a decrease in the age of the total population. The median age for males dropped to 23.5 years and that for females to 19.9. This, despite the fact that the fre- quency of those 60 years and older had increased (20 males/l4 females). Second, there was a lowering of the sex ratio to 1.16. Of the total population, 508 persons were male and 438 female. These gross comparisons, however, hide more important internal trends. Of particular importance is the frequency increase in the cohorts under 1-5 and 5-10. Comparing these cohorts with those for 1894 shows an increase of 21 males/l7 females under 1-5 and 23 males/24 females, 5-10. More important is the fact that all these children were born during the ten year interval between the Michigan Censuses. Therefore, the real increase within these cohorts is even greater. In 1894, for instance, only 15 males were under one year of age compared to the 59 males recorded within the 1904 5-10 cohort, a real increase of 44 persons. In 1894 only five females were under one year of age compared to the 49 females found 96 within the 5—10 cohort of 1904, again a real increase of 44 persons. In addition, the 141 babies (66 males/75 females) recorded in the under 1-5 cohort of the 1904 Census were all new to the population. The absolute growth of the total population is more than accounted for by the increase in children alone. The increase was largely responsible for bringing down the median age. Nevertheless, there was also an absolute decrease in the number of males 30-70 years old, persons who had been 20-60 years old ten years earlier. By 1904 this population had been reduced by 122 persons or about 25%. This, it would appear, was mainly the result of a migration gut of the area of the lumbermen who first appeared to build the town and establish Company operations. It also served to lower the sex ratio and support what in 1904 appears to have been the increase in families and a more stable population. This latter is further supported by the following conditions. There was an absolute increase of 75 males (88%) within the 15-30 year age range, or what ten years earlier had been the 5-20 year age range. There was a corresponding increase of 46 persons (57%) in the same age range for the 1904 female population. The 1904 Census further reports an increase in marital status, there being 201 married males/192 married females, 294 single males/230 single females. Of this single population there were134 males 15 years and over, and 53 females 15 years and over. This group decreased from 27% of the total population in 1894 to 20% in 1904. Of all those 15 years and over, the decrease was from 38% to 31%. 97 There is no data available for the number of families or the number of dwellings. However, using the number of married females (192) as a rough estimate of the number of families, it may be sug- gested that the family size also increased, there now being an average of 1.8 children under 1-15 per family. Since the number of owner operated farms had increased to 26 (with 710 acres of improved land), the estimated child/family ratio was probably lower for the nonfarming families. Nevertheless, there is the indication of an influx of young adults and the increase of young families. Personal histories support this trend. The majority of merchants arrived with their families during this ten year period. This was the case with Mr. Learner's father who settled in 1898. Mr. Learner was born in 1900. Company officials sent back to Milltown for their wives and families once the lumbering operations had been firmly established. As further illustration, Mrs. Helm reports that a Mary Roberts visited Leisureville in 1897. In 1901 she returned with her twin sister to work at one of the hotels. Soon after, Mary became Mrs. Gerald Stalker. In 1904 the total number of foreign-born persons decreased to 23% of the population (136 males/83 females). With no further data, it can only be guessed that the above trends affected this population in a similar manner (Table 3.5). After 1904 the demographic data becomes extremely uncertain. About 1910 the Michigan Home Settlement Company reports a Leisure- ville population "of approximately 1,000 people" (p. 15). The 1910 98 Census reports a township population of 882, but provides no break- down. It can be assumed that this last statistic reflects the beginning of a major change in the community composition--an increase in small farms, a decrease in the lumber labor force and the gradual collapse of the village as a residential and social center. This change will be taken up in the next chapter and is not the immediate concern. But it is for these reasons that the 1904 data will stand as a general demographic profile of Leisureville during the height of its lumbering career. In the 14 years between 1890 and 1904 the township population had increased over eight times. Though the number of owner operated farms had grown from about 17 to 26, there was the clear outline of a nucleated, nonfarming community. Generally this population had become younger and more stable in its sex ratio and age spread. Within it there appeared to be rapidly changing and heterogeneous demographic elements. A large, single male population still existed, but had given way somewhat to small, young and possibly nuclear families. A small farming population co-existed with the more nucleated settlement and there was a significant number of foreign-born persons represented within the total population. The way in which these gross demographic characteristics correspond with the activities and social organization of early Leisureville will now be discussed. 99 TABLE 3.l.--Timber Township: 1884. Age and Sex Distribution-- All Classes. Male Female Sex f %f cum f f %f cum f Rat“ 100 & Over - - - - - - - 90 -100 - - - - - - - 8O - 9O - - - - - - - 7O - 8O - - - - - - - 60 - 7O - - - - - - - 50 - 60 2 4.08 99.97 2 6.45 100.02 1.00 45 - 50 1 2.04 95.89 1 3.23 93.57 1.00 40 - 45 2 4.08 93.85 - - - - 35 - 4O 2 4.08 89.77 1 3.23 90.34 2.00 30 - 35 4 8.16 85.69 3 9.68 87.11 1.33 25 - 30 8 16.33 77.53 5 16.13 77.43 1.60 20 - 25 2 4.08 61.20 5 16.13 61.30 .40 15 - 20 6 12.24 57.12 2 6.45 45.17 3.00 10 - 15 4 8.16 44.88 3 9.68 38.72 1.33 5 - 10 6 12.24 36.72 5 16.13 29.04 1.20 4 - 5 4 8.16 24.48 2 6.45 12.91 2.00 3 - 4 - - - 1 3.23 6.46 - 2 - 3 2 4.08 16.32 - - - - l — 2 1 2.04 12.24 1 3.23 3.23 1.00 Under 1 5 10.20 10.20 - - - - Unknown - - - - - - - TOTAL 49 31 1.58 Median Age 17.1 20.5 SOURCE: Compiled from Michigan Secretary of State, Census of the State of Michi an 1884, Vol. 1, Population, Births, Marriages and’ eaths and Churches, Schools and Libraries, Table 1--"Population by Age and Sex, and the Number of Families and Dwellings, June 1, 1884." 100 TABLE 3.2.--Timber Township: 1894. Age and Sex Distribution-- All Classes. Male Female Sex f %f cum f f %f cum f Ratio 100 & Over 90 -100 80 - 9O - - - 1 .35 100.00 - 7O - 80 .45 100.00 1 .35 99.65 2.00 60 - 7O .67 99.55 2 .69 99.30 1.50 50 - 6O 28 6.26 98.88 10 3.47 98.61 2.80 45 - 50 20 4.47 92.62 4 1.39 95.14 5.00 40 - 45 38 8.50 88.15 17 5.90 92.75 2.24 35 - 4O 51 11.41 79.65 24 8.33 87.85 2.13 30 - 35 45 10.07 68.24 27 9.38 79.52 1.67 25 - 30 64 14.32 58.17 26 9.03 70.14 2.46 20 - 25 57 12.75 43.85 46 15.97 61.11 1.24 15 - 20 23 5.15 31.10 35 12.15 45.14 .66 10 - 15 26 5.82 25.95 21 7.29 32.99 1.24 5 - 10 36 8.05 20.13 25 8.68 25.70 1.44 1 - 5 39 8.72 12.08 44 15.28 17.02 .89 Under 1 15 3.36 3.36 5 1.74 1.74 3.00 Unknown - - - - - - TOTAL 447 288 1.55 Median Age 27.2 21.5 SOURCE: State of Michi an 1894, Vol. 1, Population, Births, Marriages and Tab1e11-—"Tota1 Population by Sex and Ages in Periods of Years." Compiled from Michigan Secretary of State, Census of the eaths and Churches and Libraries, 101 TABLE 3.3.--Timber Township: 1894. Native and Foreign-Born Population. Male Female Sex f %f N/F Ratio f %f N/F Ratio Rat'° Native 270 60.40 210 72.92 1.29 1.53 2.69 Foreign- Born 177 39.60 78 27.08 2.27 TOTAL 447 288 1.55 SOURCE: Compiled from Michigan Secretary of State, Census of the State of Michigan 1894, Vol. I, Population, Births, Marriages and Deaths and Churches and Libraries, Table l--"Popu1ation as Native and Foreign Born, by Sex." 102 TABLE 3.4.--Timber Township: 1904. Age and Sex Distribution-- All Classes. Male Female Sex f %f cum f f %f cum f Rat'° lOO & Over - - - - 90 -100 — - - 1 .23 100.01 80 - 9O - - - - 7O - 80 5 .98 100.00 6 1.37 99.78 .83 6O - 7O 15 2.95 99.02 7 1.60 98.41 2.14 50 - 6O 26 5.12 96.07 22 5.02 96.81 1.18 45 - 50 27 5.31 90.95 19 4.34 91.79 1.42 40 - 45 33 6.50 85.64 13 2.97 87.45 2.54 35 - 4O 38 7.48 79.14 27 6.16 84.48 1.41 30 - 35 42 8.27 71.66 39 8.90 78.32 1.08 25 - 30 49 9.65 63.39 43 9.82 69.42 1.14 20 - 25 65 12.80 53.74 41 9.36 59.60 1.59 15 - 20 46 9.06 40.94 43 9.82 50.24 1.07 10 - 15 35 6.89 31.88 53 12.10 40.42 .66 5 - 10 59 11.61 24.99 49 11.19 28.32 1.20 1 - 5 60 11.81 13.38 61 13.93 17.13 .98 Under 1 6 1.18 1.57 14 3.20 3.20 .43 Unknown 2 .39 .39 - TOTAL 508 438 1.16 Median Age 23.5 19.9 SOURCE: Compiled from Michigan Secretary of State, Census of the State of Michigan 1904, Vol. I, Population, Births, Marriages and Deaths and Churches and Libraries, Table 18--"Popu1ation by Age Periods, Classified by Sex and Major and Minor Divisions." 103 TABLE 3.5.--Timber Township: 1904. Native and Foreign-Born Population. Male Female Sex f %f N/F Ratio f %f N/F Ratio Rat'° Native 372 73.23 355 81.05 1.05 2.74 4.28 Foreign- Born 136 26.77 83 18.95 1.64 TOTAL 508 438 1.16 SOURCE: Compiled from Michigan Secretary of State, Census of the State of Michiqan 1904, Vol. 1, Population, Births, Marriages and Deaths and Churches and Libraries, Table 6.-- "Population as to General Nativity, Classified by Sex, Major and Minor Divisions." 104 Social Activity and Organization Early Leisureville, judging from the available publications and personal recollections, was a busy place. The village population, somewhere between 800 and 1000 persons, interacted on a face to face basis. There existed wide community involvement in social activities, the majority of these centering around the village's physical facili- ties and formal institutions. Public spirit, a pride in Leisure- ville's accomplishments and a sense of its autonomy were already well established. The family was the most basic, though perhaps not the most important, unit of social activity and relationship. Village families were generally nuclear, small (families of four persons seem to have been predominant), and unrelated. The rapid development of the lumbering town appears responsible for these nuclear family units. By contrast, close friendships and business partnerships clearly existed, many having formed prior to settlement in Leisure- ville. Families were not self-sufficient, wage incomes being derived directly or indirectly (as in the case of independent mer- chants) from the lumbering operations. Relative wealth and partici- pation in community affairs served to differentiate village families and appeared as the basis for the selection of preferred company and friends. Some of the more obvious status differences (i.e., home, lot size, material goods) were presented earlier. Other differences are apparent in the recollections of 'old timers.‘ The funeral of Shawn Pearson, for instance, the owner of the largest hotel in 105 Leisureville, was attended by over fifty friends, Odd Fellows and Rebekahs, who came from Milltown on a special train hired for the occasion. Photographs of this affair show horse drawn buggies, men and women, lined up for blocks and solemnly parading through town following the hearse. Likewise, it is remembered that the Company's general manager hired a special train to carry a Christian Science healer to Leisureville in an unsuccessful effort to bring his drowned child back to life. Ellen Stairs also notes that Mrs. Butler came and visited with Ellen's mother, "a college graduate," having little to do with the "common sort" within the community. Mr. Learner mentions that although he played with many of the village children, his birthday parties were attended by the sons and daughters of the wealthier families of the community (i.e., doctor, lawyer, newspaper editor, mill supervisors, etc.). As Ellen Stairs nicely summarized, "Everyone was friendly and all that, but people were still class conscious." Nevertheless, these socioeconomic and perceived status dif- ferences were 'played down.’ Village children all went to the same ten grade school in the village and played with one another. Merchants and professionals depended on good relations with fellow villagers and neighbors. And everybody seems to have participated in the activities and programs available within the community. Among these were Sunday train excursions to Milltown and boat trips around East Sister Lake. The movie house was open two or three evenings a week and the town hall served as a community center. "This," Mr. Learner recalls, 106 was the site of the social life of the town along with that at the churches . . . . Many road shows and other professional entertainment made one night stands in this building and all were well attended. Two or three years before we left [Leisureville] [about 1907], some enter- prising person operated a roller rink in it every Saturday afternoon and evening during the colder weather . . . (1973). Twice a week dances were held in the town hall with music provided by local talent. Church plays also made frequent debuts. The merchants organized holiday celebrations (i.e., 4th of July), and "it seems," according to Mr. Learner, "like everyone just joined in." The community claimed an eighteen member cornet band, professional band leader and a band stand. The band leader was apparently brought in, again through the aid of "the businessmen" who, Mr. Learner recalls, were always working for village improve- ments. With regular practice the band earned "considerable of a reputation" and began giving concerts in neighboring towns. Still another active source of community pride was Leisureville's traveling baseball team, which the 1898 special edition of the [Leisureville] Journal boasted "has for three years been the champions of Northern Michigan." Perhaps the single most important community institution was the Congregational Church. (Actually there were two churches in Leisureville, the other being a make-shift Catholic Church which required the services of a traveling pastor and which disappeared by 1918.) It was built at considerable expense ($3000), dedicated in 1894 and located on Center Street north of the business area. Attendance was apparently good (with a seating capacity of 200) and church programs and organizations prolific. The [Leisureville] 107 Journal reports in a column devoted exclusively to a description and history of the church that this church now has under its supervision three Sunday Schools [totaling about 107 students, according to Mrs. Helm], and three Christian Endeavor Societies, two seniors and one junior, all in fair working condition and accom- plishing much good in their instruction and influence especially with young children of [Leisureville] and surrounding community (April 28, 1898). In addition, there existed a Ladies Aid Society, lawn socials, quilting bees and Christmas programs being prominent among its activities. From the little information that exists, this seems to have been 'the' woman's organization. Besides the church, the village also supported a good number of fraternal organizations. As Mrs. Helm writes, "In the days of [Leisureville's] youth the town was bubbling with the enthusiasm of fraternalism" (1974). The Knights and Ladies of the Modern Maccabes met each month above the Company store. The Masons and the Order of the Eastern Star, the Odd Fellows and Rebekahs were also active. Unfortunately, no clear records exist of membership, membership overlap or associational activity. Nevertheless, the little information that remains suggests that the same prominent families were well represented within these organizations. In addition, there existed "The Gleaners" (an association of 'farm folk'), "The Modern Woodsman," and "The Grange,“ each attracting a membership of slightly different interest. Again, specific data on membership and activities is no longer available. Formal township government was another source of community organization. Town Board meetings were regularly held in the town 108 hall. How innovative or influential this body was in its decision making capacities is unknown. There was, however, an almost com- plete overlap between those holding township office and those holding formal leadership positions within the community (i.e., school board, church groups, and voluntary organizations). Again, these persons were the more prosperous merchants, professionals and Company officials. Whether contest for these public positions occurred is undetermined. The [Leisureville] Journal, in its biographical sketches, carefully notes bipartisan political affiliations (Republican and Democratic) (April 28, 1898). Many of these persons, however, also held extra-township offices having been elected to positions on the County Board or State Legislature. Within the village, Leisureville had a sheriff and a jail. But business was poor and Mr. Learner frankly remembers no time when either were in active use. There was also a local 'vigilante' which apparently served as the township health department. It, along with the volunteer fire department, were 'grass roots' attempts at com- munity protection. Again, detailed information on the operation of these public services is no longer available. It appears, then, that the community life of early Leisure- ville was village oriented. Among Leisurevillites, few kinship relationships existed beyond those of the nuclear family. Religious affiliations, economic interdependence and physical proximity necessitated many involuntary relationships and the interactions between residents were both frequent and friendly. 109 Of equal importance, however, were the numerous voluntary associations which existed and provided a formal basis for social interaction and activity. Interest groups (music, recreation), employment related societies (farming, lumbering, merchandising), fraternal organizations and political party affiliations gave con- siderable heterogeneity to associational life. While membership overlap between these groups undoubtedly existed, social selection and differential relationships were also apparent. Primary, friendship-type relationships developed within these formal groupings and tended to separate along material lines. Whether the organiza- tions themselves could be ranked along these same dimensions is not certain. The little available evidence regarding the Ladies Aid Society and the fraternal organizations tend to support this possi- bility. More certain is the fact that formal village leadership was assumed by an economically distinct group of people who were also extremely active in initiating and supporting community programs. CHAPTER IV LEISUREVILLE: THE HISTORY PERIOD II: FARMING 1916-1939 Economic Conditions Lumbering and the Village In 1911 the saw mill burned down and this time Leisureville, despite "characteristic courage," did not rebuild it. But the fire only symbolically ushered the village into a new economic era. Large scale change was inevitable. After twenty years of concen- trated harvesting, the timber crop was exhausted. Leisureville's 'raison d'étre' no longer existed and FELC redirected its capital and personnel to greener woodlands. By 1912 the mill whistles had stopped, the generators shut down, the company store closed, and Leisureville was left a village without an industry and a rapidly declining population. Village merchants and company officials were among the first to leave. Some, like Mr. Learner's father, may have anticipated Leisureville's fate. Prior to 1911 he had transferred his family, merchandise and business acumen to a neighboring and fairly stable farming community to the northeast. The majority of independent businessmen, however, returned to Milltown or moved south to metro- politan centers--Detroit, Lansing, Saginaw, Birmingham, Highland Park, or Caro. Of the skilled company personnel, most returned to 110 111 Milltown, the Company headquarters. Some left to oversee the establishment of a new town and milling site elsewhere. Scattered reports suggest that the Company had set up operations in Phillips, Wisconsin. With the decline of the village some of the more successful and socially active farmers also left. Mr. Dennison, the Confirmed farmer who wrote the earlier MHS Company testimonial, moved to Detroit where he established a successful real estate agency. According to Georgia Wilder, a life long resident, the only people who remained (Georgia, a school teacher and her husband Dale, a butcher, were among this group), "were too poor to get out." Though this is somewhat of an exaggeration and many merchants 'hung on' into the late teens, it does appear that those with substantial wealth invested it elsewhere and those with favorable economic alternatives pursued them. Leisureville's physical decline, however, received several unfortunate assists. A fire in 1914 and another in 1916 leveled most of the business district. The first of these fires, it is rumored, was started by a failing businessman in an attempt to collect his insurance money. Once out of control, it burned down the east side of Center Street. In addition to fires, unoccupied houses were sold for $25 to $400 (lumber was now a scarce commodity) and moved out to farm sites, or, as in the case of Mr. Learner's father, shipped to lots in downtown Detroit. Mrs. Helm has written that after the close of milling operations "in one year alone 30 houses were sold or moved or destroyed from the village" (1974). 112 By the late teens the village was a plucked and charred specter of its former self. A few essential businesses, a few residences and many vacant buildings were all that remained. Among the former was Stalker's farm implement store which had been expanded into a multi-purpose hardware. There was Dale Wilder's meat market and a small general grocery. The saloons closed about 1918 with the passage of the Volstead Act and though Cyrus Butler's land office remained, it too closed within a few years. A small bank was the only other independent business concern left on Center Street. The railroad depot continued operations, but the train from Milltown came only three times a week. During the twenties it came less than once a week and then only upon request. The tracks were finally torn up in 1932. The Post Office was now dependent on the Amen route and, according to Mrs. Helm, "mail was shipped in and out of [Leisureville] . . . by horse and sled during the winter and car during the summer" (1974). The school and the Congregational Church completed the village inventory. The residential extent is suggested in an earlier research report (Spielberg 1963). [Duke White] [a life long resident] describes this period as a 'ghost town.‘ He recalls standing in the center of the community with some cronies sometime during this period [early 19205] and counting 'only seventeen lamps burning in the homes of [Leisureville].' These few village residents were employed as "pulp cutters" (working independently, or for the Knight Baker operations which continued into the mid-19205), "railroad section men," "tinkerers," and the owners and employees of the few small businesses that remained. 113 Some were "on the county" and some found employment during the mid- 19305 in the government operated Civilian Conservation Corps. It was a time of general economic hardship. Mrs. Helm reports starving conditions during the winter months more acute for those living in the village than for the majority of the population on farms through- out the township. Merchants extended credit incessantly and accepted labor, land and farm produce as payment for past debts. Debt, how- ever, was the familiar condition. Leisureville had entered into a Period of its history which, despite its 1ength--1916 to 1940--has been collapsed in the memory of its residents. It is nostalgically remembered as a time of friendship and survival. Nevertheless, it is a time conspicuously lacking in social or economic detail. Mrs. Helm simply calls it "the lean years" (1974). Farming What Leisureville lost after the FELC left was all too obvious. What remained were acres of vacant, marginal and erosion- prone farming land. With the major social and economic appeal of the community gone, the MHS Company began stepping up its land sales campaign. Leisureville, it prophesied, would be repopulated with farmers, replanted with cash crops and reborn as an agricultural community. A major, and remarkable, promotional to this effect appeared in a special Sunday Supplement of the Detroit News Tribune on September 10, 1911: 114 . Up here in [Remote] County, in the heart of the vast bushland which spans the state and reaches northward from [Lake City] to the Straights, [Leisureville], one of the last of the lumber towns in the lower peninsula is making a fight for its life. It is a fight that a few short years ago would have been considered useless, a fight that the old time lumber towns never thought of making, and yet, in the face of all history, [Leisureville] is going confidently forward and looks upon victory as a foregone conclusion . . . When the town was built there was no idea among its builders that it would outlast the company which had brought it into existence or the timber crop which its inhabitants were here to harvest. . . . That had been the history of all towns on the lumbering countr up to that time . . . And that would have been Leisureville' s] fate but for the fact that the world moves, witness the advent of the automobile, the flying machine and scientific agriculture. It is to the latter that the old time pine lands owe their new spirit and [Leisureville] its chance for a long useful ife. Back in the days when [Leisureville] was being builded (sic), . . . the man who owned a section of Northern cut over land was looked upon as a poor wretch laboring under an incumberance. The land was considered worth less than nothing and when a lumberman wanted to get even with an enemy, he deeded him a section or two of his cut over land . . . . Some of the men who thus gave away land . . . would be glad to get the land back . . . . Now, however, it is too late, land has gone up. The State no longer has to bid it all in for taxes and the possession of it no longer looked upon as a burden. This is where scientific agriculture comes in . . [Leisureville] has all her life thought and talked in lumber trade terms. She measured life, social, moral and religious, with a log scale. . . . She lived in wooden houses and cooked and warmed herself by wood fires. The forest gave her life. All this has suddenly changed. The mill no longer exists. . . . It is farming they talk now and the men who frequent the streets are depending not on timber but on clover for their daily bread. Clover is henceforth to be the mainstay of the town, and so well does [Leisureville] realize that on clover it must rely for its future, and so anxious is it to do full homage to the humble plant that a picture of a clover-leaf adorns every envelope that bears a letter from the village and across the leaf is printed "Clover is King." 115 But advertising, no matter how lyrical, did not alter the harsher aspects of reality. Leisureville had contributed raw materials to growing Michigan cities. It had generated capital for large companies and individual businessmen to invest elsewhere. It was now adjusting to the conditions its earlier economic life had set in motion. Leisureville did turn to agriculture, but it was decidedly more subsistence oriented than profit oriented. Both large scale crop production and 'humble clover' were conspicuously absent. About 40 family farms existed throughout this Period though as many more were begun and abandoned after futile struggles with leached, rocky soils and intractable tree stumps. The depression years, 1933-1938, witnessed the greatest farming hardship, and thousands of acres reverted back to the State for taxes. (The spe- cific acreage abandoned during the 19305 remains unknown. A compari- son between the 1927 and 1962 plat maps indicates that over 6500 acres were added to existing State park lands.) While these years cast subsistence farming into sharper relief, there was little change in its basic design. The average Leisureville farm, according to plat maps and the U.S. Census of Agriculture (1920, 1925, 1930, 1935 and 1940), was about 150 acres though they ranged from less than 80 to over 300 acres. They were also owner operated. Few men, Buzz Wilson recalls, "worked out" either as farm laborers or tenant farmers. Those who did were not considered "well off." They received low wages, a dollar or less a day, were usually contracted for specific jobs and 116 neither owned their own land nor produced their own food. (In 1935, a date which corresponds with the height of the depression in Leisureville, the U.S. Census of Agriculture reports only three tenant operated farms within the township.) The farm operation itself was small in scale (U.S. Census of Agriculture). Of the total acreage, less than one-third could be classified as crop land (i.e., acres on which crops were harvested, acres of crop failure and acres left idle or fallow). The total plowable pasture amounted to less than one-tenth. By comparison, the total woodland acreage (pasture and nonpasture) averaged over 55% of each farm. By 1935, over 30% of the total farm acreage was rented. Household gardens, small farm livestock (i.e., chickens, pigs), hay, corn, potatoes and dairy cattle were the consistent fare from farm to farm (U.S. Census of Agriculture). The greatest variation involved the raising of sheep. In 1940 three farms reported a total of 110 sheep, but again such differences were small in scale. With the exception of potatoes, no vegetables or specialty crops were grown for market, though the total value of those grown for home use was estimated at $1003 in 1935. Venison, gamebirds, and fish further supplemented the family diet. Potatoes and dairy products provided the major agricultural cash income (U.S. Census of Agriculture). In 1935 nearly 91 acres of potatoes were planted and 9,382 bushels were harvested. Five years later 49 acres were planted and 5,100 bushels harvested. If we are to believe Mr. Dennison who, in 1908, claimed he was able to 117 produce 260 bushels per acre, and Mrs. Helm who writes that 35 car loads (700 to 800 bushels per car) were shipped out annually during the late teens and early twenties, then it appears that the yields per acre and/or farming as a source of capital income were quickly declining. Similar trends can be seen in dairy production. Mrs. Helm notes that during the late teens and early twenties, 80 to 90 cans of cream were shipped out each week. In 1935 there was a total of 383 cattle and calves of which 233 were milked during the year. Five years later the reported total was 288, of which 185 were milked. During that year, 4,574 gallons of milk, 19,093 pounds of butterfat (cream) and 980 pounds of butter were sold. There is no direct indication of the capital income farm sales generated or the changes throughout this 25 year period. By 1940, however, an indirect estimate may be obtained from the nggty Data Book (1947), a supplement to the U.S. Census of Population. It states that 45% of the farms within the county reported farm products which valued less than $400. This includes the value of those products raised for household consumption. Since farm production in Timber Township has always been considerably less than that for the County as a whole, it may be safely assumed that 50 to 60% of the township farms also realized less than $400 from their farming activities. Operating costs further support the marginal appearance of Leisureville farming (U.S. Census of Agriculture). General cash expenditures for 1940, the only year for which such data exists, suggest a minimum of $175 per farm ($71 for feed, $51 for gas and/or 118 oil, $53 for building materials). This does not take into account outgoes for land rental, the purchase or repair of farm machinery-- of the nine farms reporting such expenses the average was $319 per farm--the purchase of livestock, payment of taxes (about $50 per farm in 1940), payment for contracted farm labor—-of the 20 farms reporting such payments the average was $340 per farm-~or the purchase of individual or household necessities. Farming had never been economically bountiful--by 1940 it had become all but impossible. Farming income was necessarily supplemented by wage labor. As noted earlier, the Knight Baker Company and other small logging operations provided winter employment at $1 per day. Odd jobs were also contracted with the few hunters and resorters who had made their way north. Harvey Asch remembers, for instance, that two Leisureville farmers working for 50¢ per hour built his first cabin on East Sister Lake. He further recalls that one of these farmers stuffed rags in his (the farmer's) broken windows during the winter. He could not afford to repair them. During the mid-19305, the CCC Camps appeared in Remote County. Men were hired to clear brush, grade roads, construct dams, stock streams, plant trees and count deer. The Timber Township Hall (which burned down in 1963) was built as a CCC project employing farmers (among others) at 50¢ per hour. The U.S. Census of Agriculture for 1935 and 1940 give sta- tistical support to this growing dependence on wage labor. In 1935 36 farm operators worked a total of 1,717 days or an average of about 1% months for pay or income not connected with farming activities. 119 By 1939 such employment trends had intensified; 23 operators reported a total of 2,017 days or an average of three months working at non- agriculture related jobs. Both sets of data, however, ignore the wage income of other members of the farming family. Leisureville, during "the lean years," was agriculturally based. But agriculture itself, particularly throughout the 1930s, was not sufficient. The community's poverty both in fertile land and capital was acute, a fact underscored in the County Data Book by the county's rural level of living index. It was the lowest in Michigan's lower peninsula and the second lowest in the State. Land Owners and Tourism Farming insured immediate survival, but little more. Internal resources reflected the same pattern. Throughout the town- ship, land, despite its abundance, was of little value. Tax payments were economic burdens and forfeit a common occurrence. Lots on East Sister Lake were given away to anyone who could hit the signboard during a baseball game. Lake frontage was only reluctantly taken in payment for debt. Gerald Stalker, it is recalled, initially refused property along West Sister Lake (now Leisureville's most valuable real estate) claiming that his debtor was trying to cheat him. But even as these conditions continued new economic currents were making themselves felt. As mentioned earlier, the MHS Company land sales met with little success. When the company dissolved in the early 19205, its holdings (26,000 acres, according to Mrs. Helm) were prorated at 120 at $10.00 per acre and distributed among the stockholders. The largest stockholder and subsequently the largest land owner was C. H. Cordwell, an Iowa banker. Cordwell and his two grown sons, George and Kent, moved to Leisureville about 1918. Like Butler, Cordwell advertised his land for agricultural use. It was Cordwell and George who continually tried to introduce clover as a specialty crop and turn the area into a stock farmer's paradise. In this they were also unsuccessful. (Their failure was amusingly demonstrated to the author during a discussion with Buzz Wilson outside his home-— the now retired farm of his youth. As we talked, he absentmindedly pulled up a weed and prepared to throw it disrespectfully into the road. This he did, but not before showing it to me and remarking that it was called "[Cordwell] Clover," a plant useless as either a ground cover or a cash crop.) But Cordwell was an investor with the financial means to anticipate the future. Not only did he retain his holdings, he added to them, purchasing farms and abandoned tracts for back taxes. His personal investment kept thousands of acres of Timber Township from being transformed into public domain. It is reported (Spielberg 1963) that George, who succeeded to the family real estate in the late 19305, estimated that "sixty percent of the cabins around [Leisureville] are built on property sold by my father and myself." The "[Cordwell] Lands," George felt, would eventually pay off, if not in agriculture then as resort property. A Leisureville resident recalls that right up to his death in 1968, George had visions of a large white hote1--"The [Cordwell] Hotel"--placidly and 121 patronizingly overlooking a prosperous resort community. George was a speculator and Leisureville his private business. "He was a big toad in a small puddle" recalls one resident. He was "well educated," ”elegant," "egotistical," and not well liked. "He was a 'big shot,'" and "he strutted." While the "[Cordwell] Lands” were the largest private holding, they were not the only one. Timber Township proved to be a small speculative venture for a handful of'down state'businessmen. The land was cheap. The area had promising natural features. In addition to the lakes and fisherman's streams, scrub brush had encouraged a large deer population, and secondary woodland growth was reclaiming the area. The possibility of eventual profit was sound. Dr. A. L. Garth, a Detroit optometrist, had been impressed by an earlier MHS Company agricultural display. In the late teens he purchased two miles of the East Sister Lake shoreline for $1500. By 1926 he had subdivided his property and formally established Deer Wood Beach, one of the earliest and most popular resort areas. Both he and his son, Dr. Henry Garth, vacationed in Leisureville. Henry moved permanently to the area in the late 19205, continuing his medical practice and becoming a prominent community figure. Harvey Asch, an industrial advertiser from Detroit, was similarly impressed with the township lands. A two-week fishing and camping trip in 1923 convinced him "it was a fisherman's paradise. No sooner had you baited the hook than you had to pull the fish off and rebait it." A year later he purchased, from George Cordwell, 22 acres with 1800 feet of lake frontage on East Sister Lake for 122 $1800. This same land was subdivided by Asch in 1957 and sold for $35 per front foot. (In 1974 it was selling for $150 to $200 per front foot.) By 1928 he purchased from Cordwell over 1700 acres with three small lakes in the northwest portion of the township. Asch did not move to Leisureville, but through frequent 'vacations' and land dealings became a familiar community 'patron' and good friend of George Cordwell. The nature of their friendship and their relative socioeconomic status is suggested in the circum- stances of their initial meeting. Asch had come to Leisureville looking for a good site to fish. Cordwell was eager for a good game of bridge. In exchange for the game of cards, Asch found and eventually purchased his "fisherman's paradise." Like Asch, half a dozen Detroit industrialists and professionals purchased retreats in the area throughout the 19205 and 19305. Residents, on the other hand, struggled with a subsistence economy. The major exception to this early external investment in land was provided by Gerald Stalker. Not surprisingly, he was also Leisureville's most prosperous merchant. "It appears," reads an earlier research report (Spielberg 1963), "that [he filled] the vacuum of prominence and power created by the departure of the mill and its managerial staff." His business was not only suited to a predominently agricultural economy, but was expanded into a multi- purpose hardware store. He sold the oil, kerosene, gasoline, farm machinery, tools, feed, building materials, clothes, shoes, and household items that made life possible. He had little competition as well as the financial reserves to 'carry' area residents on credit. 123 The community was dependent on him and he, in turn, was the bene- ficiary of what little resources existed. He acted as railroad station agent, was a member of the County Road Commission, the Leisureville school board, was instrumental in local government and all village activities. He lived in the Knight house one block north of the village, and supplied his home with electricity from a 'Kohler' generator. He owned the first telephone and his children received college educations. He was a man of obvious means and formidable position. His financial success, however, was further supported by his investment in land--land acquired as payment for debts owed and through purchase'flniback taxes. In partnership with Cordwell, he subdivided the lake frontage along the north shore of West Sister Lake, thus creating Green Forest Beach in 1924, the very first and wealthiest resort area in Leisureville. Several years later he "bought into" the development of Rainbow Beach, another exclusive subdivision on West Sister Lake. The 'resort business' during the 19205 and 19305 was small and intimate. Land sales were sporadic and immediate capital returns equally uncertain. Nevertheless, they both reflected and forecast Leisureville's growing dependence on tourism. The early vacationers were sportsmen (hunters and fishermen) and the families of business- men who could afford to leave the city each summer. The latter gathered along the lake fronts in small log cabins which were built and serviced by local residents. In 1935, according to Department 124 of Natural Resource maps, there were 17 cottages along East Sister Lake. In 1939 they had increased to 23. The vacationers traded in the village and socialized informally among themselves and with the 'better' Leisureville families. It was reported in a local news article, for instance, that [Dr. and Mrs. Henry Garth] entertained about 75 of the resorters and local people at a very pleasant impromptu affair Saturday evening at their home north of town, in honor of their house guests [Mrs. Elaine Phillips and Mrs. Wilbur Brandon] of Detroit. Raspberry Shortcake was served from 7 to 9 p.m. ([Remote1County Tribune, August 4, 1938). Vacationers took part in the occasional village activity-~an evening movie shown against the side of a building, an evening dance, a church service, a picnic, etc. They articulated most closely with the village center and though their relationships with area residents were informal and friendly, they remained a group apart, seasonally, spacially and socially. As yet their presence had not greatly altered the general way of life of the majority of area residents. Demographic Factors Like most everything else throughout "the lean years," demo- graphic data is almostenonexistent. Little is recorded for Timber Township but total population figures. As mentioned earlier, the 1910 U.S. Census of Population reported a population of 882 for Timber Township, a 6.8% decrease from 1904, the estimated peak year for lumbering operations. That this loss of population may be correlated with the reduction in lumbering activities and preliminary migrations out of the area is 125 reasonable. By 1920, however, there can be no doubt of a massive change in the township's situation. Between 1910 and 1920 the population of Timber Township had declined 65.8% (882 to 302) (U.S. Census of Population). The conditions which had supported a nucleated settlement had been removed. Throughout the 19205, the population continued to decline though not as rapidly. By 1930 Timber Township had 244 residents (a 19.2% decrease) and a total of 41 farms (U.S. Census of Population; U.S. Census of Agriculture). Since the farms were predominantly family owned and operated, and using the overly conservative estimate of four persons per family, it may be concluded that at least 65% and probably closer to 85% of all residents lived on farms throughout the township. The community had become agrarian, decentralized and fast on its way to extinction. By 1940, however, these trends seem to have been checked. The population had grown by 124 persons or 50.8% (244 to 368) (U.S. Census of Population). The increase may, in part, have been the result of natural increase, the general migration within the mid- west back to rural areas during the depression (Hawley 1949:25), and the early beginnings of resort and other small businesses operated by ex-city dwellers. In 1940 38 farms were reported as were a total of 148 persons in the rural-farm population (U.S. Census of Population; U.S. Census of Agriculture). It is suggested that the rural-farm population had by 1940 decreased to about 40% of the total township population. The number of occupied rural-farm and rural-nonfarm dwellings within the township further support this 126 change in economic and residence patterns. In 1940 there were 41 occupied rural-farm dwellings reported and 75 occupied rural-nonfarm dwellings (U.S. Census of Population). This data seems to describe a trend away from an agrarian life style and toward one of greater economic dependence. Not until 1940 do partial breakdowns for the township popula- tion reappear (Table 4.1). While comparative changes are difficult to recognize due to the paucity of earlier data, certain demographic conditions suggest themselves. The first of these is the age of the population. The median age for males was 31.6 years, that for females 28.0 years. Both figures are high, each about five years above those for the county as a whole (males 26.8, females 23.5). Very generally, these township figures were more typical of the county's rural-nonfarm population (male 28.1, female 23.7) than they were of its rural-farm population (male 25.7, female 23.2). A second point is the relatively small number (30) of foreign born persons remaining within the total population-~now only 8.1% (Table 4.2). These persons (18 males and 12 females), it may be assumed, were the heads of Finnish families and/or their elder sons and daughters, a population which was fast disappearing through out- migration and death. Third, while the sex ratio for Timber Township appears quite normal (1.13), two age groups show interesting variation. The first concerns the cohorts 15-24 years and 25-34 years, with sex ratios of .87 and .76, respectively. The relative absence of males in these cohorts may suggest an out-migration to areas of greater employment, 127 a condition not uncommon to rural communities in general. Neverthe- less, the difference between male and female frequencies within these cohorts was so small that the skewed ratio may be of little importance (15-24 years, 27 males/31 females; 25-34 years, 19 males/25 females). The second variation, which appeared in cohorts 45-54 years and 55-64 years, was of greater magnitude. Here the sex ratios were 1.40 and 1.73, respectively (45-54 years, 28 males/20 females; 55-64 years, 26 males/15 females). The greater frequency of males in these cohorts may reflect the presence of unmarried male relatives or laborers 'held over' from the 20 years of farming which preceded the census. It might also reflect what appears to be a rural tendency toward male longevity. (The 65 years and older age category provides further support here--15 males/12 females.) In any event, both conditions tend to underscore the township's relative lack of youth. By 1940 the demographic data suggest that the Timber Township population had experienced a 'stabilization' of its earlier decline as well as a major change in its economic life style. In addition, this population appears to have become both old and inactive, characteristics which correlate more closely with the county's rural-nonfarm population than with its rural-farm population. Social Activity and Organization The available economic and demographic statistics are sug- gestive of, but cannot fully describe, the community's activities and social organization throughout "the lean years." Leisureville, as suggested by plat maps, social activity and personal recollections, 128 TABLE 4.l.--Timber Township: 1940. Age and Sex Distribution-- All Classes. Male Female _- Sex f %f cum f f %f cum f Ratio 65 & Over 15 7.69 100.00 12 6.94 100.01 1.25 55 - 64 26 13.33 92.31 15 8.67 93.07 1.73 45 - 54 28 14.36 78.98 20 11.56 84.40 1.40 35 - 44 22 11.28 64.62 22 12.72 72.84 1.00 25 - 34 19 9.74 53.34 25 14.45 60.12 .76 15 - 24 27 13.85 43.60 31 17.92 45.67 .87 5 - 14 42 21.54 29.75 30 17.34 27.75 1.40 O - 4 16 8.21 8.21 18 10.41 10.41 .89 TOTAL 195 173 1.13 Median Age 31.6 28.0 21 & Over 122 62.56 100 57.80 1.22 SOURCE: Compiled from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, United States Census of Population 1940, Character- istics othhe Population, Michigan,'Table 28.—-"Race and Age, by Sex, with Rural-Farm Population, for Minor Civil Divisions, by Counties: 1940." 129 TABLE 4.2.--Timber Township: 1940. Native and Foreign-Born Population. Male Female Sex f %f N/F Ratio f %f N/F Ratio Ratl° Native 177 90.77 161 93.06 1.10 9.83 13.42 Foreign- Born 18 9.23 12 6.94 1.50 TOTAL 195 173 1.22 SOURCE: Compiled from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, United States Census of Population 1940, Character- istics of the Population, Michigan, Table 28.--"Race and Age, by Sex, with Rural-Farm Population, for Minor Civil Divisions, by Counties: 1940." 130 was less a cohesive social entity than a rubric for discussing several settlement-type groupings loosely contained within township dimensions. Economic and interpersonal relationships cross-cut these groupings, but centralized coordination was minimal. Daily routines, farming activities and physical space served to reinforce their relative separateness. Farming Settlements The township farms were located north and east of the village in two recognizable neighborhoods or settlements. They were recog- nizable partly because of location and partly because the solidarity of one gave form, however inadvertently, to the other. The two were neither overtly antagonistic nor unc00perative, but for the duration of farming activities within the township, they remained distinct. The "East Settlement" was located about five miles east of the village and populated by a dozen Finnish families. Some had settled through the efforts of the MHS Company, others had indepen- dently dropped out of the regional lumbering stream. By 1922 the last family had arrived in Timber Township. None of the families had been related prior to settlement, but their language and cultural background provided a ready basis for social cohesion and, as a group, provided clear definition. They were called "Finnlanders" by the other township residents. They, in turn, called the non-Finnish pOpulation "Yankees," or "Other Tongues" ([Piispanen] 1963). By comparison, the farms north of town had no collective identity other than "the farms north of town." Like the Finnish 131 population, some had been placed by the MHS Company. Others had independently homesteaded. Again like the farms to the east, families were initially unrelated. However, no common ancestry, native language nor religion served as an immediate focus for unity. Two other related factors distinguished these farming settle- ments. The first was their relative homogeneity. Finnish farms were smaller than the township average and more uniform in size (i.e., about 80 to 120 acres). They were also tightly abutted, one against the next. By contrast, the farms north of town, in addition to showing greater size variation (i.e., 40+ to 200+ acres), were frequently separated by large, nonfarm, land holdings. Those fanms which did abut were generally owned by close relatives (i.e., father, son, brother). As a result, family farm 'complexes' were more pro- nounced north of the village, and often distances of six or more miles separated nonkin related farms. Second was the fact that, as a group, the Finns were recog- nized as being the more successful farmers. There was less ownership turnover and farm abandonment within the "East Settlement." A partial explanation for this may be related to the variation in soils themselves. The best township soils were to be found either six miles directly north of the village where the hardwood forests had been, or five miles directly east where they took on the loamy characteristics of the better soils within the county. The poorest soils for farming were located closer to the village, and so, as a group, "the farms northcfl’town" realized unequal fortune in the 132 quality of their farming land. Of greater importance, however, was the internal social organization of the Finnish settlement. The "Finnlanders" were highly autonomous of other area groups and activities, and were frequently described as "clannish." Rather than participating in village or township institutions, they created their own. They built a Finnish Lutheran Church on land donated by a settlement family. Services were conducted in the Finnish language, and elaborate holiday programs were organized within the settlement. Similarly, they established a Finnish cemetery, again on donated land. Their children went to the same rural school and though this was not specifically a Finnish institution, all but a few students came from the "East Settlement." Education was highly valued and further supplemented by home instruction in Finnish culture, language and religion. Children were encouraged to seek friends and marry within their group ([Piispanen] 1963). The families of the "East Settlement” also assisted and socialized with one another almost to the exclusion of other area residents. Men cooperated in constructing and tending individually owned bathhouses (saunas), and Saturdays were generally set aside for visiting, sharing meals and enjoying the sauna. There were picnic grounds for holding settlement programs. According to one native, The picnic grounds, near the church and cemetery was a meeting place of Finns. Annually, they gave a picnic as a church fund-raising project when the 'Yankees,‘ tourists and 'Other Tongues' were invited to come and enjoy Finnish food and spend their money. . . . the crowning feature was a tug-a-war. They called it 'the Finns Against the World.‘ Naturally, the Finns won every time ([Piispanen] 1963). 133 This same solidarity and coordination of energy was apparent in farming activities themselves. While Finnish farms were indi- vidually owned and operated, much of the heavy machinery and harvest- ing labor was purchased and/or used cooperatively. The Finns formed a "threshing machine company" and a "silo filling company." (Both of these companies apparently included one or two non-Finnish farmers.) Cooperatively they owned a tractor, a wood sawing jig, a manure spreader, a seed drill, and a machine for testing butter fat in milk. On a smaller scale, a native has written that "her mother and a neighbor lady owned a large meat grinder together. Father . . . own[ed] a registered bull with a neighbor. He paid for it and the neighbor fed it. Both had the use of the bull for breeding of their herds" ([Piispanen] 1963). The use of this communal farm machinery was extended upon occasion to other area farmers. However, Buzz Wilson recalls that "The Finns and Swedes weren't much for borrowing or lending. They would rent." Through such collective ownership, the "East Settle- ment" managed to maximize their own labor and capital resources and generate occasional income through explicit 'business-like' relation- ships with other township residents. Finally, the Finns were instrumental in organizing a farmer's cooperative as a means of marketing their farm produce. The "coop," unlike other Finnish institutions, was not limited to the members of the "East Settlement." Rather, it was supported by all the area farmers, probably the only formally active, community-wide associa- tion to exist throughout "the lean years." According to Frank 134 Thorenson, the "coop's" manager, only one farmer refused to partici- pate. The others apparently realized the economic advantage of such an organization. Similarly, Mrs. Helm has credited the "coop" with the area's economic survival. It is unfortuante that despite its perceived importance, no specific records remain of its marketing activities or its formal charter. It is remembered, however, that the "coop" formed in 1919 and set up its business office in an abandoned hotel on Center Street. Membership was open to anyone purchasing a share in the operation. Farm produce was collected and shipped out weekly to Lake City for market. This was done by rail throughout the 19205, but the con— tinued decline in service required the purchase of a "coop" truck. In 1929 trucking lines were established and shipping operations con- tinued throughout the 19305. Of equal importance was the fact that the "coop" functioned as a purchasing association. Groceries and manufactured goods which were unavailable or otherwise too expensive were brought back to the area and made available to members at reduced prices through the "coop" outlet. Whether this created antagonisms with the few remaining village merchants is not known. Indirectly, anyway, it served to bolster the fragile economy, a condition which benefited the area in general. "Coop" activities were apparently successful enough that in 1935, a year after fire destroyed the "coop" building, a permanent "stone store" was built with community labor to house the marketing operations. By 1940, however, area farming had begun to decline and 135 with the advent of World War II, the migration out of local sons, and the breaking up of farming tracts, the cooperative venture died. Shares were sold to the largest stockholder who ran the store as a private business for several years. Then, after a series of owners and uses, the building was destroyed by fire in 1963. As a group, "The farms north of town" were without this same internal coordination. The nuclear family was the basic social and economic unit though surrounding farms provided informal opportunities for kin and neighbor related socializing and labor exchange. It appears that as distances between farms increased the frequency of interaction decreased. Nevertheless, some area cooperation existed, particularly when a local farmer was dangerously behind in his chores, or sickness, weather or other emergency threatened his livelihood. At such times all the farmers who were able came to his assistance. Schools routinely closed during critical farming periods to allow children to help at home, or if they weren't needed, to "hire on" with another farmer. Buzz Wilson recalls that one year his father had to rely on such labor to manage the harvest of his potatoes. If "the farms north of town" organized 1K) long-term coopera- tive ventures, neither did they create their own institutions, but participated in those of the township and village. Two schools served these farming families. One was a rural school six miles north of the village. The other was the large, two-story school in town built during the lumbering era. Here again, physical distance undermined rather than encouraged any strong group identity or evenness of individual interaction. The farming families attended 136 the village church and buried their dead in the township cemetery. Farming and general locality gave definition to the settlement, but beyond informal and infrequent associations, non-Finnish family farms remained physically isolated and socially insulated from one another. The village, as the area's service center, provided the external locus for the majority of their social and economic activity. The Village The village was the residence of nonfarmers and constituted another social, as well as physical, grouping. Greater economic variation was found among village residents than within the farming settlements. Merchants, wage laborers, landowners, lake vacationers, lived in close proximity, but their numbers were small (about 50 persons) and economic dependence served to bind them into incessant social interaction. Relationships, despite individual circumstances, were personal and friendly. And though the few merchants, profes- sionals, and landowners showed a greater frequency of 'business dealings' and were more actively involved in maintaining village institutions and initiating village activity, these differences received no formal elaboration. Such persons did not constitute a distinct or select social grouping. The bustle that characterized the village during lumbering was no longer present. It was a quiet, generally uneventful place. Farmers came to town about once a week to buy supplies, leave off produce, attend church services or major holiday programs and, not secondarily, to keep in touch with local happenings. Stalker's 137 hardware served as an informal meeting place for passing time, gossip and information. During the 19305 it housed the only telephone in the township and so by necessity became a clearing house or relay point for information concerning area residents. Buzz Wilson recalls that Saturday trips "into town" were all day affairs accompanied by a sense of excitement and festivity. Nevertheless, the "bubbling fraternalism" which characterized the village a decade or so earlier no longer existed in any formal organizational sense. Between 1916 and 1929 all the fraternal orders, special interest clubs, and village associations had disappeared. Membership had dwindled to a point requiring them to disband and/or relinquish their charters. Even the Church itself had become inactive and was close to collapse. Mrs. Helm writes that "during the years 1916-1926 the church was without a pastor and it's reported by some that during that period the doors were indeed closed for a couple of years" (1974). The wives of village residents, Georgia Wilder in particular, were active in continuing church programs. They preached sermons, con- ducted funeral services and individually assumed the responsibility for preserving the religious and moral order of the village. What organized activity there was seems to have been indi- vidually initiated and public in nature. Holiday and occasional special event-type programs were organized within the village by a few active residents. A flag raising in recognition of the U.S. entry into World War I was such a program. The September 5, 1918 edition of the [Leisureville] Journal reports that a 54 foot flag pole was raised "without hitch" outside the make-shift township hall 138 and everyong sang the "Star Spangled Banner." The program amounted to a patriotic pagent of local talent. C. H. Cordwell, the program's chairman, sang "Victory Song." Dr. Garth, Georgia Wilder, and several other active village residents sang or accompanied on the piano. A talk was given on the "history of the flag and the events leading up to the war." "America" was sung in closing by a "large crowd" at this "very good" program. Another source of organized activity was "the community club" which was organized sometime around 1920 by Mrs. Stalker, Georgia Wilder, C. H. Cordwell and others active within the village. The "club" held socials every Saturday night on the second floor of a Center Street business. According to an earlier report (Spielberg 1963), "the activity at these socials included dancing for girls and young people, card-playing (penny ante poker) for 'gents' and sewing or 'talk' corners for women. Apparently all persons in and out of the village were encouraged to come and to participate." Aside from dues, which Mrs. Helm reports were five cents per month, membership required no other formal obligation. Few records remain of the activities of formal township government. Township Board meetings were most likely sporadic and poorly attended. In the late teens, the positions of supervisor and clerk were held by the newspaper editor and a large, land holding farmer northeast of town. Both men, however, left the area within the next few years. By the mid-19205 two village merchants had assumed these duties. Dale Wilder was, according to his wife, "the township clerk for many years." His major responsibility, she recalls, 139 was recording the births and deaths within the township. A job apparently made more difficult by the extensive use of midwives. Nothing is directly known of election campaigns or voting outcomes with respect to township or any other formal office. Once installed, however, individuals seem to have remained as public fix- tures until they left the area or deliberately resigned. Indirectly anyway, formal opposition appears to have been minimal and the same active village residents assumed the majority of these positions. Likewise, township initiated programs and/or policies appear to have been nonexistent. The township was almost wholly dependent on county services and administration. Even as late as 1943, the first year for which any county budget materials exist, the township had levied no taxes and was allocated the fixed millage for township (i.e., 1 mill or $313.68) and school (i.e., 4 mills or $1254.72) operation. Besides formally designated responsibilities (i.e., Poor Board, Road Commission, Courts, taxation), the county served as the smallest unit for the implementation of State and Federal programs (i.e., Red Cross drives, agricultural conservation committees, CCC programs). As a governing body, the Township Board appears to have been passive and reliant on external policy decisions. Only one known issue involving local decision making occurred at the township level during "the lean years." This centered around the question of whether or not the township should remain dry. It had, prior to 1937, been so by local option. According to an earlier report (Spielberg 1963), 140 a relatively intense fight ensued between the more firmly established businessmen and families [Stalker, Davis (Stalker's brother-in-law), Cordwell, Wilder were among this group], and those newly arrived persons with commercial interests and/or those 'older residents' wishing to get started and get a firmer foothold in business or other commercial activity. The former felt that by remaining dry, they would continue to encourage a "professional and . . . 'a better caliber' of people . . . coming to [Leisureville] in search of their private summer resort site . . . . It appears that for the latter group the resort develOp- ment was much too slow and its benefits much too concentrated in the hands of a few" (Spielberg 1963). The township voted to go 'wet,‘ a decision which did accelerate local tourism. The decision, however, marked several other social changes as well. It reflected rather dramatically the need for wage labor or nonagricultural income. It marked the beginning of Leisureville's tourist dependence. But this overt difference of opinion or publically expressed group interest was not typical of "the lean years." Social inter- action was characteristically cooperative, informal and friendly. Interpersonal relationships rather uniformly reflected the many over- lapping and intensive ties which proximity, kinship and the division of labor necessitated. Village and extra-village associations were few and nonexclusive and activities generally nonspecialized and informal. Individual differences found no formal or institutional support, but were attributed to personal energies, temperaments or other human qualities. A social equality prevailed. CHAPTER V LEISUREVILLE: THE HISTORY PERIOD III: EARLY TOURISM 1940-1959 Economic Conditions Throughout the 19205 and 19305 the Leisureville community (if indeed such an inclusive term is justified) had a nonspecialized, largely subsistence economy. Tourism was little more than a speculative venture for the few individuals with capital. Village merchants and large land holders benefited almost exclusively from the occasional returns on their personal investments. By the end of World War II Leisureville was undeniably a tourist oriented com- munity. Dozens of rustic summer resorts clustered around the area's lakes. Sunshine, water, fish, wild game and woodlands had become economic commodities, and Leisureville "the center of fishing, the home of the deer" ([Cordwell] c. 1943) served and depended on a natural territory which overran township dimensions. It extended, according to early promotional maps, into eight townships and four counties--an area of approximately 245 square miles. Leisureville had become "The Ideal Vacationland" ([Leisure- ville] Boosters c. 1953) and by extension its residents the ideal hosts. Its limitations, they pointed out, could more accurately be regarded as virtues. "[Leisureville] [was] not a fashionable resort. It [was] simply a friendly spot in the northwoods where 141 142 one [could] have a lot of fun or peace and quiet in his own way" ([Leisureville] Boosters c. 1953). Just as important, they felt, vacationers were sure to enjoy "the small town friendliness that characterizes our_community" ([Leisureville] Boosters c. 1953, emphasis mine). Leisureville's physical extent had altered. Its economy had specialized. And now none of its residents remained unaffected. The change, however, did not bring prosperity. If anything it underscored the economic vulnerability of area residents who had come to depend on a seasonal trade they had little means of control- ling. Wage labor had replaced any earlier self-sufficiency, and immediate need and long profitless winters discouraged the accumula- tion of surplus. Nevertheless, Leisureville did not merely trade economic designs. Neither was the change instantaneous, nor the community reborn. Tourism did not undermine or transform a way of life any more than agriculture had undermined or transformed lumbering. Rather it was the result of Leisureville's continuous adjustment of available resources, themselves the result of earlier circumstance, to inescapable conditions imposed by a larger or external environment. By 1940 Leisureville's tentative romance with agriculture had grown cold. Wage labor was needed to supplement marginal farm pro- duction, and time off the farm necessitated additional capital income. Family farms had ceased to produce more than household gardens, or stock more than a few head (1 to 10) of horses or dairy cattle for home use, trade or local sale. Only one farm specialized. 143 The Gerhardt hatchery east of town remained in business until 1963 when larger, fully mechanized hatcheries 'down state', utilizing improved transportation routes, made competition impossible. Yet, even in the best of times, the farm was never the family's sole source of income. The eclipse of farming came as no surprise. While it served to buffer starvation conditions during the depression, it offered little further promise to the employable youth of the area. Industrial and manufacturing centers to the south (i.e., Detroit, Saginaw, Lansing, Toledo, Chicago), on the other hand, promised both abundant employment and opportunities for advancement. The out-migration of native sons and daughters, so typical of the nation's rural areas, found no exception in Leisureville. The years of war production prior to U.S. entry into World War II accelerated this trend. When farming parents died or grew too old to work, few children remained available or willing to carry on the tradition. Leisureville's agrarian heritage proved terminal after one (in a few cases two) generation(s), and the land itself was left idle or sold, the capital divided among the children. The Piispanen family farm, established in 1922 and located in the "East Settlement," is typical of these changes. Prior to 1940 the youngest daughter recalls, . . there was great prosperity in the cities. The young men could make more money in the factories than on the farms. After having lived in the city for some time the farm lost all its attractiveness. Even the ones who lived on the farms did not work the soil. The results were often very disappointing; most people giving up farming entirely. Those who remained on the farms went to [Leisureville] l44 to work as carpenters, caretakers, clerks, painters, day workers as house cleaners and masons ([Piispanen] 1963). Of the eight Piispanen children, the four youngest permanently left the area. All completed degrees at Michigan State University, found professional employment and married 'outsiders.I 0f the four who remained, I'one work[ed] as a caretaker for a summer home of a well-to- do industrialist . . . one [was] part owner and operator of a local hardware store . . . [one was] a housewife in [Leisureville] [and one] work[ed] as a plumber and general handiman" ([Piispanen] l963). After the death of her parents, she continued, her "brothers decided to sell the farm and move into town." All moved within a one mile radius of the village. The prodigal children also built a ”shack" a mile west of the village where they spent holidays and summer vacations. Twenty years after the family's initial settle- ment, "farming was abandoned" ([Piispanen] 1963). With the loss of over half its youth and the dismantling of its farming settlements, Leisureville experienced a physical 'pulling- in' or consolidating of area residents. Their settlement in town or around the lake shores reflected and reinforced the economic centralization which was developing within the village and around the movements of tourism. These physical and compositional shifts were further emphasized by the in-migration of young families from urban areas, Detroit, Warren and Flint in particular. The migration into Leisure- ville can be noted as early as l938, but the greatest influx is felt to have occurred immediately after World War II, between l946 and 145 l948. It continued, at a considerably reduced rate, well into the l9505. The migration itself coincides with a general post-war trend within Michigan--the movement of urban families to smaller, non- farming communities (Hawley l949z45, 73). Though certainly not an inclusive figure, the author has identified 75 families who arrived during that period. But, these new residents were not a random population. A few were native sons returned after an absence of five to ten years. Most, as newspaper articles, earlier research findings and personal recollections attest, were earlier sportsmen, visitors and/or vacationers. Alan Shatner, for instance, recalls passing Leisure- ville on his trucking route from Detroit and stopping off to fish. "On one of these trips he decided to move to [Leisureville] and establish himself" (Spielberg l963). He sold most of his belongings and moved up in l946 with his wife and small family. Flora Miner (the present township clerk) remembers leaving Detroit in l947 after spending a two week vacation in Leisureville. "The area was beauti- ful, and that's where we wanted to live." Her husband, however, could not find work locally and spent the work week on the west side of the state. Flora "did whatever she could" (i.e., waitressing, bookkeeping, secretarial work) in addition to raising two small children. 'Biff' Reilly, an earlier sportsman, recalls selling his bar in Warren and moving to Leisureville with his young family in l94l. He moved, he explains, to get away from the "rat race" and "the drunks." He also recalls that he made a living by selling the gravel he dug out of the sides of the road, and that his cabin on 146 West Sister Lake was without electricity for almost two years. Similarly, 'Buster' Mills moved his family to Leisureville, the site of earlier hunting trips, after a long strike at the Chrysler plant in Warren put him out of work. Though the specific reasons for moving varied from individual to individual, the general patterns were similar. Some, as the early promotionals suggest, were attracted to the 'out-of—doors,l some to the 'peace and quiet.‘ None mentioned being lured by the existing economic or employment possibilities of the area. Nevertheless, they appear to have been both energetic and idealistic. The war which had recently interrupted their lives seemed also to have left them with a determination to find a simpler, more personally rewarding way of life. As a group they were without large capital reserves. They bought village or lake shore lots and built four room cabins with available materials--personal investments of one to two thousand dollars. They had never been a part of Leisureville's farming economy, but started out working odd jobs and/or borrowing heavily to initiate independent business ventures which relied on the capital generated by tourism. 'Roughing it' physically and financially were immutable conditions and once settled "most everyone just scraped by." Tourism The growth of tourism was not a condition unique to Leisure- ville. A war time economy revitalized national employment, finance 147 and manufacture. More people acquired the means (i.e., capital, leisure time and transportation) to leave the cities for vacations 'up North.‘ The same conditions which caused the out-migration of local youth made rural tourism possible. On November 20, l939, the [Remote] County Tribune printed an article documenting the preceding three hunting seasons within the county. It noted a steady increase in the number of hunters and the number of deer killed (l935: 5,732 hunters/l,504 deer; l936: 5,669 hunters/1,407 deer; l937: 6,209 hunters/l,582 deer; 1938: 7,074 hunters/l,900 deer). Mrs. Helm writes that about l937 or l938 the "stone store" gave out pennants to every hunter who shot his buck. Apparently 200 were given out on the afternoon of the first day. By May l6, l946 the same newspaper reported that for the fall of l945 there was a 25% increase in the number of Michigan hunters and that the number of deer killed (97,72l) "sets a new high and climaxes a fourteen year increase . . . [Remote] County . . . had more than l0,000 hunters . . . ." Similar trends were recorded in other sportsmen and vacationing activities. Nevertheless, those who found their way to Leisureville were not unassisted. When native sons and daughters returned home to visit they brought their own family and friends and informally intro- duced them to the area. City 'transplants' extended the same courtesies to their friends and relatives. With the exception of half a dozen wealthy industrialists (all millionaires, according to local rumor) who set up tax deductable business retreats, vacationers arrived via kin ties and word of mouth. They were predominantly blue collar workers (i.e., foremen, craftsmen, skilled operatives, 148 business managers or small business owners) and they stayed anywhere from two weeks through the entire summer. Bill Morris, an ex-resort owner, remembers that his cabins on Seymour Lake were always full of the same families year after year. "If it wasn't the parents, then the kids would come up. We never had to advertise. It was all done by word of mouth and we got better people that way." Leisureville's 'vacationland' clientele was primarily the result of an informal process of self-selection. As a result, the tourist trade grew slowly by comparison to more accessible and/or more widely advertised resort communities, those around deeper bodies of water (i.e., Houghton Lake, Higgins Lake, Burt Lake, Mullet Lake) or along the Lake Michigan shoreline (i.e., Traverse City, Petosky, Charlevoix). By contrast the Leisureville 'vacationland' was accessible only by 65+ miles of dirt road. The Leisureville resi- dents were poor. (The median income for the county's rural non- farming families and unrelated individuals for l949 was reported as $l,454 (U.S. Census of Population). Of these 60% earned less than $2,000. By l959 the median income had risen to $2,960, 42.9% of the families earning less than $3,000 (U.S. Census of Population). In each of these censuses Remote County was reported to have the third lowest median income in the State.) The village was piecemeal and shabby, and the community was without modern facilities or any singular tourist attraction. Leisureville capitalized (quite literally) upon the close, friendly atmosphere it provided vacationers. Residents knew vaca- tioners by name. Bill Morris, for instance, candidly explained that 149 he would review his registration cards the night before, in order to call his resorters by name as they stepped out of the car. "People liked that, particularly when you remembered the kids." Merchants often "threw in an extra handful at no extra charge." Helen Topper's hospitality to those drinking at her Log Cabin Tavern became legend (i.e., "One evening we were sitting at Topper's and asked Helen if there was anything around to eat. She went into the back room and came out with a huge tray of cheese and crackers. We damn near had our dinner there and she wouldn't charge us for it.") Vacationers eulogized the "down-to-earth simplicity" of Leisureville "folks." They enjoyed what they found to be an 'undeveloped environment,‘ a 'slower pace of life,’ an 'unsophisticated population' and a 'quaint community' where services were cheaper and everyone was always ready to help. For Leisurevillites, making a living depended on accommodating tourists. From late April through late November, from trout season through deer season, residents catered to nonresident needs. Leisureville, its residents admitted, was actually two different com- munities; one in the summer, another in the winter. The contacts and contracts established during the "busy" season closely determined individual welfare when the community snapped back to its small and economically inert winter self. "People," Flora Miner recalls, "tried to make the most of the summer and went on relief or borrowed in the winter. They would make just enough to cover living expenses and pay back debts before they had to borrow once more." One native speaking of her own family could also have been speaking for the entire 150 community when she remarked, "We've always said, you can't be both poor and bashful." Generalized skills, service and merchandise, multiple jobs and small business ventures characterized resident attempts at making a living. While Leisurevillites may have been poor, they seized every opportunity to earn one more tourist dollar. Jacks of All Trades and Horse Traders.--Besides being "the home of the deer," Leisureville was also the home of the handiman and odd jobber. Individuals found work by independently agreeing, over a beer, or during a casual conversation, to do or fix something for someone else. Agreements were made on a face to face basis. Word of mouth and a hand lettered sign posted in a storefront window were the principal means of advertising. There was no subcontracting out of special jobs. There was also no employment humility. As one resident recalls, "no one ever said they couldn't do it." To be a self appointed 'Jack of all trades and master of none' made economic sense. It set the widest net to snare the unpredictable tourist dollar. Local 'Jacks" hauled dirt, dug wells, laid cement, built cabins, painted buildings, tended yards, ran errands, repaired cars, fixed appliances, plumbed, wired, glazed, etc. Wages, like employment agreements, varied from job to job and individual to individual. Generally, however, men worked on an hourly basis, charging $l.50 to $2.00 an hour, but spare parts or used parts were often donated free of charge. There was, similarly, a lack of standardization in the completed jobs themselves. If flooring nails were not available, then roofing nails were used. 151 Old stoves were buried as grease traps for kitchen sinks. Wells often appeared 10 to 20 feet away from drain fields. Newspaper served as insulation. Old windows were reused. New doorways were built to fit old doors and cabins acquired definite personalities. Men used the tools and materials at hand to get the job done. The general philosophy ran something like: 'You always have what you have. You don't always have what you need. So, use what you have.‘ There was no duplicity in their treatment of tourists. Residents, Flora Miner recalls, "had to make do, and they worked 12 to 18 hours a day at it." Nuclear families were economic units and all individual mem- bers cooperated. 'Buster' Mills and his family provide an excellent example of the 'Jack of all trades' in Leisureville. For over 20 years, from his arrival in 1944 until he was no longer able to work, 'Buster' was an odd jobber. As a self appointed carpenter he built dozens of cabins--neither his wife nor daughter can remember the exact number--often employing several locals to help him. He repaired buildings, dug holes, hauled dirt, cleared brush, fixed machinery, worked at a gas station, and chauffeured retreaters to and from the Goldberg Hotel, a Jewish resort on the south side of East Sister Lake. His wife cleaned and readied cabins at $1.00 to $1.25 an hour (19505), took in washing, rented the cabin behind their home on West Sister Lake for $30 to $40 a week, and later worked at Stalker's at $1.00 to $2.00 an hour (19505). By the time she was ten years old, his daughter "was pounding nails at one job while [her] 'daddy' went off to finish another." She baby sat, ironed 152 clothes and washed dishes for 25¢ an hour. One deer season she worked at the Goldberg Hotel setting tables, making beds, cleaning rooms for 50¢ an hour. Summers she worked at the drug store soda fountain for 50¢ an hour, at a grocery for 65¢ an hour, and at Stalker's hardware for 85¢ an hour. She was responsible for earning her own spending money and remembers that her odd jobs made her about $10.00 a week. Her brother, similarly, worked as a handiman for a wealthy Detroit industrialist during the summer, and with his father the rest of the year. Through their combined efforts the family averaged an income of about $3,500 to $4,000 a year. Even so the money made during the summer months was not always sufficient to carry them through the winter. One winter (early 19505) they moved to Florida in search of employment. On several other occasions they returned to the Detroit area, looking for seasonal work. This short-term migration from Leisureville was not an uncommon occurrence as one student indicated in a January 10, 1952 newspaper column. "We have lost four students from our room [one third of the class]. They are [Tod Mills], [Karen Wells], [Beth Martin], and [Katie Opler]. [Tod] has moved to Warren, [Karen] to [Lake City], [Beth] to Florida and no one knows where [Katie] went" ([Remote] County Tribune). The 'horse trader' was also an independent and diversified operator. Rather than a 'fix-it,’ however, he was a small time entrepreneur--a deal maker--and he presented a colorful variation to local economic strategies. The 'horse trader' (and only three or four persons held undisputed claim to the title) was a manipulator 153 of goods and capital. He was incessantly involved in private business transactions converting his own resources into new oppor- tunities for profit. His operations, however, were small in scale and he had no investors or backers. He relied solely on a personal knowledge of his environment, a quick and winning personality and a gambler's capacity for risk. Alan Shatner was a 'horse trader.‘ Earlier research explains that when he first arrived in [Leisureville], he opened up a small mechanical repair shop and filling station. This he abandoned. Now he drives the school bus . . . . He also says he owns a small piece of property northwest of [Leisureville] where he runs some cattle. According to him, he has very few head; mixed herd which he picks up here and there . . . for slaughter and resale . . . . He is, however, always ready to sell out, 'lock, stoc and barrel' and transform his holdings into liquid capital, or to trade. At stock sales, he often accumulates anything which he sees potential profit in (sometimes ridiculously small) . . . everything from rabbits, geese or concrete blocks to horses and even a donkey and he is continually looking for customers for his menagerie . . . . He added that he does a number of things ('anything') that will supplement his income; including small craft items that he figures others will buy at some time or another (Spielberg l963). Financially, Shatner did "quite well." He was able to send his two children to college. Nevertheless, he was not "well off" even by area standards. In addition to his diversified business dealings, he had a nine month job, his wife worked part—time at the bank and his children found summer employment. He distinguished himself not through material success, but through his interpersonal strategies and singular personality. 154 Resort and Real Estate.--Throughout the 19405 and 19505 resort cabins were a familiar feature of 'vacation-land' hospitality. They nestled, with no known exception, along the lake shores. 0f the 50+ Leisureville resorts, half (26) were located along East and West Sister Lakes. The others were scattered along Seymour Lake, Turtle Lake, Little and Big Wood Lakes. These resort businesses were independently owned and operated. All, with the exceptions noted in Chapter IV, began in the 19405 and 19505, and most were established or purchased by new and/or seasonal residents from 'down state.’ Almost every household, however, had an 'extra' cabin in the backyard which was rented out for additional income. Despite their profusion, Leisureville resorts were hardly elaborate or elegant affairs. They ranged from 3 to 11 rental units, most of which were 20' x 20' log cabins with plank floors hastily constructed by the owners or local odd jobbers. Many were without indoor plumbing and "modernity" was measured in "screened in front porches," “inside toilets," "showers," and "electric refrigeration." Typical advertisements simply mentioned "cabins and cottages--good fishing--bathing and hunting" ([Leisureville] Boosters c. 1953). For about ten weeks during the summer (late June to early September) and for two weeks during deer season, resort cabins were filled with vacationers and sportsmen, many of whom had made their reservations a year in advance. During the 19405, $30 to $40 a week and $45 to $65 during the 19505 and early 19605 rented a cabin, its furnishings (minus linen), utilities, a boat, a beach and private access to a lake. 155 But the resort business was highly seasonal and while some owners advertised being open year-round, cabins were not winterized and trade was not present. Upkeep, too, was a considerable burden both in terms of time and money. Many residents recall having to replace windows, beds, flooring and spend hours scrubbing and hauling garbage after renting to irresponsible vacationers. This, in addi- tion to normal 'wear and tear' and the trend developing in the 19605 for privately owned summer homes, caused many to abandon or sell their businesses and/or subdivide their lake front property. Resorts changed hands frequently and, as a popular business enterprise, lasted for 20 to 25 years. But even during peak years the income from rental property was not sufficient to sustain families year-round and owners relied simultaneously on other employment. Some were only seasonal resi- dents, leaving Leisureville each fall for regular jobs in Detroit, Florida and Arizona. The author is aware of ten such persons. The majority, however, continued "to scrape by." Bill Morris, for example, recalls that for the first five years (1950-1955), he and his wife left Leisureville every December 5th and returned again in mid-April. "We made more money in the five months 'down state' than the seven up north." The rental of his seven cabins, he remembers, grossed $3600, but he made $3000 per year payments on the property. Repairs and "upgrading the sanitation" also required $3000 per year for the first five years. Later, living in Leisureville year-round, he worked as a carpenter and odd jobber, "beginning by pounding nails for $1.50 per hour." Similarly, Bob Kirsh, another resort owner, 156 worked as a painter and general handiman. Yet another was employed full-time as a caretaker for a Detroit industrialist. While rental property dominated the Leisureville landscape, it was not the only use made of local real estate. Between 1940 and 1959, 21 subdivisions were officially platted and recorded within the township. These concentrated, with only one exception, around East and West Sister Lakes and within a one-mile radius of the village. They were both resort and residential subdivisions, and they were created, not surprisingly, by many of the same individuals who had previously speculated in Leisureville land. During the 19405, for instance, Able Stalker, George Cordwell and three or four Detroit industrialists each established a new subdivision. Three other sub- divisions were carved from what were working farms ten years earlier. During the 19505, Henry Garth collaborated in two new subdivisions and Harvey Asch divided his property along East Sister Lake into 16 parcels. Other subdivisions were the individual investments of a few local businessmen or of 'down staters' who vacationed and would later retire to the area. Altogether the subdivisions created about 531 lake front or private lake access lots and about 428 nonlake front lots. The optimism, as usual, was staggering. While the number of privately owned homes and summer cabins was increasing, the latter particularly in the Deer Wood Beach and Green Forest Beach subdivisions, sales were still sporadic and most of the lots remained unpurchased. (Even in 1974, 272 of the above mentioned lots had not been sold.) 157 Promotionals and sales were still individually handled. In the 19405 Cordwell published a pamphlet advertising his acres of "choice lands selected over the years by reason of location and adaptability to future development" ([Cordwell] c. 1943). He argued that owning land, and he suggested 40 acre parcels as especially suitable, was "ACTUAL SOCIAL SECURITY." It offered "protection," "independence," and "the right mental attitude" and was not to be confused with "any social security scheme offered by a group of politicians." Cordwell, however, was still actively promoting his land to a select clientele as a column in the county newspaper illustrates. [George Cordwell] was host to a stag party given at the [Gates] resort on [Big Wood] lake last Saturday afternoon and evening. There were many outside guests present, including Lieutenant Governor [Vic Bartlett] who is now a candidate for governor. Mr. and Mrs. [Hank Trippe], farm announcer for W.G.N., Chicago, and others, including some local men from around this part of the country. [George] showed the outsiders many things they never knew we had here and no doubt they will want to come again (|Remote| County Tribune, May 16, 1946). John Belmore's informal land transactions provide amusing contrast to Cordwell's sophisticated 'sales pitch.‘ John Belmore was a bachelor, a new resident, the owner of a subdivided farm a mile east of town, a poor gambler and by unanimous agreement, a drunk. Apparently, when he needed money to cover back debts, to buy wine, or make good a promise, he would sign over (on a napkin or whatever was immediately at hand) a parcel of his property. Most of his land was dispensed with in this manner. Ownership often went unrecorded and Belmore himself died penniless. 158 While most local land sales fell within these two extremes, they were individually negotiated on a friendly, face to face basis between buyer and seller. There was little formal standardization. Price, terms and even lot size were a matter of individual agreement, though lake frontage commanded a higher dollar than inland property. During the early 19405 village and inland lots sold for $200 to $300. A house and 40 acres sold for around $6000, and a lake front lot for $1000. By the mid-19505 lake front lots had increased to $3500 while the other property remained relatively unchanged. Though dozens of individuals supplemented their incomes with occasional land sales, newspapers and area promotionals indicate the presence of only four or five real estate agencies or private agents. The agencies themselves were located outside Leisureville or remained in business for only a year or two. There was neither the volume of sales nor sufficient profit to sustain their specialized functions. This would change considerably during the 19605. The Village,--With the increase in tourism and the reliance on wage labor and capital income, the village assumed a position as the community's commercial and social center. Throughout the 19405 and 19505 it realized an assortment of small, independently owned and operated businesses, most concentrating along Center Street. Some were housed in existing vacant buildings. Others appeared in non- standardized wood, log or cinder block structures. A5 with the resorts, these businesses were begun or were purchased by new or seasonal Leisureville residents. The notable exceptions to this were 159 the Service and Supply hardware, a partnership of three "East Settle- ment" natives, the Norton Hotel, Bar and Restaurant owned by a newly returned native son, and the Sister Lakes Tavern owned by Norton's aunt and located on the outskirts of the now subdivided family farm. A tally of these commercial enterprises is quite impressive. During the 19405 and 19505, the village hosted a drug store, a variety store, a second hardware, two dry goods stores, a jewelry and watch repair shop, an electrical supply shop, several coffee shops, the Norton Hotel, three taverns, six or seven family restaurants, three or four grocery stores with bakeries, a roller skating rink, a bowling alley, four or five gasoline stations, a used car dealership, two or three bait and sportsmen shops, a worm farm, a pool hall, a dance studio, and a photographic studio, two beauty sh0ps, a barber shop, an ice cream stand, a motel, an insurance agency (one of several offices owned by Mr. Davis), and two or three real estate offices, in addition to already existing businesses. The list, however, is deceptive, for many businesses were combined into a single family operation, some closed after two or three years, and others changed ownership as often. The same small building, for instance, succes- sively housed a restaurant, a pool hall and a dance studio. Each was out of business within two years. The same gas station had four successive owners, and a single family restaurant might also sell gas, sporting equipment and rent over-night cabins. Like the employ- ment pattern itself, individual commercial ventures were generally short-term and diversified. 160 In addition to sales and service enterprises, the village realized a Booster's Information Booth (1946), a Leisureville Sports- men's Club House (1949), a Lions Club Park (1955), a baseball park (early 19405), a Masonic Temple (1952) which was housed in the old white frame school house, a new elementary school (State law had forced annexation in 1946 and grades 9-12 were bused to Amen), a fire station, a public beach (1949), a Catholic Church which was begun in 1946 and housed in an army quonset hut, and a Bethlehem Lutheran Church (early 19405). In spite of all these changes, Leisureville's tourist dependence caused the village to assume a highly seasonal character. During the summer the village was a vital place. It was filled with residents and vacationers purchasing food, supplies, contracting for odd jobs or informally socializing at restaurants and bars. Youth 'hung out' at the public beach, the soda fountain and the roller skating rink. Merchants would remain open everyday until 11:00 pm (sometimes until 2:00 am) and during the evenings "the streets would be crowded with people." Nora Burke, the pharmacist and owner of the Drug and Variety store, recalls that her store would be so full of people "just visiting," that actual cus- tomers often had a hard time squeezing in. She also remembers that during deer season she would count 200+ persons lined up in front of the store and along the sidewalk waiting to purchase packaged liquor. "People came downtown for something to do." Saturday night dances and bingo games were held in the township hall. Evening movies were also shown in the hall or outside against a convenient 161 building. There were fishing, hunting and archery contests, community dinners, barbecues, bake sales, raffles, parades, Fourth of July celebrations, an annual water ski show and a Hunter's Ball. In the winter, by contrast, the same places were quiet and inert. "At 2:00 pm on Labor Day," according to Nora Burke, "you could shoot a cannon down Main Street." The Information Booth was open only ten weeks of the year, from the 4th of July through Labor Day. The Sportsmen's activities extended from trout season to deer season. Bingo games ended in September, and a sad little note in the November 30, 1939 edition of the county newspaper explained as it would for the next 15 to 20 years that "The weekly shows at [Leisureville] have been discontinued until spring. Our crowds aren't quite large enough without the resorters" ([Remote] County Tribune). The park benches were stored, the beaches deserted, and the streets themselves bare of any but a few local cars. Even the churches lost the majority of their congregations and with them much of their financial support. The Catholic Church, for instance, was supported almost single handedly by a 'millionaire,‘ Detroit industrialist, J. F. Furguson. He donated land for the Catholic cemetery north of the village, financed the rectory and in 1960 purchased the land and footed much of the bill for a modern church with a 600 person seating capacity. Residents spent the winter months visiting family and friends. As one resident simply stated, "When winter came we became one large family." The most overt change, however, involved the businesses them- selves. The majority closed for the winter months (November-April), 162 their owners budgeting their summer income, seeking odd employment, or leaving Leisureville entirely. Among those that remained open were Stalker's hardware, the Service and Supply hardware, the Drug and Variety store, the Norton Hotel, a few small grocery-bakeries, the bowling alley and the motel. The gas stations took turns staying open a week at a time. The four taverns shared one, year-round, class 'C' liquor license which they rotated among themselves. Yet, seasonal trade sharply affected even these more stable businesses. Nora Burke recalls that she initially made money only in July, August and November, though by the mid-19505 she might "break even" in June and September. The rest of the year she lost money and calculated that "if I didn't have $10,000 in the bank by the end of deer season, I wouldn't make it through until Spring." It was a con- dition which she recalls, occurred "more often than not." Further- more, local needs did not diminish with the departure of tourists. Residents were forced to rely on credit for essential goods and services and merchants to extend it. Again, Nora remembers that it was not unusual for 75 to 100 persons to owe her anywhere from $25 to $100 during the winter. But Leisureville, she insisted, "was good on credit," and she would "mark off" only $300 to $400 per year to uncollected debts. Nevertheless, she recognizes that year-round merchants were financially more secure than the majority of Leisureville residents. She doesn't recall what she earned a year nor what she personally spent. She paid herself no salary, but would take money "out of the till" if and when she needed it. She was able, however, to contribute 163 sizable amounts of money and merchandise (i.e., $200 for 4th of July fireworks, bingo and raffle prizes) to promote community and tourist related activities. And though she couldn't specifically recall persons forced to rely on relief during the winter, she was quick to point out that I'it wasn't the business people." Community resources were limited and often, as in the case of a few merchants, dispropor- tionate. The extension of credit and personal assistance among residents served to temporarily redistribute available surplus within the community. Industry While the employment possibilities offered by village busi- nesses virtually disappeared by November, there were three small manufacturing concerns, begun in the 19405 and 19505, which did pro- vide local, year-round employment. The largest were the two sash and door shops. Northwood Sash and Door ("the woodpeckers") was estab- lished in 1946 by two native brothers, but early financial difficulties resulted in a controlling interest being sold to Mr. G. Tiller, a resident Detroit industrialist. In 1952, Tiller set up the Aluminum Sash and Door ("the shop") across the street from the first. The businesses employed 25 and 10 persons, respectively, and wages, a resident recalls, amounted to $50 a week. The shops were managed by local residents with varying degrees of success. "The woodpeckers" was managed by the former owner, who in addition to being a "high liver" at company expense, hired many of his own relatives whom he was then unable to fire. This, coupled 164 with a local scandal (i.e., the manager's volatile affair with his secretary) and "union agitation," resulted in the shop closing in the mid-19505. "The shop,‘I by comparison, was managed by Tod Shaker, a well-known 'horse trader,‘ a man who let few intensive, nonexplicit ties come in the way of business relationships. "Men," he recalls, "would come back to the shop after taking off to go hunting for a week or two and find they had lost their jobs." After creating innumerable hard feelings, Tod developed what he considered to be "a good working crew." He also remarked that there was no union or union-related trouble. "They didn't need a union. I was the union." Apparently, he would drive to Detroit and personally present Tiller with employee demands, threatening to close the sh0p if his requests were not met. He was never forced to carry out his threat. While company and employee relations were “excellent" and "labor competitive," the rising cost of shipping materials and finished units made production unprofitable. In 1960 "the shop" closed. Tod secured an agreement from Tiller that any employee who wanted a job would have one waiting in Detroit. Only one young man accepted the offer. Tod, himself, "would not consider" moving his family to the city. He did, however, help Tiller set up the new Detroit shop, and has remained "good friends" ever since. The third manufacturing concern was the Leisureville Wood Mill begun in 1957. It was owned by Mr. Helm, a 'newcomer' from Ohio whom residents described as a "loner" with an "abrasive" personality. The mill was locally financed and employed six to eight men at a wage of 165 $1.50 per hour. Timber was purchased from independent "pulp cutters," and employees, working year-round in an unheated metal shed, milled it and manufactured wooden pallets. These were trucked Idown state' and sold primarily to the automotive industry. The mill, also, was non- unionized, but rumors circulate that Mr. Helm met and overcame "union inspired" worker demands by shutting down Operations for three months. He then hired a new working crew at the same hourly wage. The opportunities for sustained year-round employment were limited. Except for a few stores, the school and one small mill, local money could not support payrolls on any but a short-term basis. Individuals and individual families, as a result, were rather indepen- dent economic units relying on an endless variety of immediate jobs to piece together a yearly income. Demographic Factors The demographic data from 1940 to 1960 for the Leisureville area supports in broad outline the changes and economic conditions just presented. Once again, published U.S. data is extremely incom- plete for minor civil divisions of less than 2500 persons. Larger political units are suggestive of area trends and will be used for this purpose. Unfortunately, they hide internal variations and average out specific population shifts. Wherever possible local sources will be used to verify and supplement the more quantitative dimensions of the Leisureville community. By 1950 the U.S. Census of Population reports a population of 646 for Timber Township. While the township does not completely 166 coincide with Leisureville's 'vacationland' extent, it does represent the areas of greatest population density (i.e., the platted village, East and West Sister Lakes, Big and Little Wood Lakes), and stands as a fair reflection of the resident population. The addition of lO-15 families or no more than 50 persons living around Turtle and Seymour Lakes would comprise a generous estimate of the entire community population. Since 1940 the township had grown by 260 persons or 67%. Similarly, Remote County's rural-nonfarm population had increased 64%, while its rural-farm population had decreased by 34%. Since no age or sex breakdowns exist at the township level for 1950, making compari- sons with earlier data difficult, the county's rural-nonfarm popula- tion (of which Leisureville is part) will be used for general compara- tive purposes (see Tables 5.1 and 5.2). Such a comparison between the county's rural-nonfarm popula- tions for the years 1940 and 1950 reveals four interesting changes. The first of these is a real increase in all age and sex categories (except males 20-24) when compared to their respective categories ten years earlier (i.e., in 1940 males between 35 and 39 years old had a frequency of 54; in 1950 males between 45 and 49 years old had a frequency of 88, producing a real increase of 34 persons). Such an increase suggests the in-migration of a new population and/or the shift of the rural-farm population to rural—nonfarm status. Since the following age cohorts gained more than the rural-farm population lost-- males: lO-l4, 40-44, 45-49, 50-54, 55-59; females: 10-14, 30-34, 35-39, 40-44, 50-54, 55-59--and since the entire rural-nonfarm 167 population grew by 1030 persons while the rural-farm population only lost 745 persons, it would appear that both these changes were occurring. Leisureville, as explained earlier, experienced both these shifts. The second change concerns the male and female age cohorts 20-24, 25-29, and 30-34 of the rural-nonfarm population. For these cohorts, real population increases are considerably depressed. In fact, males between the ages 20-24 show a real decrease of 23 persons. These same trends also existed within the rural-farm population. It appears, then, that there had been an out-migration of young adults between the ages of 20-34 in both rural-farm and rural-nonfarm popula- tions--a trend which occurred simultaneously with the in-migration just mentioned. In Leisureville particularly, natives recall losing almost two-thirds of their youth. Of 16 area farms, 48 of their total 73 children permanently left Leisureville from the late 19305 through the 19405. Of these 48, 35 could be definitely identified as having left for employment in southern Michigan. This, coupled with the increase in all other age cohorts, seems to suggest that those young adults present in 1950 represented, if not in whole then in part, a new population. In Leisureville specifically, the author can identify 20 young couples and/or families (i.e., persons between the ages of 20-34) who moved into the community between 1940 and 1950. The third point of interest concerns the change in sex ratios for the cohorts 20-24, 25-29 and 30-34 of the rural-nonfarm popula- tion, though the same trend can be found within the rural-farm 168 population. The ratios changed from 1.00, 1.27, 1.25 in 1940 to .64, .78, .90 in 1950, showing a higher frequency of females than males. This may reflect a greater out-migration of males than females in search of employment. Hawley, writing of the demographic changes in Michigan, provides some support for this when he states that "long distance migration adds disproportionately to the male popula- tion . . . ," or conversely, subtracts disproportionately from the donor population (1949:50). Another reason may have been the presence of a young widowed population in the aftermath of World War II. Also, the author has noted, though no firm statistics have been compiled, that accidental death, divorce and desertion were not uncommon factors affecting the single female population within Leisureville. These conditions seemed to have been a function of the physical isolation and the economic difficulties of the area. The author is aware of 11 separate cases in which a young female assumed the role as head of the household. The fourth general change concerns the age of the population which for the rural-nonfarm sector rose from a median age of 28.1 years for males and 23.7 years for females in 1940 to 32.0 years for males and 29.3 years for females in 1950. The population, then, was growing older. This was, in part, due to the out-migration of local youth and, in part, to the in-migration of older persons, a trend which would continue to gather momentum. The overall dependency ratios for 1940 and 1950 (calculated as the number of persons 0-14 plus the number of persons 65 and olderzthe remainder of the population) were 1:1.7 and 1:1.5, respectively for 169 the rural-nonfarm population (i.e., there was one dependent for every 1.7 and 1.5 adults in the labor force, theoretically). Within this, the ratio of children (0-14) to working age adults (15-64) remained fairly constant, 1:2.1 and 1:2.0. The greatest change appeared in the ratio of persons 65 and older to working age adults. In 1940 there was one elderly dependent for every 9.3 working age adults. In 1950 there was one elderly dependent for every 6.5 working age adults. In Leisureville specifically, the real increase in persons 60 and older suggests the beginning of the community's role as a retirement area. In partial summary, the 1950 rural-nonfarm population shows an out-migration of local youth predominantly between the ages 20-34 and more pronounced for males than females. It also shows the in-migration of a nonlocal population, both of families with young children (note particularly the real increases in the 10-19 age categories) and of older persons. Such conditions suggest a noncontinuous population, an aging population, and a population with a decreasing labor force relative to nonworking dependents. By 1960 age and sex breakdowns appear for Timber Township (U.S. Census of Population), but with what can only be assumed is a planned bit of perversion, rural-nonfarm data for the county is unavailable. Comparison, then, will be made with similar, but non- identical populations-~the country's rural-nonfarm population for 1950 and Timber Township's rural-nonfarm population for 1960 (Tables 5.2 and 5.3). Local data will be used to support and enlarge upon the general trends presented. 170 In 1960 the U.S. Census of Population reports a township population of 699 persons, a gain of 53 persons or 8.2% in ten years. Again, the addition of 50 persons living along the lakes just outside the township boundaries would give a more accurate estimate of the community population. The most impressive characteristic of this 1960 population is the median age which for males is 41.3 years and for females 43.6 years, an increase of 9 and 14 years, respectively, over the 1950 statistics for the county's rural-nonfarm population. The township has continued in its aging trend. The overall 1960 township dependency ratio did not differ from that of the 1950 county, rural-nonfarm population. Both popula- tions realized one dependent for every 1.5 working age adults. Never- theless, the internal shifts are of importance. In the 1950 county population there existed one child for every 2.0 working age adults, while the 1960 township figures show one child for every 2.6 adults. An even greater change involved the 65 and older population. In 1950 the county figures showed one elderly dependent for every 6.5 working age adults. The 1960 township figures showed one elderly dependent for every 3.7 working age adults. Relatively, then, the 1960 township population was loosing youth and gaining elderly dependents, a trend underscored by an increase in the number of children to women of child- bearing age (15-44). In 1940 the township claimed one child for every .8 females of child bearing age; in 1960, one child to every .6 females of child bearing age. For Leisureville, these internal population shifts can be further illustrated in a review of the community's high school 171 graduates from 1956 to 1961. The number of Leisureville students in each graduating class ranged from 9 to 16 persons. As of 1963, according to earlier research (Spielberg 1963), only one Leisureville student from each of the 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, and 1961 classes, and four from the 1960 class remained in the community after gradua- tion. Of these nine persons, all but one were male. The one female married a local boy after high school and remained in Leisureville as "a housewife." Somewhat more subjectively, a student who left the area in 1959 remarked, "there is nothing here for young people,” "no work or social life" (Spielberg 1963). This loss of a young labor force was closely related to the area's vacationland appeal. The seasonality of tourism and the practical necessity of "making a quick buck" encouraged the in- migration of persons on limited incomes and/or for limited periods of time. This caused Leisureville to assume characteristics more in keeping with a retirement or leisure time settlement than a working residential community, a condition which further served to depress economic opportunities and to support an 'hour glass' demographic profile. From a demographic point of view the community was beginning to show some signs of heterogeneity. A nonlocal population had settled in among native residents. Young families were living in association with persons whose families had grown and left the area or who had never lived in the area at all. There was an increasingly large number of older residents, many no longer part of the labor 172 TABLE 5.1.--Remote County: 1940. Age and Sex Distribution-- Rural-Nonfarm. Male Female Sex f %f cum f f %f cum f Ratio 75 & Over 26 3.11 99.99 14 1.79 99.99 1.86 70 - 74 11 1.32 96.88 12 1.54 98.20 .92 65 - 69 27 3.23 95.56 20 2.56 96.66 1.35 60 - 64 32 3.83 92.33 28 3.59 94.10 1.14 55 - 59 38 4.55 88.50 32 4.10 90.51 1.19 50 - 54 44 5.26 83.95 34 4.35 86.41 1.29 45 - 49 52 6.22 78.69 35 4.48 82.06 1.49 40 - 44 38 4.55 72.47 45 5.76 77.58 .84 35 - 49 54 6.46 67.92 42 5.38 71.82 1.29 30 - 34 69 8.25 61.46 55 7.04 66.44 1.25 25 - 29 70 8.37 53.21 55 7.04 59.40 1.27 20 - 24 69 8.25 44.84 69 8.83 52.36 1.00 15 - 19 68 8.13 36.59 90 11.52 43.53 .76 10 - 14 70 8.37 28.46 67 8.58 32.01 1.04 5 - 9 74 8.85 20.09 85 10.88 23.43 .87 O - 4 94 11.24 11.24 98 12.55 12.55 .96 TOTAL 836 781 1.07 Median Age 28.1 23.7 SOURCE: Compiled from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, United States Census of Population 1940, Character- istics of the Popu1ation, Michigan, Table 26.--"Composition of the Rural-Nonfarm Population by Counties: 1940." 173 TABLE 5.2.--Remote County: 1950. Sex and Age Distribution-- Rural-Nonfarm. Male Female Sex f %f cum f f %f cum f Ratio 75 & Over 45 3.37 100.02 33 2.52 100.02 1.36 70 - 74 32 2.40 96.65 41 3.13 97.50 , .78 65 - 69 58 4.34 94.25 38 2.90 94.37 1.53 60 - 64 64 4.79 89.91 41 3.13 91.47 1.56 55 - 59 80 5.99 85.12 65 4.96 88.34 1.23 50 - 54 65 4.87 79.13 87 6.64 83.38 .75 45 - 49 88 6.59 74.26 79 6.03 76.74 1.11 40 - 44 99 7.41 67.67 78 5.95 70.71 1.27 35 - 39 89 6.66 60.26 92 7.02 64.76 .97 30 - 34 80 5.99 53.60 89 6.79 57.74 .90 25 - 29 72 5.39 47.61 92 7.02 50.95 .78 20 - 24 47 3.52 42.22 74 5.64 43.93 .64 15 - 19 104 7.78 38.70 110 8.39 38.29 .95 10 - 14 121 9.06 30.92 124 9.46 29.90 .98 5 - 9 133 9.96 21.86 140 10.68 20.44 .95 O - 5 159 11.90 11.90 128 9.76 9.76 1.24 TOTAL 1336 1311 1.02 Median Age 32.0 29.3 SOURCE: Compiled from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, United States Census of Population 1950, Character- istics of the Population, Michigan,Table 48,--"Character- istics of the Rural—Nonfarm Population for Counties: 1950." 174 TABLE 5.3.--Timber Township: 1960. Age and Sex Distribution-- All Classes. Male Female Sex f %f cum f f %f cum f Ratl° 65 8 Over 70 19.12 99.97 44 13.21 99.95 1.59 55 - 64 54 14.75 80.85 59 17.71 86.74 .92 45 - 54 44 12.02 66.10 57 17.11 69.03 .77 35 - 44 41 11.20 54.08 47 14.11 51.92 .87 25 - 34 26 7.10 42.88 24 7.20 37.81 1.08 15 - 24 36 9.83 35.78 32 9.60 30.61 1.13 5 - 14 63 17.21 25.95 51 15.31 21.01 1.24 O - 4 32 8.74 8.74 19 5.70 5.70 1.68 TOTAL 366 333 1.10 Median Age 41.3 43.6 SOURCE: Compiled from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, United States Census of Population 1960, Character- istics of the Population, Michigan, Table 26.--"Age by Sex for Minor Civil Divisions: 1960." 175 force. By the late 19505 the community population was also showing signs of rapid aging, noncontinuity and nonself—sufficiency. Social Activity and Organization Leisureville, as the promotionals attest, was both a friendly and cooperative community. Residents took an active interest in one another. Helen Topper, for instance, would close her bar on Christmas Eve to cook a holiday dinner for all the old and 'family-less' men in the community. Alan Shatner would give silver dollars to all the graduating seniors on his bus route to acknowledge and encourage their achievement. Harvey Pullman recalls that when he was sixteen years old and working at the IGA, Brian Higgins, who was also his employer, personally signed for a bank loan so Harvey could buy his first car. Nora Burke remembers occasions when she just gave needed medicine to people whom she knew could not pay for it. Similarly, neighbors would 'look in' on each other, lend tools, help dig a well, plow a driveway, mind children or share a poached deer. (A native resident pointed out that poaching deer was not only a common occurrence during the winter, but that community residents all 'kept the secret.‘ "Anyone who thought about pointing a finger had better remember that he had a deer in his freezer, too.") In addition to the ties established through these patterns of general or 'neighborly' reciprocity, kinship further served to bind residents into a web of overlapping, intensive relationships. Few persons were without brothers, aunts, cousins, etc., living within the community and these individuals, in turn, were related to other 176 Leisurevillites. No matter how thinly extended, kin ties appear to have been a point of public information and conversation. Local 'chatter' columns faithfully set out these interpersonal relationships with every recounting of social visits, births, deaths, marriages, etc. Similarly, to the author's general amazement, residents could and would describe local residents as being someone's "father's cousin's sister-in-law's son." Leisurevillites only half jokingly warned 'outsiders,‘ "Don't say anything bad about anybody. You might be talking to a relative." They were not joking at all when they described the community as "one big family." Proximity and kinship, the latter often extended through the use of nicknames and fictive kin terms, served to bind residents into the involuntary, informal and nonexplicit relationships characteristic of a primary group. Leisureville, as a result, was a community in which residents were all personally known and highly visible. Their speech, dress, cars, and daily routine were all a matter of public knowledge, just as their idiosyncracies were a matter of local humor and gossip. Residents were public personalities, monolithic in structure and socially equivalent (though not individually identical) to those about them. They interacted with one another on a daily basis and their interactions, as might be expected, were personal and extremely uniform. They greeted each other incessantly on village streets. Alan Shatner, for instance, was accustomed to drive through town with one hand on the steering wheel and the other waving vigorously out the window. It was something he did, he explained, so as "not to 177 miss anyone." They coffee klatched casually in village restaurants and socialized regularly in village bars. While social interaction assumed a friendly, familial quality, it did not mean that personalities never clashed, that personal preferences or petty jealousies did not exist or that the malicious gossip so often associated with small community life never occurred. Nevertheless, these interpersonal differences and frictions were given little social or overt expression. Phyllis Mills, for instance, recalls being told as a child that she was to be polite and helpful to everyone and to never repeat those things she heard at home. Among the latter were clear instructions not to play with the Cooper kids, members of one of the poorest families in the community. The house was dirty. The kids had lice and were left alone all day with- out any adult supervision. Similarly, after an interview with Ruby Norton, an earlier researcher has written: 'Friendliness' . . . means essentially, public polite- ness; 'say hello to everybody,l 'speak to everybody.‘ It did not mean, necessarily . . . actual emotional attachment, fondness or liking a person . . . . But despite . . . feel- ings there appears to be almost a moral obligation to say hello and exchange pleasantries when encountering a fellow townsman. Not to do so would mark a person as 'unfriendly' and be an open invitation to personal criticism . . . (Spielberg 1963). Even gossip itself was never made overt or the individual personally challenged. Again, Ruby suggested that . . . no matter how ridiculous the rumor, or how ugly, . . . the perpetrators . . . should never be directly confronted to retract or admit or otherwise rectify the gossip . . . The tactic to follow, according to her, is to merely let it 178 'go in one ear and out the other' . . . . She admitted however that such things as rumors and gossip are some- times not merely forgotten. In her case she says she will sometimes wait for an opportunity to repay her gossiper. But such redress is always in another form and hardly ever with reference to the initial point of conflict (Spielberg 1963). The interdependence of community residents, their visibility, the similarity of their relationships, as well as their behaviors, imparted a homogeneity to the local population and transferred a com- munal 'weness' to Leisureville life. In times of personal trouble or emergency, community members "pulled together" and pooled available resources to help a fellow resident. When the Werner family mill burned down in 1950, it is still remembered that it was rebuilt and in operation again within the month. Residents donated the necessary lumber and equipment and used all their spare time to clear debris, renovate machinery and build a new structure. When a local youth was killed in an auto accident, the county paper reported that the "[Leisureville] Congregational Church could not accommodate all who attended his last rites" ([Remote] County Tribune, January 10, 1952). Fires left no one homeless. Illness left no one unattended and death left no one unsupported. Community activities and programs exhibited these same informal and communal type characteristics. 'Get togethers' were generally spur of the moment affairs to which everyone contributed in 'pot luck' fashion. As local promotionals advertised, ". . . progressive pot-luck picnics and dinners from cabin to cabin and lake to lake" reflected an "'all join together' spirit of fun" ([Leisureville] Boosters c. 1953). Likewise, occasional holiday 179 parties, annual fund raising and charity functions (i.e., Red Cross, March of Dimes) were held in the township hall and everyone was encouraged to attend. Residents cooperated by buying and selling tickets, cooking and serving dinners, taking pictures, leading songs, performing skits, etc. They were quite accurately total community efforts, with all residents contributing in a similar though non- standardized and .nonspecialized manner. The development of the community toboggan run on Cordwell Hill was the result of this type of collective action on the part of indi- vidual area residents. The hill had, with Cordwell's blessing, been used for sledding, one of the only forms of winter recreation. As a result of a series of casual conversations, several men began to cut and fit blocks of lake ice to make a toboggan slide. Spare time and volunteer labor finished and maintained the slope (dedicated in 1940) and eventually set up rope tow lines and a warming house. The hill provided another opportunity for informal socializing and tobogganers individually assumed the responsibility for checking the facilities and overseeing their use. It is interesting to note that in the early 19405 the Leisureville Businessman's Association tried unsuc- cessfully to manage the operation of the hill. After only one season, the facility resumed its original informal operation. The Water Ski Show which was to become an annual Leisureville event was yet another example of this same community cooperation. It began in 1950 as a show for parents put on by the more aquatic local and summer youth. Individuals made lend of their boats, tow lines, skis and swimming gear. Service stations donated gasoline. 180 Volunteered time transformed contributed lumber, paint, material, etc., into floating props and costumes. Hand painted signs and hastily con- structed billboards advertised the event. Hats, casually passed through the assembled summer crowds, accommodated any further contri- butions. It was a totally homemade affair and even when it became a recognized tourist attraction, promoted and supported in part by the Leisureville Boosters, it was still the result of collective indi- vidual efforts rather than that of any standing committee or formally recognized interest group. Nevertheless, Leisureville did realize the resurgence of several formal secondary associations. There was a volunteer fire department, the No-Knockers Club, the Leisureville Sportsmen's League (a chapter of the Michigan United Conservation Clubs) begun in 1944, the Leisureville Boosters (an outgrowth of the short-lived Leisure- ville Businessman's Association and forerunner of the Leisureville Chamber of Commerce) begun in 1946, the Leisureville Lions Club (a chapter member of Lions Clubs International) begun in 1952, and the Leisureville Masons and the Order of the Eastern Stars rechartered in 1950. There was also a fellowship group associated with each of the three area churches. While the list itself is impressive, these formal organiza- tions existed more clearly on paper than they did in actual practice, and their activities retained much of the same informal, collective and spontaneous flavor that characterized the rest of Leisureville life. The volunteer fire department, for instance, existed in name only. It was composed of all those persons who could jump on the 181 fire truck or get themselves to the fire. This was the extent of both its formal organization and its activity and even this distinc- tion disappeared as quickly as did the property it would attempt to save. The No-Knockers Club, begun in 1948, was likewise an organiza- tion with meager formal and/or socially exclusive characteristics. Its name had a double entendre. It was a club for men only. It was also a club whose sole purpose was to discourage 'knocking' or talking disparagingly about another area resident. It was "upon an idea older than Time, that instead of continuously voicing another person's faults, but rather saying something good or nothing, [that] the '[Leisureville] No-Knockers Club' was formed" ([AppletonJNews, June 12, 1948). If caught "speaking ill" of another, a member was required to pay a fine of $1.00 ($2.00 if the maligned individual was also a member). The only other acceptable recourse was to directly confront the individual, "to his face," with the grievance. The latter alternative was rarely chosen. Once a year, however, the 'kitty' was divided. Part was spent on liquor for an annual 'blow out' held on Cordwell Hill. Members got as drunk as they wished and were free to insult each other without penalty. The rest of the money was used to buy Christmas candy for community children. The club had no other obligations, activities or membership criteria. The Boosters Club, the Lions Club, the Sportsmen's League, and to a lesser extent the religious associations, were also without specialized or differential functions. Despite their apparent formal differences, associational activities, like those of area residents themselves, were directed toward and revolved around the movements of 182 tourism. With few exceptions, their programs and projects took place within the seven month period spanning trout season and deer season. Their theoretically separate interests collapsed into the overreaching community concern of making a living through the promotion of tourism and tourist spending. The Sportsmen's League, for instance, set up weighing scales, deer racks and practice ranges outside the town hall (later in 1949 these were placed outside the League's club house). They organized hunting and fishing contests, awarding trophies and/or cash prizes (i.e., one hundred dollars for the first bear killed with a bow and arrow), to successful sportsmen. They held rifle and bow and arrow raffles, the prizes generally donated by Able Stalker, and they hosted dances, dinners and occasional lectures on the club house for locals and sportsmen. The Lions held flapjack breakfasts for hunters. They con- structed and maintained the Lions Park (1956), a public picnic area with barbecue grills and a shelter located on donated township land. They held auctions of contributed merchandise, and as one of their earliest projects built a vacation cabin which they raffled off by selling 3000 one dollar chances. The Boosters, likewise, engineered tourist attractions. They printed promotional maps, which in addition to glowing descriptions of the Leisureville area (i.e., "[Leisureville] the Beautiful”), were filled with advertisements for local resort, service and retail businesses. Bingo games or "fun parties" were held once a week between Memorial Day and Labor Day with prizes donated by local 183 merchants and Thomas Gerhardt acting as caller. Movies were shown free of charge in the evenings and local residents hawked popcorn and soda. They staged a public wedding, held a car raffle and annually sponsored a 4th of July celebration, a Hunter's Dinner and Ball, a Winter Ball and a Water Ski Show. The Masons and OES, though less involved, as a group, in tourist related activities, held dinners, card parties and bake sales much the same as the other religious associations. In addition to their basic similarity, these associational activities were neither organizationally discrete nor membership exclusive. They depended on and received the collective participa- tion of all area residents. During Archery Week, for example (which was actually two weeks in duration) the Booster minutes record that the Sportsmen set up archery ranges, held turkey shoots, awarded prizes, organized raffles. The Boosters held a dinner in the town- ship hall and a formal dance in the school gymnasium. Merchants were requested to display "Welcome Hunters" signs in their windows. Resort owners plied sportsmen with free coffee and donuts. Church groups held sidewalk bake sales and community dinners. Even the school closed for two weeks to allow students to help out in local stores or take on odd jobs. Residents bought and sold each others raffle tickets, solicited for and donated prizes and materials, helped friends and neighbors nail boards, decorate halls and serve dinners. Activity, once again, was synonymous with that of community. Resident cooperation was less the result of any unswerving commitment 184 to a formal organization than to the universally felt economic realities of tourism. Formal commitments, not surprisingly, were extremely limited and residents generally participated only on a short-term or project to project basis. Actual associational membership (particularly within these civic-type organizations) was small. Membership overlap, on the other hand, appears to have been rather high. Of the 22 charter members of the Lions Club, all were members of the Boosters and the Sportsmen's League, but these were the more financially solvent com- munity residents. While the League had the largest membership, reported as over 200, it consisted almost entirely of 'down staters' and extra-local businessmen. Monthly meetings also were poorly and sporadically attended, many being eliminated altogether during the 'busy' summer months. Between 1958 and 1960, for instance, Booster minutes record attend- ances of 5 to 11 persons. Local residents relied predominantly on word of mouth and informal socializing to keep informed of community business and events. Those persons who attended meetings most regularly, and appeared most frequently in formal office were, once again, the wealthier residents and more stable merchants, notably Nora Burke, Able Stalker, Henry and Ruby Norton, Thomas Gerhardt, Maureen Higgins, Burt James, Dr. Drucker, Harvey Asch (who retired in Leisureville in 1959). Nevertheless, their influence as leaders was attributed to their personal energies rather than to any formal office or material distinction. They were described merely as 'interested,’ 'active,' 185 'spirited,' 'generous,‘ 'good citizens,‘ 'good family men,‘ adjectives which set them apart only as individuals. Status tended to be highly personalized, in a manner reminiscent of many simple societies. These individuals comprised a core group of strong personali- ties instrumental in initiating tourist-related activity and contribu- ting time and materials for 'the good of the community' rather than for any formal association or select interest group. Thomas Gerhardt and his three-piece band, for instance, provided the music at all community functions. Able Stalker consistently donated cash prizes, merchandise and real estate for local projects. Nora Burke purchased the fireworks for the community's 4th of July festivities. She also, along with Maureen Higgins, 'brainstormed' most of the community "stunts" aimed at attracting tourists. Similarly, major community improvements were heavily 'seeded' or donated outright by 'interested' individuals and were not the result of any formal, locally initiated organization. Craig Davis, for example, gave the community the use of a 40 acre airport, though the township made no improvements on it. Stalker Park was given to the township for use as an in-village camp site for vacationers. It was given on the condition that the township use and maintain it as such, but reverted back to Stalker in 1953. Billington Park, with its enclosed grandstand, was the gift of a Detroit industrialist, though when it burned down in the late 19405 it wasn't rebuilt for more than a decade. Even the Catholic Church and cemetery, as noted earlier, were largely the gifts of another wealthy resorter. 186 The absence of genuine formal leadership (as opposed to mere office holding) and the nominal nature of formal organizational activity is further demonstrated in the operation of local level government. During the 19405 and 19505 the Township Board was com- posed predominantly of native residents from the "East Settlement," persons who had assumed the positions in the late 19305. There were no petitions, platforms, or campaign promises. They ran uncontested year after year, the only changes occurring when persons moved away, resigned or died, and a new person appointed to fill the vacancy. Meetings were held once a month in the township hall and went largely unattended. The only exception to this occurred when a resident or 'ad hoc' committee had a personal and specific request or complaint. A review of the minutes from 1941 to 1956 indicates that the major business amounted to the reading and approving of minutes, the reading and approving of the treasurer's report, the reading and paying of bills and the maintenance of the town hall, all matters which involved a minimum of decision making. Voting was almost always unanimous, and at only one of every three or four meetings was there the initiation of any actual new business (i.e., the approving of a subdivision plat, accepting bids for township maintenance). New business, however, no matter how small (i.e., purchasing street lights, fencing the bathing beach, installing exit signs in the town- ship hall), was accompanied by tedious discussion and if it appeared to generate any disagreement among Board members or set any uncertain precedent, it was tabled for future consideration. One trivial, but amusing example involved the purchase of a typewriter (minutes up 187 until 1956 were written by hand). No decision was made in November when it was first suggested because not all the board members were present. The matter was tabled in December and again in January because no decision was reached on the make and model needed. Finally in February it was unanimously decided that the board should purchase a Smith Corona typewriter. Less fortunate business was just conveniently forgotten, never appearing again in the township minutes. When issues arose which could not be tabled or ignored, the Board sought solution in extra-local legislation or professional council. The single most pernicious issue involved the approving of a year-round, class 'C' liquor license. The matter was of consider- able financial concern to the four or five local businessmen involved. Only one such license would be released by the Michigan Liquor Com- mission, and any local decision would necessarily create bitter, personal antagonisms. Minutes indicate that the Board was divided in its attempts to grant this one license, and special meetings were fre- quently held. Even when it was finally decided to rotate the license by transfer among all local tavern owners, the Board was faced with the difficulty of deciding which one should receive it first. The matter was constantly referred back to the Liquor Commission and action was never taken without their consultation. Nevertheless, the matter was a constant ulcer receiving only temporary analgesic treat- ment for each of over fifteen years. In addition, it was a con- tributing factor, if not the sole cause, of the resignation of several Board members. The problem was finally resolved in the early 19605 when the Commission allowed that the area could support unrestricted 188 year-round licensing, a decision which did not involve the Township Board at all. In a very real sense the Board made little use of its officially prescribed functions. It levied no operational millage and maintained the township on the one mill allocated by the county. This amounted to $313.68 in 1943, $657.74 in 1950 and $3,830.61 in 1960. The only millage which was levied during this twenty year period was for the purpose of building the new elementary school at the cost of $50,000. The State had repealed the county Operated school system in the late 19405, and the village school could not accommodate the area's youth. Leisureville school board members requested and received the option to raise four mills for the years 1950 through 1962. They never required more than 3 3/4 mills and as land values increased, the debt was quickly eliminated. By 1953 the Township Board asked that the school millage be lowered. Township land was acquired at nominal sums (i.e., two 40-acre parcels were purchased from the D.N.R. for $1.00 apiece), or traded with area residents or resorters. The Board, for example, traded with Dr. Garth for land that was eventually developed into the Lions Park. There were no massive expenditures, no long range planning efforts and no standing committees to oversee township development. During the 19405 and 19505 Leisureville residents were bound by overlapping and intensive ties based in kinship, proximity and the division of labor. Interpersonal relationships were typically informal, friendly and highly uniform. Community activity received the collective and short-term participation of individual residents 189 and was generated predominantly by immediate need and/or the universal economic concerns associated with tourism. Formal associa- tions remained functionally collapsed and individuals were distin- guished solely on the basis of personality or other generalized human quality. In short, Leisureville was a homogeneous community and its residents were socially as well as behaviorally equivalent. CHAPTER VI LEISUREVILLE: THE HISTORY PERIOD IV: MIDDLE TOURISM 1960-1967 Economic Conditions By the 19605 Leisureville had established itself as a veteran tourist community. The dependence on a seasonal trade and an external source of income were facts of life to which all residents had adjusted. But while the large economic design remained relatively unchanged, the continued growth of tourism resulted in new economic emphases. Leisureville was still a "quiet, friendly spot in the north- woods." It was still isolated, still small, and still economically insecure. Nevertheless, two new, though interrelated, trends were developing. Residents realized that the community was "becoming a 'carnival town,’ a playground for city residents from down below" (Spielberg 1963). Winter sports, skiing and snowmobiling, the latter first appearing about 1965 or 1966, were becoming popular pastimes and allowed for a limited winter trade. The subdivision of lake- front resorts and open land was also increasing. Private summer cabins were being built or remodeled to serve eventually as retire- ment homes. Simultaneously, the community was showing signs of growth and of "becoming less of a resort town and more of an 'old retired people's town'" (Spielberg 1963). 190 191 Leisurevillites no longer catered only to the transient tourist or resorter, but also to a more tenacious vacationer--a future resident. The village was becoming more of a commercial center than a social center. Local business interests were growing larger and more distinct, and formal organizations expressed (at least super- ficially) greater social heterogeneity. Such changes, however, were gradual, the continual adjustment of local resources and earlier behavioral strategies to changing environmental circumstances. The early and middle 19605 constituted a formative period for Leisureville. The community was beginning to manifest the internal variations and organizational forms which would figure prominently during Late Tourism (Period V). At the same time it also remained behaviorally and organizationally distinct from the Period that preceded it as well as the one that followed. In retrospect, Middle Tourism or Period IV might accurately be labeled 'Leisureville in Transition.‘ Real Estate The 19605 were boom years for the national economy. Industry was expanding, manufacture was increasing and individual income was rising. Michigan, with an economic nervous system tightly bound to the automotive industry, realized similar profit and expansion. The availability of financial surplus and credit allowed for increased material consumption, conditions which further encouraged manufacture. Working class families (i.e., blue collar and skilled operatives, small merchants and managers) had the means and the leisure time to invest in their own rustic retreats. They were able to purchase 192 relaxation and simplicity as well as the recreational machinery (i.e., boats, motorcycles, pontoons, snowmobiles, etc.) felt necessary to enjoy them. As a result, the less populated, more 'natural' regions 'up North' were being visited regularly by persons who could come and go at their own convenience. Leisureville was neither inmune to nor exempt from these gen- eral trends. Chamber of Commerce promotionals with their usual self- confidence were quick to advertise that "[Leisureville's] warmth and small town appeal, its off-the beaten-path location, attract both vaca- tioners and residents. This is proven by the many who annually vacation in the area, by the former city dwellers who have come to establish businesses or to retire and live a more relaxed pace" ([Leisureville] Chamber of Commerce c. 1967). It was also proven by the bank's resources from real estate mortgages, loans and discounts which more than tripled between 1960 ($907,078.85) and 1968 ($2,740,400.50). If ex-resorters and sportsmen were interested in perma- nently investing in the area, Leisureville was ready to encourage and accommodate them. Land and friendliness, after all, were the community's most abundant resources. The latter succeeded in making the most of limited opportunities, and the former now promised to generate immediate financial return. Real estate, as Alan Shatner recognized in an earlier research interview (Spielberg 1963), was becoming "the best possibility" for "deriving economic benefit," and the "energetic, 'go-getting' person could get in on it." Not surprisingly, then, the formal development of land which had begun earlier continued to increase. Eight subdivisions were 193 platted during the early and middle 19605, and again all but one were located within a one-mile radius of the village. Approximately 400 new lots were created, two-thirds with lake frontage or lake access. These large land developments were the ventures of 'out- siders' who vacationed in the area and a few local businessmen. Of the latter, two were begun by Werner and Hendrick, co-owners of Scenic View Custom Homes and Cottages west of town. Another was developed by Bradley Kamen, the bachelor owner of Kamen's Jewelry, Watch Repair and Womens Apparel on Center Street. Only one was the product Of corporate rather than private interest. Vacationland Enterprises was both a local and extra-community Operation. It represented the formal partnership of several successful business owners and professionals. Among them were Walter Macy, the bank president, Brian Higgins, the bank manager and co-owner of the IGA grocery, Greg Whistler, a land developer and speculator from Amen, and Able Stalker. Together they commanded the financial backing, contacts and skills necessary to initiate their own and/or support other potential land developments. As individuals, however, they were active community residents distinguished on the basis of their personal abilities and their concern for the general welfare of the community. All told, this enthusiastic land development formally dis- sected Leisureville into about 2500 individual lots arranged in several dozen subdivision-neighborhoods. A lot with lake frontage now sold for $5000 to $8000, one with lake access for $1000 to $3000, and a nonlake lot for $400 to $600. Year-round homes on the lake 194 averaged between $20,000 and $40,000, those off the lake between $10,000 and $20,000. These marketable land 'packages,‘ the rising interest in northern real estate and the Opportunities for profit through land sales made local real estate agencies and a profession in real estate possible. Throughout the early and middle 19605, Leisureville supported three real estate offices: Higgins Realty, Gerhardt Realty and Bartlett Realty. As businesses, they were small and informal in character, family run without a harem of full and part-time salesmen. Gerhardt and Bartlett, for instance, had offices in their homes. In addition, Gerhardt was permanently employed as the County's juvenile Officer and Bartlett's business closed each fall when he and his wife left for Florida. Higgins Realty, established and run by Maureen Higgins (Brian's mother), was the only year-round, full-time business. Nevertheless, Maureen's operation involved as much community public relations as it did real estate sales. She was a notary public. She wrote a weekly column, "Baited Lines from [Maureen's] Scratch Pad" in [Northern Life], which served equally as a vehicle for local chatter as for advertising local property. Her office was a clearing house for area information, for directions, for placing hunters in needed lodging. It served as a lost and found, as a referral network for odd-jobbers and as a place to talk over a cup of coffee. While specialized in theory, her position as an agent or middle-man was highly generalized in practice. Though a business in real estate was possible, land sales were extremely seasonal, limited almost entirely to the ”busy" period 195 between June and September. Maureen's records from the early 19605 show about 48 sales per year and of these Brian Higgins recalls "there might have been as many as two or three during the winter.” Understandably, Mauneen's weekly column also disappeared during January, February, March and most of April. (It was not until 1970 that Higgins Real Estate began to advertise year-round.) Nevertheless, Maureen was considered a successful business- woman. Brian again recalls that during the 19605 (1960-1968) her gross sales increased from about $90,000 to $300,000 (this latter figure he estimates has more than tripled since), her own gross income amounting to about 10% of sales. Maureen, however, was not recognized for her material or financial success, but for her industry and strength of character. She had single-handedly built a business. She was actively involved in the promotion of tourism, and she lived unpretentiously in a small log cabin on West Sister Lake until her death in 1969. With the increase in the private ownership of land came an accompanying decrease in rental properties. The resort businesses which had flourished, if not financially then numerically, during the 19405 and 19505, were slowly disappearing. Speaking about her own resort on East Sister Lake, Mrs. Helm writes, We moved here in 1956 and I think the rental business had reached its climax by that time. By 1960 people no longer wanted to 'rough it' . . . . They wanted cabins with flush toilets, hot and cold running water and showers. Our affluent society afforded people the luxury . . . and the desire to own 'cabins up North.‘ By this time many of the rental cabins were beginning to deteriorate to where they needed repairs and . . . folks began selling their rental units . . . We sold our cabins about 1964 or '65 and kept 196 just the house. We sold the cabins in sets of 2's so that each owner could have his own strip of frontage. They are still owned by folks from downstate and Akron (1975). Similarly, Bill Morris divided and sold his resort property in 1967 and by the late 19605 only six or seven such businesses remained in operation. Of these, only two were located within Timber Township and by 1973 one had been turned into a residential subdivision. Resorts were no longer viable. Without sufficient trade, owners could not keep up the facilities, a condition which further depressed business. Also, as land sales increased, real estate, lake frontage in particular, became more valuable. As assessments and taxes increased (the assessed value of the township property rose from $1,877,750 in 1960 to $2,847,500 in 1967; the State equalized value was about one and one-half times these figures) many residents found themselves to be "land rich and dollar poor." Ironically, the conditions of the 19205 and 19305 were repeating themselves in a slightly different form. Previously, land which had been virtually worthless reverted to the State for back taxes. Now it was sold by persons who again could not afford to keep it. This time, however, with the promise of financial return, owners divided their property, maximizing lake frontage, to realize the greatest profit possible. This resulted in nonstandardized lots, the cutting of haphazard dirt trails to make inland areas more accessible, overcrowding along the lake fronts and the continued increase in tax assessments. There was no environmental planning or local legislation for controlling development. Trailers and 'tar-paper shacks' sat next to year-round residences. Old cars and abandoned machinery piled up in the woods. 197 Septic systems and buildings satisfied only individual standards and circumstances. The sale of land was the primary community concern. It served as an immediate boost to a vulnerable economy and no one was willing to forego the opportunity of making a living or supple- menting a marginal one. Residents were neither unaware of nor indifferent to the potential problems this created. Many lamented the sectioning off of open spaces. Others resented the fences and posted areas on land that had been theirs to use unchallenged. Deer were no longer seen close to the village. Motor boats, some felt, would undermine the quality of fishing. Many found snowmobilers to be rude, reckless and unmind- ful of local property. More common, however, was an uneasy sense that the community was just becoming too crowded with people-~5easonal and otherwise--who did not belong. Gerhardt himself, in an earlier inter- view (Spielberg 1963), expressed this concern. In talking about the increasing number of retirees coming to [Leisureville], [Gerhardt] made several illuminating com- ments about the situation and its possible long term effects on [Leisureville]. His first reaction was rather strong. He maintains that a lot of retirees (75%) 'have no business coming to [Leisureville].' These are persons 'whose sole source of income [is] social security retirement pensions. Usually, such incomes are not sufficient to cover hospital- ization expenses . . . and thus the cases are turned over to the County Welfare B'd. . . . [Leisureville] is a 'bad place' for retirees living solely on social security. It is bad in terms of cost of living and availability of facilities (mainly medical) for old age people. . . . Yet, he added, the 'promoters' of the town encourage this kind of 'in-migration.‘ . . . [T]he promoters are primarily the business people via the Chamber of Commerce and the real estate people of [Leisureville]. He accused himself of being as guilty as the rest of them. These 'promoters' he feels are motivated by selfish, short-term reasons. In a word 'they want to make a quick buck.‘ He added, that when viewed reasonably, these retirees really do very little for 198 the community. . . .[T]hey tend to be very thrifty people with fixed income and thus do not leave enough of their money around [Leisureville's] businesses. . . . Along with this he notes that peOple of [Leisureville] are quite aware that they are losing their young people . . . due to the lack of jobs. . . . Yet the promotion continues. But personal misgivings did not alter economic realities. Residents recognized their almost total dependence on tourism. They were also fully aware that their income, business and speculative investments required its continued promotion. As earlier research has noted (Spielberg 1963), "Everyone . . . seem[ed] to dedicate himself and his family to extracting a living from the needs of the tourist . . . everyone from the biggest businessman to the smallest handiman, 'fix- it,’ odd job guy in town." It was commonly argued that residents might as well take advantage of immediate opportunities because "if they don't someone else will." It was also sympathetically reasoned that "everyone wants his own piece of dirt." Leisurevillites had little freedom to be selective or to defer to future needs and what- ever ambivalence may have entered into private reflections it found little place in community behavior. Local Service and Manufacturing BOEinesses With the increased interest in northern living came expanded Opportunities for local employment. The remodeling of summer cabins and the construction of vacation homes for eventual year-round or retirement use were economic boosts to local excavation, building and general maintenance services. The increased volume of such business cannot be directly estimated due to the relative lack of local 199 legislation (and thus formal written records) and the individual nature of employment patterns. The Northeast Michigan Electrical Cooperative, however, records an increase of 459 residential units receiving electricity between 1960 and 1968. The 1970 U.S. Census of Population, fifth count, further calculates that 3 % of all residences within the township were constructed between 1960 and 1970, 19% between 1960 and 1965 ([Timber] Township Planning, Zoning and Sanitation Commission 1975). More significant than these numerical dimensions, perhaps, was the emergence of small service businesses. Ads in the county paper, in Chamber of Commerce promotionals, billboards along county roads and in front of residences formally advertised the skills of local 'Jacks.’ "[Warden's] Well Drilling," "[Monroe] - Builder," "[Ernie's] T.V. Service," "[Dale's] Dog Grooming," "[Logan's] Garage," "[Leonard Brown] - Sand Gravel and Fill Dirt, Backhoe Service," "[Linden's] 'Fix-It' Shop" were typical labels for these 'home grown' enterprises. Nevertheless, they were still generally one-man operations located in private residences. Despite suggested service specialties and a few pieces of larger machinery, their owners still relied on a diverse occupational repertoire for 'secondary' employment (i.e., caretaking, woods work, painting, hauling, snowplowing, etc.). For most Leisureville residents making a living required the same generalized strategies described earlier. There were, however, a few notable exceptions to these business and employment patterns. One of these was Tod Mills Trucking which advertised "Excavating, Grading, Septic Tanks, Transit Mix, Sand and Gravel, No Job TOO Big Or Too Small." Though hardly a single 200 service business, it had grown under Tod's relentless energies from a one-man, odd-jobbing enterprise to a 5-10 man operation. He paid his men $2.00 to $3.00 per hour and Often worked seven days a week, ten to twelve hours a day. But Tod's business was quantitatively not qualitatively different from those of other local jobbers. He was a small town personality, familiar to everyone within the com- munity. He "never said 'no' to anyone." He accepted every job, performed incessant favors, loaned his men and machinery for community projects and though he "stretched himself too thin at times" was unanimously recognized for "his heart of gold." He, like other business owners, generated and depended on community 'good will' and was praised in turn as a local son who had 'made it' through hard work. Scenic View Custom Homes and Cottages was another local employer. The family operated business had existed for years cutting timber, milling lumber and building small summer cabins. By the 19605 it had expanded into the largest local building contractor with the facilities to design, pre-cut and assemble homes. It had, inci- dentally, been responsible for introducing Leisureville to the A- frame chalet complete with balconies, shutters, window boxes and 'gingerbread.‘ As a manufacturing business it employed about 15 men (many of them relatives) at $2.50 to $3.00 per hour and grossed about $250,000 annually. It is estimated that during the eight year period from 1960 to 1967 it built about seven new residential homes each year. The average cost was $25,000 and the average buyer a prospective retiree. 201 But despite the presence of a few local employers, seasonal employment was still acute and construction related occupations ' particularly vulnerable. Concrete could not be poured in freezing temperatures. Building and land excavation could not proceed after late November, and with the disappearance of summer residents went the source of most Odd jobs. Leisureville still had a split economic personality. Without winter work employees went on unemployment. The County Social Services director explained that General Assistance payments were always highest during November and April. The former was the month before unemployment checks were received and the latter the month in which they ended and before work resumed. For inde- pendent jobbers, the alternatives were much as they had always been. In 1963, however, Enterprise Wire, the nonunion shop of a larger Indiana based company, set up operations in Amen and in 1965 United Wood Products established itself in Grandville providing area residents with extra-local but nearby employment possibilities. While wages averaged $1.50 to $2.00 per hour, distances were great (about 20 and 70+ miles round trip, respectively), and roads were hazardous, particularly during the winter. In addition, such outside employment tended to reduce the frequency of local interaction and kept individuals out of the mainstream of community life. As a result, fewer than 25 Leisurevillites took advantage of these economic opportunities. Leisureville. then, was still without any large or stable industry or employer. For most residents economic security and sur- plus were still unavailable On any but a short-term basis. Even the 202 few service industries which managed to distinguish themselves suf- fered major winter inactivity and remained highly dependent on individual personalities. Despite the veneer Of specialization, local business was still generalized and it still relied on friend- ships and mutual favors. Village and Merchants During the 19605 merchants and community actives, via the Chamber of Commerce (the Boosters became the Chamber of Commerce in the early 19605), made various attempts to improve the haphazard appearance of the village center. The more tailored the community looked, it was reasoned, the greater were the possibilities for attracting tourists, residents and industry. Increased growth and development, they felt, made economic sense and was "good for the community as a whole." Along these lines was an attempt to establish uniform store fronts along Center Street. Three businesses--the IGA, the Variety Store and the Village Drug Store--began the transformation to a 'frontier' theme Of shake shingled roofs and rough sawn siding. But, when the new bank building of glass, aluminum and brick was finished in 1960 so was the communal attempt at uniformity. Painted trash barrels and planted flower boxes were also used to up-grade appear- ances, but these amounted to little more than individual efforts. Center Street, however, did acquire concrete sidewalks and curbs in 1964 and in 1967 a small village park. The latter was bordered by gardens planted annually by the Farm and Garden Club. It included 203 shuffle board, basketball and tennis courts, benches and public rest rooms. (The rest rooms remained permanently closed due to alleged vandalism and the lack of any full-time attendant.) As a project, however, it too failed to receive the necessary community support, a subject which will be considered in greater detail later in this chapter. Along with these cosmetic changes, the number of retail and commercial businesses began to increase and to spread out east and west along County Road 208. Several new restaurants, asnowmobile dealership, a laundromat, a carpet center, a sporting goods store, gave greater variety to local merchandising and service. Without known exception, these new enterprises were begun by new residents-- ex-vacationers--who had come to live and make considerable investments in the area. Similarly, though less Obviously, many older businesses (i.e., Topper's Tavern, Apex Bar, Sister Lakes Tavern, the bowling alley, Village Drug and Variety Store, a restaurant and several small groceries) also changed hands during this Period. Again, the new proprietors were mainly 'transplants' from 'down below.‘ This growing diversity and investment in village businesses underscored an important change in the character of the village itself--its increased function as a commercial center or its decreased function as a social center. The village was still a place where residents and vacationers coffee-klatched, socialized and exchanged pleasantries. Saturday afternoon, in particular, was still a time for the friendly negotiating of odd jobs. But Center Street was not the crowded, casual place it had been ten years earlier. As 204 vacationers, retirees and new residents settled in along lake shores and within subdivisions, their activities differed from those of earlier resorters. The two and three week 'community catered' vaca- tion was being replaced by summers of home entertaining and weekends of more individually designed leisure time activity. Older residents found that informal evenings in town were precluded by a heavy schedule of weekly organizational meetings. In addition, subdivisions began to distinguish themselves as little neighborhoods, their resi- dents showing variations in social characteristics. Green Forest Beach, for instance, was recognized as the rather exclusive domain of wealthy summer residents. Julian Subdivision was inhabited mainly by "snow birds," recent retirees from 'down state' who followed the 'sunshine circuit' to warmer climates each winter. Homestead Hills sported a miscellaneous collection of vacationers, older residents and retirees. This greater heterogeneity in residential groupings and social activities tended to pull Leisurevillites away from the village center. At the same time, it was also accompanied by a decrease in many public entertainments. The roller skating rink had closed. The public beach and parks were used less frequently. The town hall burned down in 1963 and though a small cement block structure was built to replace it, the community was left without its ubiquitous meeting place. Saturday night dances were discontinued (except in local taverns), and evening movies were no longer shown. It was only the more formal community programs (i.e., the Water Ski Show, the 4th of July 205 fireworks, the Winter Carnival) which continued to attract large crowds reminiscent of earlier years. There was a change too in the nature of retail business. With the exception of the bars and bowling alley, village shops closed by 5:00 or 6:00 each evening and many remained closed all day Sunday. During the evenings the 'downtown' area was characteristically dark and deserted. Residents illustrate the point by recalling a local merchant who fell in the snow after closing his shop. He was not found until the next morning. Nevertheless, merchants found that they were serving the needs Of a larger, less transient population. Since shopping elsewhere involved a round trip of 70+ miles, local businesses were insured of a fairly captive and well-endowed (during the summer) patronage. The more essential retail businesses took the opportunity to expand. The Service and Supply Hardware enlarged their building to stock small appliances and household gifts. Stalker's added a large home appliance center. The IGA increased its floor space and enlarged its beer and wine department. For these larger merchants in particular, business was improving. Brian Higgins recalls that between 1959 and the early 19605 his grocery sales more than doubled. Nora Burke similarly remembers that by 1965 when she sold her Drug and Variety stores, she grossed $250,000, a figure which continued to increase each year afterward. Winter trade, however, was still uncertain. As before, the summer population withered after Labor Day. In addition, 50 to 100 "snow birds" left by late November to spend their winter and dollars 206 in southern climates. Many businesses, such as restaurants, ice- cream shops, sporting good stores and small groceries, still closed for three to five months during the year. As earlier, their owners were forced to budget, seek secondary employment or local credit. Brian Higgins recalls that during the winter months "you could tell the time of day by watching out the window. When cars passed, it was lunch time." But winter sports were growing in popularity and served to mitigate some of these harsher seasonal trends. On a good weekend, residents claim it was not uncommon to see one to two hundred snow- mobiles parked along Center Street, their owners purchasing weekend supplies or drinking at the local bars. Similarly, dozens of families, members of the now private ski club north of town, would come up every weekend as weather permitted. It was the larger village merchants who benefited most directly from these new vacationing patterns and who realized a 'smoothing out' of annual income. Again, Nora Burke recalls that during the late 19505 she could expect to make money in July, August and November, and to break even in June and September. By the early 19605 she found that she was also breaking even in October and May. By 1967 she learned that the winter months too came close to breaking even. The hardwares, IGA and area bars were realizing similar for- tune. Leisureville, then, had a small but growing population of residents who had considerable economic immunity to seasonal varia- tions and who had, as a result, larger and more dependable resources with which to speculate and invest. Not surprisingly, they shared an active interest in promoting further community development. 207 Individually and in association, they initiated and organized the great majority of local activities. Demographic Factors Between 1960 and 1970, according to the U.S. Census of Popula- tion, Timber Township grew by 314 persons. While the 1970 U.S. Census figure of 1,013 is challenged by township officials as being too low (see Chapter VII), the fact of population growth is not. Neverthe- less, the characteristics Of this growth for the early and middle 19605 differ importantly from those for the years which follow. The demographic conditions noted for 1960 continued into the 19605. By 1963, the compilation of various source materials (earlier questionnaires, voter registration rolls, "An Area Study of the [Leisureville] School District and Certain Adjacent School Districts" (Cook 1967), associational membership lists and individual recollec- tions) suggest a township population of approximately 750 persons. For the Leisureville community itself, an additional 50 to 100 persons would generously approximate the population around Turtle and Seymour Lakes, giving a community total of 800 to 850 persons. But while the absolute change in population was small, internal changes by comparison were not. An accurate though incom- plete set of data--the 1963 questionnaires--can specifically account for 76 adults settling into Timber Township between 1959 and 1963. Of these adults, 57 were known to have been 55 years Old or older and 53 were retired. By contrast, only 18 adults were known to have been between 21 and 54 years of age, while only 4 were between 21 and 39 208 years of age. Just five families totaling 11 children (7 from the same family) could be documented. A comparison between the 1960 U.S. Census of Population and the compiled 1963 data gives further support to this apparent in- migration of elderly: 234 persons 65 years and Older can actually be accounted for by the 1963 data. This number is not only substan- tially larger than the 114 reported for the same cohort (both sexes) in 1960, but it is larger than both the 1960, 55-64 and 65 and over cohorts (both sexes) combined. In only four years, the township population acquired more elderly persons than could be expected in an entire decade, even if not a single individual from these earlier cohorts died or moved away. The Leisureville population, then, while not increasing rapidly in size, was growing rapidly older through in-migration. It can be suggested that the known increase within the 65 years and older cohort more than accounted for the growth in the township's 1963 population. These circumstances suggest that an accompanying decline might well exist within the host population. Relatively little abso- lute change, however, was found within the O-19 year age range. In 1960, Cook reports (1967), 189 children (ages 5-19) enrolled in school. In 1963 the number was 200 and in 1965 it was 210. This increase was matched by a decrease in the number of pre-school age children (ages 0-4) within the Leisureville school district. For this pre- school age group, Cook reports frequencies of 55 for 1960, 48 for 1963 and 41 for 1965. As a result, the total number of children (ages 0-19) remained approximately the same from year to year 209 (1960: 244, 1963: 248, 1965: 251). More importantly, the rise in school enrollment appears to be the result of in-migration rather than of natural increase, a trend which becomes much more pronounced by the late 19605 and early 19705. The expected decline, not surprisingly, appeared within the community's young adult population (ages 19-35 approximately), this being the group to migrate out of Leisureville to attend college, to enter the service and/or to find employment. The 1963 data can account for a total of 459 residents 21 years and over. Of these 459 individuals, only 28 were found to be 25-34 years Old and only 4 were 20-24 years old. This differs quite sharply from the 1960 Census which four years earlier reported 50 persons 25-35 years of age and 68 persons 15-24 years of age. The actual 28, though admittedly not an absolute figure, still effectively demonstrates the loss of a young adult population. As Thomas Gerhardt pointed out earlier, any gain in, or even maintenance of Leisureville's popula- tion was made at the expense of its own young labor force. These trends were not specific to the period between 1960 and 1963, but applied throughout the early and middle 19605. Between 1959 and 1968 data, compiled data from the 1960 and 1973 voter registration rolls, 1963 questionnaires, school records and associational member- ship lists, can specifically account for 330 new residents, 21 years old and older, within Timber Township. (The figure does not pretend to be definitive. Neither is it adjusted for the number of persons who died or moved away after only a short stay in Leisureville. It is, however, a large enough and broad enough sample to serve the 210 purpose of general illustration.) Of these 330 persons, 214 or 65% were retired. This again is a conservative figure because the retired population as a whole had fewer associational commitments and appeared less frequently on voter registration rolls. Further- more, of the 194 households totally represented, 154 or 79% were without children. Perhaps more indicative of these conditions was the appearance of the Fifty Plus Club, a social group for persons 50 years Old and older which began in 1967 with no less than 72 members. Additional support comes from 'Oppie' Jenkin's claim that he had to take 200 boxes of disposable diapers to the dump shortly after purchasing the drug store (1965) because they were taking up too much room on the shelves. Though the Leisureville population was growing, its internal conditions were forecasting a bleak economic and developmental future. The growth itself was supported almost entirely through in- migration. Furthermore, it was an in-migration mainly of retired persons with incomes averaging $1500 to $2500 a year (1963 question- naires). Many long-time residents were also finding themselves approaching retirement age with only limited savings and small social security pensions. The resident population as a whole was without the means to stimulate the local economy. Lacking any secure possibility for employment, the emerging local labor force had been systematically leaving the area. This, as a result, contributed further to the demographic aging of the community and usually left investment in local business to the few new families moving in. It was also these 211 younger individuals and their families who provided a bare replace- ment for the community's youth and young adult population. As had been true in the 19405, there was a lack of continuity in both business enterprise and community population. Local conditions, then, were not self-sustaining demographi- cally or economically, but required the continual promotion of new and seasonal residents to maintain the immediate population. It was a 'trade off' which kept the community in a perpetual cycle of instability. Figuratively speaking, it took all the running one could do to stay roughly in the same place. Social Activity and Organization Leisureville, during the 19605, remained a close, cooperative community. Individuals, with the exception of the newest arrivals, were still personally known and highly visible. Kinship and proximity still bound the majority of residents into intensive, primary-type relationships. Interdependence was still economically necessary and social interaction publicly cordial and frequent. Nevertheless, the organizational form of much social behavior and many interpersonal relationships had begun to change. Leisureville, as mentioned earlier, was in a formative or transitional period. The community was growing and this growth was accompanied by trends toward greater heterogeneity (i.e., neighbor- hood. employment, income, family-type, etc.). Voluntary associations began to increase in number and diversity, and social activity was increasingly channeled through these formal groupings. Leisureville 212 was described as "a town of joiners" and its residents proudly felt that for such a small community it had a large number--perhaps even an unusual number--of active organizations. Between 1960 and 1967 Leisureville added a Curling Club and rink (1963), a Farm and Garden Club (O. 1965), a Friends of the Library Association (1965), a Fifty Plus Club (1967) and a Women's Extension Group (c. 1960) to its previously existing organizations. Only the Curling Club and the Fifty Plus Club were not local chapters of larger, extra-local associational bodies. All of them, however, were initiated by new residents, outside agencies, or individuals removed from the many, overlapping ties which obtained among the majority of Leisureville residents. With the exception of the Farm and Garden Club whose member- ship was formally restricted to 21 persons by the national by-laws, these new organizations, like those previously existing, were non- exclusive and all residents were encouraged to join. Only the immutable or involuntary conditions of sex, age, and religious affiliation set membership restrictions. Some groups (i.e., Lions, Fifty Plus Club) required that a perspective member be sponsored or 'introduced' into the organization by a veteran member. This, how- ever, amounted to little more than a formality. The author is aware of no case in which sponsorship was refused or acceptance contested. Meetings themselves, despite the formal context, remained personal and informal. Fifty Plus Club meetings which were held in the basement of the Congregational Church, were social gatherings. Minutes indicate that official business was dispensed with 213 perfunctorily and according to parlimentary procedure and the rest of the afternoon devoted to 'pot luck' lunches, cards and gossip. The Curling Club met, not surprisingly, to curl and business matters were usually thoroughly discussed in the 'warming lounge' under the rink and over a drink graciously provided by the winning team. The Farm and Garden Club and Women's Extension met weekly in members' homes for lunch, to work on craft, cooking, sewing projects, etc., or to go on outings. These activities were organized by members in the case of the Farm and Garden Club and by the agricultural extension economist in the case Of Women's Extension. The Friends of the Library spent one evening a week in the township hall library listening to records, watching homemade travelogues or discussing a book. From a functional standpoint, these groups were merely formal frameworks within which community residents continued to informally socialize and pursue their personal, recreational or leisure time interests. In addition, while the number and apparent variety of secon- dary associations had increased, so had resident participation within them. The Fifty Plus Club, for instance, began with 72 members and increased its membership each year afterward. The Lions Club expanded to include over 40 members and the Chamber of Commerce grew to well over 60 members. But more important than any numerical increase was the fact that membership overlap, though not complete, was high. It was neither unusual nor socially conflicting for a resident to belong to four or more organizations. Bill Miner, for example, belonged to the Masons, the Lions, the Chamber of Commerce, 214 the Curling Club and the men's bowling league. His wife was a member Of the Order of the Eastern Stars, the Township Board, the PTA, the women's bowling league and the Congregational Church Women's Fellow- ship. In fact, many residents half-heartedly complained that they had no time for themselves, that it was all taken up in social activity. Alan Shatner remarked that his wife was home only one evening a week. Between work and social commitments, Mrs. Mills recalled that Tod was hardly ever home at all. Promised favors, meetings and local 'doings' made him a very public person. Contrariwise, the new residents' complaint of being lonely or bored was not tolerated by Leisurevillites. There were dozens of organizations and with a little effort, it was felt, anyone could become involved. Failure to do so was considered "standoffishness" and could only be explained as "one's own fault." Being active in many organizations, on the other hand, was a sign of one's community involvement or community mindedness. In fact, the importance placed on widespread participation has been given statistical support in an earlier research report. "In the Michigan village [Leisureville] . the variable most highly correlated with status (r = .50) was the number of community organizations in which a person was a member" (Faunce and Smucker 1966:395). Status accrued not on the basis of membership in a particular organization or select set of organizations, but on the basis of a generalized membership in all (or nearly all) i of the community's secondary associations. Despite a veneer of formal diversity, the activities and relationships of Leisureville residents remained essentially 215 equivalent. Not only did the rather personal or nonexplicit asso- ciational ties overlap one another, but they cross-cut as well as reinforced the many involuntary ties which already existed. As a result, a complex set of multistranded or highly generalized inter- personal relationships tended to keep residents intensively and uniformly bound to one another. It also tended to mask or 'level' the social expression of economic, residential or other internal dif- ferences which had begun to appear within the community. What on an individual level may have been differential access to resources (i.e., leisure time, money, information) was now equally distributed within a formal organizational context. As Frank Hendrick explained: There were some people who made $500 a week [though he felt there were no more than ten such persons] and others who made $50 a week, but you can't talk about extremes or any real differences. Everyone bowled, curled, belonged to the same clubs and did the same things. Leisureville's assortment of voluntary associations, then, was only superficially specialized or distinct. Residents remarked that only a change in the meeting place and a few props made one group different from another--the people and much of the activity remained the same. As a result, few community activities and little community action were either independently initiated or sustained by any formally recognized grouping. As before, they received the collective, nonstandardized and short-term participation of most every organization and/or resident. The one notable exception to this was the Farm and Garden's attempt to establish a village park (to be discussed later). 216 Emergency situations, for example, were handled much as they had always been with the same situation-specific spontaneity. When the Higgin's Real Estate office burned in 1963, local residents fought flames, salvaged records and helped set up a temporary office in the Curling Club. Functionally, the volunteer fire department still con- sisted of all persons who came running at the sound of the alarm. Once a year at Christmas time, the Lions Club, the Farm and Garden, local church groups and interested individuals made up and personally delivered Christmas baskets to the sick and needy within the community. During the summer organizational meetings were frequently suspended and residents simultaneously participated as individuals and group members in the universal interest of promoting tourism. In prepara- tion for the tourist season, Maureen Higgins writes: It's been proven again in [Leisureville] that a group of dedicated volunteers can accomplish as much as hired employees. . . . The pavilion at the Township Park is newly stained, the picnic grounds cleared and put in top condi- tion . . . . The Old bath house was moved. The beach was cleared and new sand brought in and laid down. . . . Only materials and costs for equipment and drivers was paid for by the Chamber of Commerce; the rest of the work was con- tributed by the Chamber and Lions Club members and good citizens ([Northern Life], May 22, 1966). Similarly, a weekend of collective labor transformed a corner of debris and litter along County Road 208 into an attractive road side area. There were no standing committees to manage these special tasks, or organization beyond the immediate event. Likewise, annual weekend festivals continued to be a compo- site of local energies and resources. The Chamber of Commerce Officially sponsored the Water Ski Show and the Winter Carnival, but 217 once again costumes, floats, equipment, etc., were donated by a wide assortment of individuals, businesses, clubs, and institutions with- in the community. The Friends of the Library, the Curling Club, the Sportsmen's League held open houses. The Lions held breakfasts and barbecue picnics. Church groups held bake sales, card parties and suppers. Parades, contests, clean-ups, and hospitality were communal efforts. As before, everyone did a little of everything to insure a financial success for everyone. Community leadership was also without explicit or formally specialized functions. While the same ten to twelve individuals repeatedly initiated projects and organized the 'doing,‘ they did so as strong personalities. As before, these community leaders were the larger business owners and/or residents whose income was less severely affected by seasonal fluctuations (i.e., Able Stalker, Thomas Gerhardt, Nora Burke, Maureen Higgins, Brian Higgins, Harry and Ruby Norton, Burt James, Harvey Asch). They were also generally persons with large real investments in the area, but neither material, economic nor any formal distinction served as the publicly expressed basis for their recognized status. Rather, as the 1963 question- naires illustrate, their elevated position within the community was explained or justified by statements like "He's a good family man,” "He's done a lot for this town," "He'd give you the shirt off his back," "He always rolls up his sleeves and pitches right in." Once again status was personalized and these particular individuals dif- fered in degree not kind from other Leisureville residents. 218 While community leaders contributed a little more and a little more Often to community affairs, they represented no single interest group. Neither did they seek the responsibilities of formal office. When they did hold Office, as was frequently the case, it was, they explained, only because "no one else wanted the job." Nevertheless, they were not officials. They were more accurately 'pollers of public Opinion' and 'influencers of community action.‘ Most dealt on a daily face to face basis with the public, were individual members of most every community organization and were accessible both as a sounding board and clearing house for local ideas and information. They knew quite literally 'what was happening' within the community and it appears that they spent considerable time in casual conversa- tion with one another, talking over existing situations and possi- bilities for community improvement and promotion. Nora Burke men- tioned, for instance, that she often discussed ideas with Maureen Higgins and Able Stalker. Maureen, as indicated in her column, always kept her office open and coffee pot perking for just this sort of conversation. The Norton Hotel too, as indicated by earlier research (Spielberg 1963), was a popular spot for talking over lunch or after associational meetings. Such informal interaction served as a means for achieving general consensus among influentials and for initiating activity felt to be 'in the community's best interest.‘ Community leaders, then, constituted an informal and generalized monitoring system with abilities to cross-cut associational bodies and to coordinate and 'prime' local resources (i.e., donating prizes, purchasing fireworks, 219 advertising community events, making the necessary local and extra- local contacts). They were most closely responsible for organizing the tourist-related and the short-term cosmetic improvements men- tioned above. As earlier, major innovations or local changes were essen- tially superimposed on the community. They did not materialize as a consequence of formally organized local level action. Harvey Asch, for instance, was personally responsible for introducing curling to Leisureville. It had, he felt, universal appeal. "It isn't a young man's sport and it isn't an old man's sport. It is something every- one can do, men and women alike." In 1960, within a year of his retirement to Leisureville, he "persuaded" a local builder to lay down a sheet of curling ice for $100. A year later, an 'ad hoc' committee of 25 men met in Asch's home to discuss the building of a separate curling rink. No action was taken, however, until Asch purchased three village lots for $1300 and pledged the materials for the building. Then volunteer labor and local contributions (i.e., Werner and Hendrick milled the timber) completed the rink and enclosure. But Asch was accurate in his somewhat boastful assessment that "nothing would have been done if I hadn't taken charge of the project." More illustrative perhaps, was the community's faltering attempt to develop a village park. The initial idea was proposed by the Farm and Garden Club (though again Asch and his wife, the latter the founder of Leisureville's Farm and Garden, claim to have generated the idea) in the interest of beautifying the community. For the first 220 few years "progress [was] slow due to lack of funds." In fact, little activity beyond a few bake sales and private soliciting took place. Millie Asch explained that when they invited people to their home for cocktails, she had them put money in a dish and told them "it was for the town." In 1966, however, the project was taken over by the Leisure- ville Civic Improvement Association, Inc., "a group," according to Maureen Higgins, "made up of representatives of many of the town's community and service organizations sparked by a part-time resident" ([Northern Life], July 20, 1966). The part-time resident was Mr. J. F. Furguson and the "spark" amounted to his personally designing the park and providing the $25,000 necessary to construct it. The latter, however, constituted a loan to the community which Furguson expected to have repaid. The Leisureville Civic Improvement Associa- tion was essentially a project-specific fund raising association which advocated, as Maureen expressed it, "keep[ing] your hearts open and your checkbooks ready" ([Northern Life], July 20, 1966). Despite the support of many community influentials, only $8000 was collected. Many merchants were opposed to a park, wanting a village parking lot instead. Others privately resented Asch's 'pushy,' organizational manner. And many vacationers and retirees were also unwilling to spend additional money on Leisureville. Millie Asch, who actively solicited for contributions, said she ”was embarrassed because of the lack of interest and financial cooperation." Asch, too, spent a good deal of time privately ranting about "short- sighted natives" and "peasant mentalities." 221 Nevertheless, the reality remained that the community could not repay Furguson. Finally, Asch had a dedication plaque made for $85 which the Farm and Garden purchased and presented to Mr. and Mrs. Furguson at the Village Park Dedication (June 24, 1967). The intent, according to Asch, was to symbolically 'nul and void' the outstanding debt. This it did, though Furguson withdrew from any further community involvement and the Leisureville Civic Improvement Association disbanded, never to reappear again. The community, however, had its park which Maureen Higgins confidently and ironically explained "provides a distinct object lesson in what can be accomplished by a small community in self help" ([Northern Life], June 21, 1967). Local government, likewise, retained its earlier patterns of activity and leadership (or nonactivity and nonleadership). Town- ship offices went uncontested and the position of supervisor was conspicuously avoided. In fact, a retired vacationer from Detroit, Gerry Smith, served as supervisor from 1953 until his death in 1969. Even then, it is remembered that Arnold Milton, a recent resident and bachelor, "was the only one willing to step in and give up his time for the township." Arnold remained in Office until the November 1974 election when the public office was contested for the first time. The Board itself, despite the 'power vested in it,‘ took little innovative action. Meetings remained monthly exercises in parliamentary procedure and township housekeeping. Board decisions remained unanimous on all issues, no matter how trivial, and extended discussions preceded every Board action. Community attendance was 222 generally poor. As before, solutions to public complaints and/or conflicts were first sought in informal 'heart to heart' talks out- side the governing institution. When such measures were not suitable, special committees were appointed to 'study' the problem. These com- mittees generally produced few results since they were informally organized and appointed members found it difficult 'to get together.’ Special committees, consequently, were short lived, much like the public issues which proceeded them. Except for the legally required Board of Review which met once a year to handle tax questions, there were no standing township committees. Until 1967, the Board levied no millage and the township con- tinued to be managed on the one mill allocated by the county. This figure, however, increased from $3280.74 in 1959-1960 to $4015.93 in 1965-1966, a reflection primarily of the increased value of real estate. While the proposed annual budgets also increased from $15,174.15 to $16,810.32, there was little change in either the type or the relative amount of township appropriations. The major excep- tion to this was a voted salary increase for Board members in 1965. In the Fall of 1967 three voted mills were levied for town- ship operations. These, however, were 'pushed' or publicly pro- moted by community influentials in the wake of impending township programs. The local factory, Leisureville Unlimited, which would appear in the Fall of 1968 and the medical clinic which would appear shortly afterward, were not programs initiated by township government, but once again by informal consensus among active community residents. Nevertheless, the township did manage to acquire curbs and sidewalks 223 along Center Street, a library and a used hearse which masqueraded as the township ambulance. These acquisitions, however, depended largely on the leader- ship and resources of individuals and organizational bodies external to the local governing institution. The library, for instance, was a branch of the Northland Library System, a regional organization based in Appleton, 60 miles away. Marge Springer, the wife of a Ph.D. conducting research in the fisheries laboratory east of town and a woman who kept herself socially aloof from the vast majority of Leisureville residents, was responsible for making the necessary con- tacts and setting up the local program. Operating monies were obtained from a portion of the county's penal fines. The township provided only the building (two walls in the township hall) and the salary for a part-time librarian ($600). Curbs and sidewalks, similarly, were a project initiated by Center Street merchants and jointly paid for by the merchants themselves, the County Road Com- mission and the township. By contrast, the purchase of a 'make-shift' ambulance appears to have been one of the few independent Board actions. During the early and middle 19605 social activity was chan- neled through numerous formal or voluntary organizations. Neverthe- less, wide resident participation, high membership overlap and fre- quent, informal associational activity resulted in little functional or structural differentiation among them. Likewise, many overlapping associational ties complemented and cross-cut involuntary ones and tended to uniformly bind residents into generalized, multistranded 224 relationships. Status was based on personal or nonexplicit human qualities as well as individual involvement in community organizations and activities. What economic, residential, material heterogeneity existed within the community was given little overt or formal social expression. Community programs and action continued to revolve around tourist-related and/or immediate needs. They also continued to receive the collective, short-term, nonspecialized participation of almost all community organizations, institutions and individual residents. Despite the appearance of formal social frameworks, Leisureville remained a homogeneous community and its residents remained socially and behaviorally equivalent. CHAPTER VII LEISUREVILLE: THE HISTORY PERIOD V: LATE TOURISM 1968-1974 Economic and Demographic Circumstance By 1974 "the friendliest little community in the North" was also referring to itself as the most "progressive" in the country. It had zoning and building ordinances, a police department, a fire department, a building inspector, a planning commission, a medical clinic, an industrial park, It also had parks for mobile homes, manicured subdivisions, new village shops, a welcome wagon, a garbage service, a nursery coop and a drop-in center for local youth. Leisureville's population had grown to an estimated 1400 to 1500 persons (see p. 228). Its taxes had doubled. Businesses remained open year-round. Social and economic heterogeneity had grown more visible, and local leadership and public services had become more coincidental with township dimensions. But, while Leisureville had undergone considerable change, it was not a "new" community. Neither was it without history as many newer residents believed. As had been true of its past, Leisureville was adjusting to the changes of a larger or external environment. The late 19605 and early 19705 was for the state, as well as the nation generally, a time of increased industrial expansion and economic inflation (Verway 1976; Beale ‘1975). It was also 225 226 simultaneously the 'twilight' Of the urban center (Beale 1975; Waters 1973). Leisureville, despite its size and location, or perhaps more accurately because Of its size and location, was highly sensitive to both these circumstances. As discussed earlier, the leisure time and financial surplus of 'outsiders' had become the 'sine qua non' of Leisureville. The expanded popularity Of the snowmobile as a form of winter recreation was testimony to the increased availability of both. By 1968 or 1969, the weekend visits of vacationing families consti- tuted a fairly dependable winter trade, and Leisureville, as usual, was an attentive host. Snowmobile trails were cleared and mapped. Parcels of 10+ acres were advertised and sold. Equipment and clothing were made available, and bars became advocates of nightly music and dancing. As a result, few community shops were forced to close during the months of December, January or February. And while local business owners took one to two week vacations during traditionally "slow Februaries," they now had the means to do so. In fact, so instru- mental was the snowmobile and the vacationing patterns of its users to the Leisureville economy that one native resident suggested the community's history might well be considered in terms of 'BS' and 'AS'--before and after the snowmobile. But while the snowmobile made a definite impression upon the local economy and landscape, it was not the only one. In 1969, Leisureville Unlimited, the branch plant of a large Detroit automotive corporation, set up operations north of the village. In a period of expanding manufacture, rural areas had 227 become attractive industrial sites. Any increased cost in material transportation was made up for by reduced taxes, fewer environmental restrictions, an available, nonunionized labor supply and the Opportunity for continued profit. For Leisureville, the plant promised to provide a source of stable employment and economic growth, conditions, it was argued, which would benefit everyone in the community. SO eager was Leisureville, via its hastily established Industrial Development Commission, to attract local industry that $25,000 in private donations and loans were raised to purchase the 40 acre industrial park north of town. Local bank loans similarly financed (at a low but undisclosed rate of interest) the plant's construction. Leisureville took great pride in its acquisition. It was felt that the community had, through its own independent efforts, 'won out' over other possible site locations. At the same time it had, in a way reminiscent of lumbering days, increased its dependence on specialized and external economic interests. In 1973-1974, for example, when gas prices rose and auto manufacture, particularly of large cars, declined, the combined effect on Leisureville tourism and its new auto-related industry created severe economic diffi- culties (see p. 265). In addition to strengthening an emerging year-round economy, despite fluctuations, the availability of local employment oppor- tunities served as further inducement to urban residents dissatis- fied with city life. The in-migration noted in the early and middle 19605 continued to increase. It was not, however, until 1968, in the 228 wake of the Detroit Riots that the community experienced a rapid and unexpected in-migration of urbanites. Leisureville's population began to swell with returned sons, ex-vacationers, retirees and the friends and relatives Of settled residents. These newcomers bought real estate from persons already prepared to sell it. They built homes on lots already subdivided for the purpose. They applied for loans, purchased supplies, found employment and began businesses which serviced the demands their own presence was creating. In 1970 the U.S. Census of Population (see Table 7.1) reported a township population of 1013 persons. This figure, however, was contested by township officials. The township clerk explained that the polling had been extremely haphazard. She personally knew a dozen families who had not been contacted by the locally hired census takers. In addition, the census had been conducted during the winter when many older residents left for warmer climates and many business owners took short vacations. Apparently no attempt was made to contact these individuals. As a result, the published population figure was, she felt, "anywhere from 1/4 to 1/3 too low." This alleged inaccuracy was of considerable local importance since revenue sharing monies were appropriated on the basis of population size. The Township Board tried on several occasions, via telephone calls to Washington, D.C., to register its complaint and request a new census, but no remedial action was taken. In the fall of 1976, however, the Township Board paid the Bureau of Census roughly $2000 to conduct an age/sex count for the township. This official census (see Table 7.2) was published 229 TABLE 7.1.--Timber Township: 1970. Age and Sex Distribution. Male Female Sex Ratio f %f cum f f %f cum f 75 & Over 43 8.88 100.00 32 6.05 100.01 1.34 65 - 74 79 16.32 91.12 85 16.07 93.96 .93 60 - 64 54 11.16 74.80 54 10.21 77.89 1.00 55 - 59 27 5.58 63.64 48 9.07 67.68 .56 45 - 54 58 11.98 58.06 68 12.85 58.61 .85 35 - 44 33 6.82 46.08 48 9.07 45.76 .69 25 - 34 33 6.82 39.26 34 6.43 36.69 .97 20 - 24 9 1.86 32.44 14 2.65 30.26 .64 15 - 19 30 6.20 30.58 36 6.81 27.61 .83 10 - 14 51 10.54 24.38 53 10.02 20.80 .96 5 - 9 46 9.50 13.84 35 6.62 10.78 1.31 0 - 4 21 4.34 4.34 22 4.16 4.16 .95 TOTAL 484 529 .91 Median Age 48.3 48.3 SOURCE: Compiled from U.S. Department Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of the Population 1970, Fourth Count: Population Count in Minor Civil Divisions or Census County Divisions, Age and Sex Distribution [Timber] Township, [Remote] County, Michigan. 230 TABLE 7.2.--Timber Township: 1977. Age and Sex Distribution. Male Female Sex f %f cum f f %f cum f Ratio 75 & Over 52 6.87 100.02 49 6.09 100.41 1.06 70 - 74 45 5.94 93.15 42 5.22 94.32 1.07 65 - 69 65 8.59 87.21 85 10.56 89.10 .76 60 - 64 69 9.11 78.62 89 11.06 78.54 .78 55 - 59 44 5.81 69.51 52 6.46 67.48 .85 50 - 54 42 5.55 63.70 57 7.08 61.02 .74 45 - 49 33 4.36 58.15 44 5.57 53.94 .75 4O - 44 38 5.02 53.79 30 3.73 48.37 1.27 35 - 39 23 3.04 48.77 29 3.60 44.64 .79 30 - 34 37 4.89 45.73 36 4.47 41.04 1.03 25 - 29 41 5.42 40.84 42 5.52 36.57 .98 20 - 24 50 6.61 35.42 50 6.21 31.05 1.00 15 - 19 60 7.93 28.81 67 8.32 24.84 .90 10 - 14 67 8.85 20.88 45 5.59 16.52 1.49 5 - 9 50 6.61 12.03 45 5.59 10.93 1.11 O - 4 41 5.42 5.42 43 5.34 5.34 .95 TOTAL 757 805 .94 Median Age 41.3 46.8 SOURCE: Compiled from U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, [Timber] Township, [Remote] County, Michigan, January 18, 1977. 231 January 18, 1977 and recorded a township population of 1562 persons. The second census appears to correlate more closely with local 'suspicions' as well as with the author's own fieldwork estimates. The latter were based on a compilation of 1973 voter registration rolls, the 1972-1973 school census, associational membership lists for 1973, Welcome Wagon records for 1972-1974, post office records, newspaper columns and a personal familiarity with community residents. In 1973 the author concluded that the township population fell some- where between 1300 and 1400 persons. In late 1974, just prior to leaving the field, the author estimated a township population between 1400 and 1500 persons-~the actual figure probably closer to the lower end of this range. In addition to providing a reliable standard for population size, the 1977 Census also suggests, as the 1970 Census cannot, the nature of the township's population growth from the late 19605 through the early 19705. Leisureville's rapid growth during this period was clearly the result of in-migration, but it was an in-migration which differed significantly from that which took place during the early and middle 19605. While the community was still attracting persons of retirement age, they were no longer the sole or even the predomi- nant type of new resident. Three sets of accurate (though not absolute) and overlapping data serve to illustrate this point. In 1973, 890 persons (18 years and Older) appeared on the township voter registration rolls. According to the township clerk some 327 of these adults moved into the community between 1969 and 1973. She identified 170 as being "retired" persons (a function both 232 of age and minimal employment) and 157 as "not retired" (housewives, full-time employees and/or business owners). A labor force was apparently moving into the community roughly equal to the in-migration of elderly dependents. In addition, the 1972-1973 school census indicated that between 1969 and 1973 some 86 new families settled within the township-~approximately 170 parents and 220 children (0-18 years Old). Unlike the early and middle 19605 the community was experiencing the in-migration of youth as well as young (205 and 305) and middle aged (405 and 505) adults. This compositional shift in the age, family type and employ- ment status of new residents is perhaps best demonstrated by the Chamber Of Commerce Welcome Wagon records between September 1972 and April 1974. During this twenty month period the "welcome wagon lady" made 72 house calls on new area residents. Twenty-six visits were made to retired couples (24) and individuals (2). Twelve visits were made to couples in their early 205 without children. Nineteen visits were made to families with children ranging in age from O to 9 years. Eleven visits were made to families with children 9 to 18 years Old, and four visits were made to Older couples who were not retired, but whose children had grown and no longer lived at home. Of a total 208 new residents formally "welcomed" into the community only 51 were retired; 64 were between 0 and 18 years old and 93 were in their 205, 305, 405 and 505. Not only was Leisureville experiencing an increase in all ages through in-migration, but the population was also growing through natural increase. Of the 12 young, childless 233 couples mentioned above, for example, six had families within two years of their move to Leisureville. The community was growing. While it was not young, it was getting younger (note median ages for 1960, 1970 and 1977). The age extremes which had bisected and paralyzed its population were decreas- ing. At the same time, the social and demographic heterogeneity of its residents was increasing. For Leisureville, the snowmobile, local industry and the Detroit Riots were the three major catalysts of community change. But while they coincided in time and place their appearance was hardly coincidental. As Calvin L.Beale of the U.S. Economic Research Service states: Under conditions of general affluence, low total population growth, easy transportation and communication, modernization of rural life, and urban population massings so large that the advantages of urban life are diminished, a downward shift to smaller communities may seem both feasible and desireable (1975:14). In fact, he notes that "the growth of recreation and retirement activities, often occurring together in some localities," and the decentralization trend in U.S. manufacturing, particularly in areas without a heavy concentration of manufacturing activity have been major factors in this growth and such areas the major recipients of this change (l975z9). Furthermore, he adds: [many of] these areas often attract younger families because of climate, or amenities, or because manufacturing or other employment may have begun to flourish . . . Indeed the very influx of peOple into attractive areas for noneconomic reasons can stimulate follow- -On types of job development (1975:9-10). 234 This is what happened in Leisureville and while Leisureville residents may have been unaware of the textbook nature of community growth, they were acutely aware of the changes it brought. Some sadly reminisced, "I used to know everyone. Now, I don't know ninty percent of the people who walk through that door.” Others, com- plaining about rising taxes, increasing personal restrictions, juvenile delinquency or the meddlesome activities of newcomers, felt things had grown "terrible bad." Still others viewed the appearance of young families, new ideas, expanded businesses and township facilities as signs of health long overdue. The increased diversity and visibility of resident interests did not go unnoticed. As one resident put it: In the city, similar people are sectioned Off through zoning, occupation and whatever. In [Leisureville] now, there is an unbelieveable number of different persons, backgrounds, ages, economic interests, etc. and they are all mixed together. They are all here in the same small space. A remarkable thing had happened. Despite the homogeneous nature of its recent past, Leisureville was experiencing increasing social differentiation. Employment (vs nonemployment), type employment and material success had come to show greater variation and had grown more coincidental with life style. Friendships and formal voluntary associations exhibited similar patterns. While the belief in the supremacy of hard work, individual equality and the community good were still ubiquitous, the population had begun to separate along socioeconomic lines. 235 Community Life Styles Business Owners As employment vs nonemployment (either through retirement or personal 'failing') was a basis for social classification, so was being "one's own boss," particularly a business owner, distinct from working for someone else. One of the first questions asked a new resident, "What do you [your husband] do?" was invariably followed by "00 you [he] have your [his] own business?" Such a question immediately placed the unknown individual along gross, but 'telling' social dimensions. A sense of its meaning was provided by Mrs. Gerhardt during a discussion of local youth. Keith Reilly, Tod Mills, and Phil Newman she regarded as local 'success stories.‘ They owned their own businesses. By contrast, she described Jim Lockhart, though no younger than the others, as a "nice kid" who worked "as something like a department head" at Stalkers. This she felt was about as far as he would go. He just didn't "have what it takes to make it on his own.” To be "one's own boss" was not only preferable, it was a sound reflection of personal capabilities and individual quality. Leisureville's retail and service businesses had almost doubled since the mid-19605. The Chamber of Commerce counted 93 within a two-mile radius of the village. In addition, they had become more specialized and competitive. There was now a family clothing and fabric store, a carpet center, a music shop, an arts and crafts shop, a bakery. Similarly, the local 'Jack,‘ the man of many talents and many odd jobs was being replaced by a full-time 236 contractor, an electrician, a builder, a well driller, a heating and sheet metal man. As these businesses specialized in merchandise, machinery and skills, they began to distinguish themselves from others with similar talents. Higgins Real Estate, now one of six within the community, advertised itself as "the largest and oldest." Before it had merely stated "at the Redwood Office" or "at the little red house." The Showplace Restaurant and Bar frequently advertised "an above average restaurant is looking for above average dishwashers, kitchen help . . ." ([Remote] County Tribune). Contractors similarly stressed their years of experience or the fact that they were licensed. Differences were becoming important and differentiation more socially acceptable. The change in the nature of business was accompanied by a change in the business owners themselves. With the exception of five or six of the most successful businesses (i.e., Stalkers, Higgins, James, Mills, Werner and Hendrick) all had changed hands at least once since the mid-19605. So extensive was the turnover that Topper's Log Cabin Tavern was regarded as one of the most stable because it had been operated by the same owners since 1967. Even more important was the fact that established businesses had been bought and new ones begun almost exclusively by ex-urbanites. The change resulted from a combination of factors. Many local owners were Of retirement age. Others had just "grown tired of dealing with the public." Faced with the immediate and profitable opportunity of getting out from under, they sold their businesses to pursue their own leisure time activities or to speculate in less 237 'tiresome' enterprises. Art Morgan, for instance, moved to Florida for his health. Hari Piispanen spent time hunting in the Upper Peninsula. Tim Thorsen began to subdivide a parcel of land he had owned for years. On the other hand, ex-vacationers and young returnees found a means of leaving the city. Deciding it was time he worked for him- self, Greg Helsinki purchased a local bar, then established his own carpet shop and finally his own real estate office. Similarly, Ben Miller decided Leisureville could support a garbage service. After liquidizing his assets (so to speak) he established a garbage route and a septic tank service. The latter he learned to do by "reading a book" and installing his own. Still others like Chuck Bates and Joan Able, owners of the Formica Shop and Village Shop, respectively, were ex—city residents near retirement age who decided a cut in income was worth the change of environment. As a group, these new- comers had the accumulated capital and/or credit necessary to invest in Leisureville. As had been true of farming some 30 years earlier, family businesses experienced little continuity from one generation to the next. But despite their public visibility and large financial investments, social distinctions existed among business owners them- selves. There were those whom Joan Able termed "Actives," though as will be discussed later, some nonbusiness owners were also included. These were the "movers and shakers" within the community. The rest were termed "Nonactives." Others saw the difference more in terms of "elitism" or "business mono olies." B an definition, Y 238 however, the "Actives" were a smaller, more tightly coordinated group than the "Nonactives." and while they shared many individual character- istics, the total configuration served to distinguish the former as a group apart. From an economic standpoint "Actives" were generally larger business owners, their holdings in many cases amounting to $250,000 or more. They were also generally the employers Of others, though all worked themselves, sometimes 10 to 16 hours a day during the summer. This latter was regarded as a major factor in their success. "Active" wives often virtuously complained, "In the summer when the money's good you're lucky if you see your man two hours a day." While personally inconvenient, it was also indicative Of the character of "our men." Their labor provided for the welfare of their families. Their wives didn't need to work but could spend their time 'properly' looking after their children and their house- holds. As one "Active" wife and mother put it, "I should be sitting at the kitchen table with a cigarette in one hand and a cup of coffee in the other when my kids come home from school." In addition, such men were active speculators, frequently instituting new side lines to existing businesses (i.e., mobile home sales, prefab tool sheds, cocktail lounge) or collaborating on future investments with one another (i.e.,the development of a subdivision, of multiple housing units, rental units). Again, this was viewed as a mark of uncommon character. Such men were the builders of businesses. It was the challenge, they claimed, which was most 239 compelling and which kept them actively involved and personally sensitive to new opportunities. While their annual incomes remain unknown, they were certainly among the largest in the community as were their taxes on businesses, real estate and private residences (averaging about $1000). Their homes, too, were among the largest and most modern. Some, like Higgins and James, lived in custom built "showplaces" along the Sister Lakes. Others lived in new 7-8 room tract-like homes. The latter, particularly, were owned by a core group of young business families (i.e., Reilly, Mills, Reid, Hart) living within the same subdivision. Grand Haven Estates was unique for its large aluminum sided homes, basements, two car garages, suburban grass lawns and lack of trees. Typically, the homes were carpeted, well furnished, attractively wallpapered or paneled and equipped with all the prefab, modern conveniences. It was a prestigious neighborhood and its residents were continually engaged in an expensive game of 'keeping up with the Jones'. Conspicuous consumption did not go unnoticed among "Actives" themselves or others within the community. Mrs. Gerhardt somewhat sadly and disapprovingly remarked that these young families, in particular, did not "make do" or "do without" as she had done. Rather they "had to have the best of everything, the name brands, the new styles" and were wastefully, she felt, trying to outdo one another. In a similar vein, Phyllis Mills mentioned that her brother and Keith Reilly, both local youth and life-time friends, were in constant informal competition. Each was trying to prove he 240 was the more successful, that he had the nicer home, the bigger business, the larger income, the greater happiness. Material attributes had grown increasingly important as measures Of social status. While personal rivalries and antagonisms did exist, they remained covert and "Actives" were further characterized by their incessant informal and formal cooperation. They tended to select friends from among "people like ourselves." In addition to being neighbors, many took vacations together, minded each others“ children, swapped personal and professional favors and kept each other abreast of local activities and developments. They attended each others' parties and socialized with "the regular crowd." As a group they tended to favor the Showplace Bar. They played on the Showplace softball team in the summer and curled and skiied during the winter. More important, however, were their formal associational preferences. For the community, in general, organizations and organizational participation had come to reflect and reinforce the congealing of 'type' people. Friendships developed and interaction intensified between members of the same association. Newer residents found "their way into the community" by joining groups and "getting involved.” On the other hand, persons with similar interests and social conditions were encouraged to join particular organizations. There was the tendency for social groups within the community to be formally described. "Actives" were highly coincidental with a select set of formal groupings. 241 The Lions Club, the Chamber of Commerce, the Township Board and its advisory committees and commissions were "Active" organiza- tions with high membership overlap. Wives belonged to the Farm and Garden Club, The Friends of the Library, the Nursery Coop and the Parent Teacher Conference (PTC). Again membership overlap was high. SO apparent was this associational selectivity that the presi- dent of the PTC announced at one meeting that activities could not be scheduled on Wednesday nights because "that's the evening our men are at Lions.” A similar statement appeared in a weekly newspaper column: "Members of the Farm and Garden all of whom are also Friends of the Library . . ." ([Remote] County Tribune, October 25, 1973). "Actives" placed so much emphasis on associational membership that individuals were often described not according to personal character- istics, but as 'a Lion' or 'a Township Board member.‘ Despite any personal fondness, the number and specific nature of an individual's formal commitments were indicative of his moral fiber and community status. Not surprisingly, these same organizations were the com- munity's most prominent service groups and institutions. Again not surprisingly, the same one to two dozen "Actives" most consistently initiated and participated in their activities--holding formal office, chairing 'ad hoc' committees, volunteering or being volunteered to organize township or community legislation and improvements. Through their formal affiliations "Actives" assumed a central position within community life. 242 Their activity, whether it was viewed as meddling (i.e., "Some people should mind everyone's business a little less and their own a little more") or as a genuine "concern for what happens to our community," required a constant input of personal time and energy. As Ben Miller expressed it, "Whenever I have some time, someone else wants it." On the other hand, he realized that to disassociate himself would not only reduce his social standing, but would also threaten his real security. "Active" businessmen served as bank trustees, as the township building inspector, as planning and zoning commission members, as IDC and township officials. As a group they held considerable influence, if not monopolistic control as many "Nonactives" contended, over local information and political and financial resources. Stories circulated of instances in which loans were refused to businessmen unwilling to join the Chamber of Commerce or whose business interests competed unfavorably with those of "Actives." Similarly, individuals mentioned cases of insurance policies being cancelled when a client did not finance with the Leisureville bank. It was argued that "Actives" referred new customers to one another to the exclusion of other local businesses. Many residents insisted that the Township Board rezoned property to accommodate "Active" interests when similar requests had been denied to others. Again Ben Miller rather astutely remarked, "I started out with two strikes against me when I came to [Leisureville] and I've just about recovered from them. I made the mistake of not buying my home from [Brian Higgins] or my insurance from [Burt 243 James]." Though never expressed in such terms, mutual cooperation gave greater security to ones own vested interests. "Actives," then, were recognized as a small and fairly co- hesive social group. As individuals they commonly shared many primary and secondary relationships. As a group they demonstrated considerable homogeneity in material life style, social activity and formal interest. Economic characteristics were growing coincidental with residential and associational dimensions. Employees Along with the introduction of industry and the growth of construction and retail businesses came an increase in employment possibilities and the number of local employees. Steady full-time, as well as part-time, employment reduced the necessity of being an odd jobber or piecing together a single income from a variety of activities. It had also reduced occupational independence and heightened the distinction between those persons who worked for themselves and those who worked for someone else. These latter formed a group only in the loosest sense of the term, being defined not by characteristics they possessed so much as by those that they lacked. The most Obvious of these, of course, was the lack of business ownership. Employees were generally wage earners and in Leisureville hourly wages were considerably lower than those found in urban areas. Construction workers, mechanics and other skilled persons earned less than $4.00 per hour. Sales personnel, waitresses, gas station 244 attendants received $2.00 to $3.00 per hour and the majority of factory workers about $2.50 per hour. There were no unions and as several newcomers (dubbed "trouble makers" by their employers) found, attempts at labor organization received no support and resulted in dismissal and an informal blacklisting. One carpenter, for example, was fired by Keith Reilly. Apparently he had been demanding higher wages and 'talking' other employees into doing the same. His modest attempt to pressure management resulted in his remaining unemployed for over a year because no local builder would trust him. His actions also created considerable financial hardship for his young family. Finally after admitting that he had "learned his lesson" and understood that "things are done differently here," he was hired back by a second builder. There were no formal mechanisms to coordinate labor demands and those adjustments that were made had a friendly, informal basis. Employee incomes were considerably lower than those found among business owners and "Actives," but even here, heterogeneity, the group's singular internal characteristic, was pronounced. Some families in which both the husband and wife worked full time realized incomes which rivaled those of businessmen. Others hovered at the brink of poverty or slipped in entirely. It was felt, how- ever, that such people had only themselves to blame. "Anyone can manage to make a living in Leisureville if he's willing to work." "Laziness," "drunkenness," "stupidity" were typical explanations for this inability. 245 Similarly, 'employees' as a group showed little homogeneity in material life style or residence patterns. Homes were scattered among dozens of residential subdivisions, along lakes and on larger parcels of land north and east of town. They tended not to appear only where ”Actives" concentrated. Again, many employees' homes rivaled those of business owners in modernity, size and furnishings. Others "made do" as remodeled cabins or farmhouses. Still others were trailers or "tar paper shacks," considered by many to be community "eyesores." As a group, 'employees' frequented all the community bars with the notable exception of the Showplace, but even so, recog- nizable differences existed. The Hotel, for instance, tended to be patronized by the employees of Leisureville Unlimited. The Apex, on the other hand, had acquired a reputation for being "undesire- able," a "welfare bar," or as one resident exaggerated, "the place you can see a fist fight every night." (Of all the local bars, this was the one the author never saw "Actives" patronize.) Again, as a group, there tended to be less participation in formal organizations, or conversely, a greater personal use of leisure time (i.e., drinking, hunting, fishing, snowmobiling) than was true of "Actives." This was made possible in part by a fairly regularized work week, a clearer separation between the concerns of employment and free time. It was also Often a source of disapproval, particularly among "Actives." To be idle, to spend endless hours socializing, they felt, showed a lack of personal initiative and the 'proper' concern for ones family. (The irony, of course, was that a slower pace of life, in contrast to the "rat race” of the city, and greater personal freedom, 246 again in contrast to the dehumanizing aspects of the city, were still universally acclaimed as reasons for and rewards of living in Leisureville. Their actual behavioral expression, on the other hand, was not.) But there were also more pragmatic reasons for this alleged 'lack of interest' on the part of employees. Many groups met during the daytime (i.e., Farm and Garden, 50 Plus Club, Women's Church Groups). Others, like the Nursery Coop, had membership requirements which were difficult to meet. To enroll a child in the Coop, for instance, a mother had to personally contribute several mornings a month as a teacher's assistant or find a substitute. Mothers who worked, or who were left at home without cars, found such Obligations untenable. Finally, many persons just found the "cliquishness," the "in group" or "sophisticated" nature of the Farm and Garden, the Friends of the Library, the Curling Club, to be personally unpleasant. Those formal associational commitments which did exist tended to be recreational in nature. League bowling, membership in the Snow Kings (a snowmobile club), in the Sportsmen's League were typical of the group. But individuals also participated in TOPS (a weight watchers-type group with a social focus), the PTC, in church organiza- tions and activities and as leaders of various youth groups (i.e., Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, 4-H). Still others belonged to no formal organizations at all. With the notable exception of the Volunteer Fire Department, manned almost exclusively by employees, there was no township or service organization which showed any clear separation along employee lines. 247 As with fOrmal associational preferences (or the lack of them), social interaction within the general category 'employees' showed considerable heterogeneity. There was not, as tended to be the case for "Actives," a high coincidence of primary and secondary relationships. Friendships formed around a variety of voluntary and involuntary dimensions. Many natives and older residents tended to select friends from among relatives and those they had known for many years. Young families with children, single males, divorced or widowed women, found friends among those with similar social character- istics. Physical proximity also served as a basis for intensive relationships as did a similarity in personal and recreational interests. Also, as was particularly true of those working at Leisureville Unlimited, place and type of employment became a condi- tion for frequent interaction and friendship. (Possibly because of their numbers, physical location, and the newness of the industry, ”shop" employees constituted a fairly distinct social grouping within the community. Leisureville Unlimited had its own softball team which competed with others within the community. It entered its own float in the winter parade. It contributed through payroll deduc- tions to the local Boy Scouts and sponsored its own parties and picnics for employees and their families. As noted earlier with bar preferences, employee interaction continued outside the formal employment context.) While these dimensions (i.e., age, residence, type-employment, religion, personal interest) frequently overlapped, as was bound to be the case in a community so small, this overlap was by no means 248 uniform or complete. There was also the tendency for social contacts to be minimal, often explicit or single-stranded, between particular individuals or groups of individuals within the general 'employee' category. Many older residents freely admitted that they knew very few of the younger families. Now that their own children were grown they had little contact with school or youth programs. Many resented the increased tax expense for what they termed "frills," particularly when confronted by second-hand accounts of increased teenage delinquency. Others with grandchildren growing up in Leisureville held differing opinions. In a similar manner, many residents commented negatively on the quality of people the factory had drawn into the community. Frequent reference was made to these persons as "bar flies," "riff- raff," "factory women.” The latter was felt to denote women of severe moral and domestic failings. They were felt to be "home wreckers," "divorcees," "unfit mothers." This attitude, for which the author could find little actual substantiation, was maintained in spite of, or more accurately because of, the fact that these persons remained unknown as individuals. Claudia Mills (Tod's mother), for instance, who worked in Stalkers and socialized almost exclusively with 'old timers' and/or widows like herself, was unable to identify nine-tenths of the persons listed on the Leisureville Unlimited employment rolls. Employees qua employees, then, constituted a social group 9gly_by contrast to "Actives." They had, of themselves, no self- consciousness nor the organizational means to affect any group action 249 or corporate structure. Factors of age, income, type employment, residence, family and personal interests cross-cut the group, allowing for considerable social selection and resulting in a diversity of primary and secondary relationships and alliances. Unemployed Retirees constituted the largest group of unemployed persons within the community. They, or more accurately their money, had been courted, despite personal misgivings, since the 19505. By the early 19705 they still accounted for well over 20% of the total township population. As a group they were nonproducers, or as community businessmen and "Actives" frequently grumbled, they were dependent upon local services and were simultaneously inactive, highly conserva- tive and detrimental to the continued development of the community. It was often remarked that retirees formed a voting bloc against all issues which would increase taxes, or improve educational facilities. One “Active" wife imaginatively explained that they had an organized, telephone grapevine, one person calling ten others, before any proposed millage to try and affect its defeat. The author never encountered such coordinated corporate-type behavior among retirees. Nevertheless, such attitudes further reflected the tendency for social separation to occur along the dimensions of age, economic circumstance and life style. In general, retirees possessed extremely limited financial resources, Many, in fact, explained that they had decided to retire in Leisureville because it offered low taxes and little necessity 250 for material expenses. The author was able to obtain only limited economic data for retirees generally. The little that was made avail— able suggests that some variation did exist between those retirees who were native and/or long-time Leisureville residents and those who had recently migrated into the community. The first group had spent a life time (or the better part of a life time) odd jobbing and relied predominantly upon monthly social security payments for their economic support. According to Michigan's Social Security Administra- tion, $98.80 was the lowest or base benefit paid in 1974. A self- employed individual who had earned an income of $5000 per year received $265.00 per month on retirement in 1974. It can be assumed that these residents managed to live on approximately $1200 to $3200 per year, though an additional $2400 per year could be earned without reducing the amount of monthly checks. This estimate is further supported by the 1973 township tax records. There were 150 'senior citizens' who received tax exemptions on the first $2500 of their assessed property value because their household income was $6000 or less per year; 144 of these persons were natives or long-time resi- dents. By contrast, those retiring into the community from industrial or other blue collar employment received pensions which apparently allowed them somewhat greater economic security. Medical care, too, a major expense for retirees generally, showed similar tendencies. The local pharmacist explained (though he volunteered no statistics) that those who had worked 'down state' had Blue Cross and Blue Shield coverage while most native retirees depended solely on the benefits of Medicare and Medicaid. The County 251 nurse was also aware of the situation and its implications. Natives, particularly, she noticed had worked hard all their lives with little financial security. Many had managed small bank accounts set aside for emergencies, but otherwise not to be touched (i.e, "just in case I need it"). This bit of money, about $2000 to $4000 she estimated, was not enough to handle any major medical crisis. On the other hand, it was too much to qualify for medical assistance (a maximum of $1500). As a result, a desire to remain independent, or as the nurse expressed it, ”a reluctance to accept welfare," kept many retired natives from receiving necessary medical help. As a group, retirees lived in the older, less prestigous subdivisions or what was left of family farms. Homes themselves tended to be remodeled cabins or farm houses, modular homes or trailers. Though some showed signs of needing major repair and almost all were without the full repertoire of modern conveniences (i.e., washing machine, dryer, garbage disposal, shower and bath), they were typically neat and carefully tended. One woman, for instance, was known to dust her house several times a day both because she lived on a dirt road and because she had little else to do. While such activity may certainly have been excessive, retirees tended to devote much of their time to household routines and more personal indoor leisure time activities (i.e., craft projects, bingo, card playing 'pot luck' luncheons. visiting). Younger residents often joked that the morning visit to the post office constituted the retiree's 'biggest social event of the day.‘ Though this too was an exaggeration, it did serve as an opportunity for retirees to meet 252 friends, talk about one's own family and update local gossip. Social interactions were generally informal and friendships based upon the less voluntary dimensions of kinship, religion, marital status and proximity. The author, for instance, lived next door to an energetic retiree. For a year and a half, she was never once seen socializing with persons outside her immediate family or a number of other "widow ladies" who lived on the same street. Those formal associations in which they did participate mani- fest similar characteristics. Retirees tended to belong to the Fifty Plus Club, to church fellowship groups, to the Masons and DES and to Women's Extension. Membership overlap among these groups was high, but many persons attended the weekly or monthly meetings sporadically, or in the case of "snow birds" were gone for six months of the year. Still others, like the author's next door neighbor, belonged to no formal organization at all. Meetings provided an opportunity to socialize informally in a somewhat more formal context. Aside from an occasional project (i.e., sewing a quilt or holding a bake sale) to make money for a group purchase or excursion, 'pot luck' luncheons, birthday and holiday parties, card playing, bingo and gossip constituted thetnIH